User talk:Spiderone/Archive 91
 | This page 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. |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry! It was a late night
Hey! So sorry for bugging you on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Nemelka. I was staying up a bit later than usual, and I'm not that great at reading through Wikitext when I'm tired. Thanks for all you do on AfD! It definitely helps keep things organized. Edge3 (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 |
Dam you're fast.
I was trying to add some of those extra delete projects for Jahanyar Mohebbi but hit a conflict! heh, you're pretty fast editor at that! Cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Govvy: one of the fastest in the business! Wikipedia should have a competition for fastest editor! Spiderone 12:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I'd have no chance and you'd give Usain Bolt a run for his money! heh. Govvy (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Football (Player only) AfD's since August
Just some information for you...
There have been 190 articles on football players brought up for AfD since August 1st. Of those, 134 are men's articles and 56 are women's articles. The breakdown is as follows:
- Men - 134
Kept - 48 Deleted - 86
- European
Kept - 40 Deleted - 21
- Non-European
Kept - 8 Deleted - 65
- Women - 56
Kept - 6 Deleted - 50
Deductions based on tendencies within AfD's are that a European male is twice as likely to have their article retained as a result of the AfD (41/20). Also, the deletions for European males would be higher but several had a debut in A professional game and so their article was reinstated. Of course, if you are a woman who played football historically we all know you don't matter here. Women's articles were only retained 10.7% of the time.
Non-European males didn't fair much better from the AfD process. They made up 54% of the AfD's for all male players during this span but only were retained 10.9% of the time. All told, 136 articles were deleted with 115 being non-European male players (including women from above).
There is a very real reason why I broke it down like this. Male European squads tend to get more national and international coverage, especially historically. But, rather than simply being a male vs female issue, I wanted to see how non-European males stacked up. I can see, based on raw numbers, that the AfD process is nearly as hostile to them as to women players in general. These are my opinions but the numbers are real.
NFOOTY was cited over 2,470+ times in those 190 and GNG was cited 1,140+ times in those 190 articles meaning that NFOOTY is the predominantly used basis for inclusion over GNG. Ironically, WP:FPL was cited over 1,520+ times in those articles meaning it was discussed and used more often than GNG. Again this is raw data that was compiled by hand by me over the last two weeks with last week being the cutoff. I haven't even looked at this weeks data. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- This week's data won't be much better. The tide has turned somewhat, though, in that Angela Fimmano and Victoria Balomenos both closed as keep and rightly so. Some of the currently active AfDs also show differing opinions. I sometimes vote 'keep' if I believe that there is a case for GNG. Unfortunately, it is just harder for a female footballer or a footballer playing in an LEDC to pass GNG as fewer sources exist, fewer games are televised and fewer newspapers are published, or, at least, fewer English language ones are. I respect that a lot of editors are putting a lot of effort in and, ultimately, if there is good coverage of a player, the article will be kept as we have many people in our community who will make sure of that. Wikipedia must have notability standards, though, and I still think that it's important to ensure that articles that can't demonstrate those standards are not retained until such time that they do. Spiderone 19:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- I have lost all confidence that Wikipedia will ever be a true encyclopedia of the world anyway and instruct most people to look for their information in other places. It will always be an encyclopedic project of mostly the affluent and popular subjects because its notability standards do not compensate, in any way, for the disparaging gap between those who have historically gained a biased advantage and those who have not. It will ban editors for comments and actions but contradict itself within its own content and standards. If you are not here to right the wrongs of injustice of the past then why would you ban editors for appealing to those pretenses today? They are pretenses that you are perpetuating by admittedly doing nothing to dispel by "not righting wrongs". --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- It all comes down to sourcing. I expanded Sammie Wood, a poorly sourced stub before this week, but I was only able to do that because interest in her already exists. What Wikipedia cannot and probably should not do is invent interest for someone as that would be original research. Spiderone 10:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- The interest is already there. A person doesn't become interested in a topic because Wikipedia has it included. A love for the sport has been with me from the time I saw my brothers first playing on a pitch. I spur the interest of football in my daughter, not Wikipedia. If they come to Wikipedia it is because they are searching for something, even if it is just vitals, on a favorite player or club or particular season. The interest is already there. How asinine is it of Wikipedia (editors included) to think they/we can even invent interest? That is not the point or purpose of Wikipedia. If it is then we have bigger problems because then Wikipedia becomes even more complicit in the societal bias as indicated by the AfD's than it already is. Wikipedia is supposed to be a retainer of knowledge generated by public editing. We are to use verifiable reliable sourcing where it is possible, but one of the five pillars of this experiment is that there are no strict or rigid rules in regards to content. I can find a lot of articles that aren't updated and don't have correct information on them but are accepted in their current state just because it was provided by "reliable" sources. As determined by who? Sources and editors made of human beings who have their own set of built in biases toward different topics and subjects? We all have a conflict of interest, keyword being interest. We tend to edit and comment on topics of interest to us. And I see a lot of football fans editing here. What is a fan? A fanatic. Should we not allow them to edit because they constitute the very definition of a conflict of interest? Should we limit some one of, say, Cherokee heritage from editing on articles about Cherokee society (this has happened expressly as I have indicated here, btw)? My point is that Wikipedia is either part of the problem or part of the solution. You don't get to sit on the sideline and say you aren't going to participate. Those days are over unless they want to change their name to Wiki-Britannica because that's where it is headed. That is the fate of this experiment if they don't get with the program. I'm not into logistics so I don't know what is feasible or not. But if what I have seen is what they originally intended for this project then they should have just stayed at home and done nothing. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- It all comes down to sourcing. I expanded Sammie Wood, a poorly sourced stub before this week, but I was only able to do that because interest in her already exists. What Wikipedia cannot and probably should not do is invent interest for someone as that would be original research. Spiderone 10:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- I have lost all confidence that Wikipedia will ever be a true encyclopedia of the world anyway and instruct most people to look for their information in other places. It will always be an encyclopedic project of mostly the affluent and popular subjects because its notability standards do not compensate, in any way, for the disparaging gap between those who have historically gained a biased advantage and those who have not. It will ban editors for comments and actions but contradict itself within its own content and standards. If you are not here to right the wrongs of injustice of the past then why would you ban editors for appealing to those pretenses today? They are pretenses that you are perpetuating by admittedly doing nothing to dispel by "not righting wrongs". --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- This week's data won't be much better. The tide has turned somewhat, though, in that Angela Fimmano and Victoria Balomenos both closed as keep and rightly so. Some of the currently active AfDs also show differing opinions. I sometimes vote 'keep' if I believe that there is a case for GNG. Unfortunately, it is just harder for a female footballer or a footballer playing in an LEDC to pass GNG as fewer sources exist, fewer games are televised and fewer newspapers are published, or, at least, fewer English language ones are. I respect that a lot of editors are putting a lot of effort in and, ultimately, if there is good coverage of a player, the article will be kept as we have many people in our community who will make sure of that. Wikipedia must have notability standards, though, and I still think that it's important to ensure that articles that can't demonstrate those standards are not retained until such time that they do. Spiderone 19:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for commenting at the recent AfD for the above list. There is now an ongoing discussion around the best way to split the list, if any, if you wish to comment further. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Draftification
Hey S, just a heads up that I reversed your draftification of those MTV Europe-related lists. Village pump consensus recently established (here) limits draftification to recently-created articles, and those articles are seven years old. Any questions, let me know. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Lad lives in USA
Hi there, I saw that you classified this page as Indian. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vasant Lad (2nd nomination). I thought I must point it out to you that Lad lives in New Mexico USA. So USA category applies. Please correct your mistake. Thanks.--Walrus Ji (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have added the New Mexico category, thanks. I think the India category should stay because he was born and raised there and a lot of his claims to notability come from his work when he lived in India. I don't think there is a problem with categorising him as Indian and New Mexico-related. The fact that he now lives in New Mexico does not mean that he can't be Indian, still. Spiderone 14:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. There is a category of New Mexico as well? wow. 1) why is it that every state in USA has its category and not India. 2) If you categorize it as New Mexico and not USA will editors from other USA state be able to see this? Yes it all right, no need to remove the Indian category. Even I dont consider that as a problem. I just consider that the American category (which you missed) is more relevant to this person than the Indian category, not that I want Indian removed. Walrus Ji (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- I think the separate state categories were created because the USA category was overwhelmed. Whether it's right or wrong, Wikipedia is dominated by articles of people in the Anglosphere so there will always be more articles on people in the USA than India because more editors are from the US and will have more of an interest in creating articles on subjects familiar to them. Spiderone 14:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. There is a category of New Mexico as well? wow. 1) why is it that every state in USA has its category and not India. 2) If you categorize it as New Mexico and not USA will editors from other USA state be able to see this? Yes it all right, no need to remove the Indian category. Even I dont consider that as a problem. I just consider that the American category (which you missed) is more relevant to this person than the Indian category, not that I want Indian removed. Walrus Ji (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Hallo, you participated in this discussion. Therefore, I would take the liberty to ask you if you would like to review 2014–15 FC Winterthur season again. In the meantime, I have added texts and citations. Perhaps you would like to add a new comment, and perhaps with a couple of suggestions, to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 FC Winterthur season discussion page. Your opinion would be appreciated. Thank you very much for your participation and please feel free to delete this message from your page, if you so wish. Thanks again and kindest greetings from Switzerland --Huligan0 (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Education v. School
Thanks for this. Do you know the guidelines over when to use which? I usually stay far from schools, but in case I end up nominating another, would love to know. Thanks StarM 03:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Star Mississippi: my understanding is that, if it's a school, we use both. 'Education' is more broad so will include things that don't fit in 'schools' but almost every school is within the scope of 'education'. That's just my view, though. Spiderone 09:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, Spiderone. That's very helpful and makes sense in case interested editors are following only one of the two. StarM 01:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Special Barnstar |
| I'm sure you never expected to get a barnstar from me but you deserve one. We haven't always agreed and we still may not agree on some things but our brief conversations and exchanges has meant a lot to me, personally. Thank you for being kind and thoughtful during those times. I appreciate your contributions here on Wikipedia and hope you continue. I love the colors that make you who you are. I am grateful to have seen them. Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC) |
- @Tsistunagiska: many thanks for that! I hope that you are doing well. Spiderone 20:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
about Ravitoto
I added references for draft:Ravitoto. So Is it possible to publish this article now ? Kampots (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)