User talk:Macdonald-ross/Archive 20

← Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21 →

Category:Date of birth missing

Thanks for QDing this category. When you delete a category, please remember to also remove the contents: this category had an entry in it (which I just deleted). Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Americanisms

You have asked me not to use Americanisms like "Paris, France". What are your views on article titles? I generally use the same titles as in English Wikipedia but these are sometimes American, e.g. Switcher [1] for Shunter and Head-end power [2] for Electric train supply. What do you advise? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Mock wurzel soup: I don't know what Mac was talking about when he said not to use "Americanisms", but it sounds like that was his personal preference, not any kind of policy or guideline. Any variety of English -- British, American, etc. -- can be used, as !ong as it's consistent within each individual article. See MOS:ENGVAR for the official guideline. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

That is quite true, but it does not apply to articles about the British isles, which should not be written in American English. To write "London, England" is to be insensitive to the way English is used in that country. Also, it is pointless. The only reason towns elsewhere in the world have the names London and Paris is that they were copied from the originals. As for MOS:ENVAR note: "If there is a strong relationship to a specific region or dialect, use that dialect". Of course, En wiki is overwhelmingly American in its style, but if you write an article here you can make your own choice of spelling so long as the subject-matter does not impinge on the content (it would be strange, and offensive to some, to write about English history in American spelling). On the other issue (where technical terms differ between countries: switcher/shunter) the main point is to make sure that the term not used is mentioned in the text, and linked to the article title by a redirect if appropriate.

We get these issues because English is the most widely used world language. I know that Arabic has developed differently in the various countries of the Levant and North Africa, more so than English has done. I've no idea how they handle this on Arabic wiki. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Writing London, England however isn't an ENGVAR issue however, when we write articles we are supposed to assume the reader has no knowledge of the subject. It is especially true on Simple where we somewhat cater to children. As such we cannot assume that everyone reading a page will know that London is in England even if the article is an article about a British subject. The reader may be coming from some small island in the South Pacific or something who has never been taught about European geography. That is a very different situation than the spelling of a word like color or colour in which case yes, by all means match it to the English variety of the subject matter. Adding the country is just a matter of clarity and specificity. People should not be insulted by information being specific and helpful to others. I am not saying you should always have both, but it is far from being wrong to do it even in British articles. -DJSasso (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I think I will continue to use the same titles as en wiki because it will be confusing for readers if they start on simple wiki and then find a different title on en wiki. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

what kind of list is needed

What kind of list do you want for List of female governors in the United States? Can you give me an example? 'Cause the lists for which you're asking could be anything. Angela Maureen (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Coral bleaching...

Hello Macdonald-ross,

could you have a quick look at Coral bleaching. I created a stub which is largely based on the EnWP version earlier today, but I am not sure how to simplify it further. Thank you. --Eptalon (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

LOL <(^^,)>

Hello. I'm totaly suprised of your move. It shouldn't never happen. How is this possible one administrator has rights to delete any page at any time? Really is here no any discussion about deleting existing pages? Saying "does not claim notability" is just not true. Have you ever seen article before you self decieded to delete it? Simply saying Swedish language album was charted in few Europeans national charts in period of three years and certfied double platinum in Denmark by selling 40,000 copies, has top 3 on chart (it's alone enough for notability criteria). Let's continuie album was certified platinum in Finland too where over 30,000 copies was sold. Top 4 in Finland and top 5 in Sweden. Swedish language album was charted also in France, Austria, the Netherlands and American Billboard's sub list. There was also review. 6 singles has been released from album. It was all in the article. Unbeliveiable missunderstanding. In addition album has received European Border Breakers Award but it was not mentioned in the article. Administators can't really make such mistakes. Someone should look at this situation. Eurohunter (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Well allow me to also state the fact that like on en.wikipedia, there should be discussions if an editor or even higher, an Admin sees an article as not being notable. To simply delete without leaving any message or setting up a discussion is not right. Not that I want to side you user:Eurohunter, I noticed sometimes user:Macdonald-ross does this too often without considering a discussion template for other editors to give suggestions like he did on deleting Persecuted In Search of Change. I feel the need for discussion must be put in thoughts before making such decisions as some of the articles already exist in other Wikis where admins allow for discussion to start and end by relisting if no consensus is reached. I hope to see changes 197.233.102.162 (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to bother

Can you tell me what steps are needed to properly format and transclude this? I just realized I actually don't know how to do it. Secondly, are you able to mark it closed or does the person closing need to be a crat? Thanks. Operator873^talkconnect 15:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the best action would to be to just delete it. Operator873^talkconnect 20:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Already took care of it. Can just be deleted since you never accepted it. -DJSasso (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Jurijusc177

Looking at this, it doesn't seem to be promoting anything specific other than saying that the user writes programs in their free time, and a bit about the languages they use (some of which is copyrighted). To me, it doesn't seem to be enough for a G11 or enough for a spam block. As I'm the newest (and least experienced) sysop, could you help me understand why those actions were taken? Thank you, Vermont (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, reading the text it seemed to me that he was describing work which he is prepared to do. Second, he has made no other edits. Third, the page was replaced with identical content. His e-mail is not barred, and he can ask for a review, but first he has to come alive and communicate. If he promises to behave normally and contribute all may be well. However, we do get both bots and people whose only actions are to self-promote. Although the message is split up on separate lines, I think he is saying "I can do all this stuff for you". I think the implication is there, and deliberately. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

read this message please!

Thank you for Moving Adeodatus I to Pope Adeodatus I and I Have Request , Move Pope St. Gelasius I to Pope Gelasius I , Move Pope St. Symmachus to Pope Symmachus and Move Pope St. Hormisdas to Pope Hormisdas Please! MartinJamesPogi (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I read all messages. I have no personal knowledge as to the correct form. However, what I will do is check each title against its version on En wiki, and make changes accordingly. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

And also please check the navbox for Popes. It was either that navbox or the enwiki titles that made me rename those two articles in the first place. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Damasus I

Hello Mac, can you move this page?

Damasus I --> Pope Damasus I

The new title is per enwp. I don't have permission to move this page. Thanks.-BRP ^ever 10:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. I am thinking we should give this power to some of those trusted users who have been with us for some time. Of course, powers are given by a bureaucrat, not a simple admin! Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Kirk Herbstreit and others?

Why u delete them there notable enough. Tabau (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Dickinsonia extended

Hello there,

I extendd the article on Dickinsonia a litte, wriing about the problems of classifying them, their way of life, and history of dicovery. COuld you have a quick look, when you have the time? - Thank you. --Eptalon (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Question

Just out of curiosity, why did you remove all the authors and a DOI (which provides a direct link to the published article, whereas the PMID only links to a bare reference) here? I guess you had a good reason for this, but I'm curious what that can be :-) Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Atricle has seven lines and is more than adequately referenced. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that doesn't really answer my question. In the sciences, the most important author is usually the last one and that info is lost if you replace those names with "et al". And a DOI is very useful for the reader, as it is a permanent link to the article that is being used as a source. This is the first time that I hear that sources should be truncated because the article is too short... Quite frankly, I found that edit very unhelpful... --Randykitty (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Oxalaia Good Article review

Any word on the Good Article review for Oxalaia? I've expanded and modified the article after having brought the en.wikipedia version to FA. After that, I tried pinging the reviewers, and posting a message on one of their talk pages, but there have been no replies.

Feedback on my edits would be much appreciated, thanks. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Predrag Stojakovic

It's an unnecessary redirect given that the search engine is already programmed to handle diacritics. Furthermore, it's wrong and misleading as to his real name. - Bossanoven (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Bossanoven: No, it has a use. It prevents users from creating the same page twice as they may recreate it without knowing that the title with diacritics exists. Furthermore, redirects make reader jump from that title to the title with diacritics which makes it easier for them. So, I don't know how can it be misleading to real name. Redirects are cheap and these are the cases where redirects can be helpful. It is clearly given in Purposes of redirects. And when an admin declines QD it's probably best to discuss (WP:RFD).-BRP ^ever 02:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Do u keep drafts pages on here. 212.67.119.245 (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

RfD nomination of List of busiest airports in the United Kingdom

An editor has requested deletion of List of busiest airports in the United Kingdom, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2018/List of busiest airports in the United Kingdom and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. –Davey2010^Talk 20:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Rollen Hans

Rollen Hans played in the NBA. That's widely considered the top level of play in the world for the sport of basketball, and therefore the article is inherently notable. Please restore the article. - Bossanoven (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Bossanoven: I have restored the article, with our apologies. It's tricky to see notability with athletes sometimes, because we don't always know which leagues make a player inherently notable. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Why?

You erased my article about Lavori Publici Fc with this explanation:"complex article from another Wikipedia, little sign of simplification/conversion".....why? I request an explanation, because It is mostly a translation from es.wikipedia and in this wikipedia there it is no problem at all. And allow me to remind you that before erasing you should NOTIFY the wikipedian who created the article, so that he can defend what he did. Thanks.--Dozenfields (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Quick on the Delete

Hello, MacD-r - I see you just QD'd List of territorial entities where English is an official language. Did you look at my remarks on the Talk:List of territorial entities where English is an official language? I put in some basic work, all documented with edit summaries, and specifially asked for at least half a day's time. I also applied the Wait template. Perhaps I should have asked -- but HOW?-- that this be moved to RfD if it was G8-unacceptable (after approx. two hours of my repeatedly starting work on it!!! - of course My Changes and New Changes now show nothing of all these efforts). I did ping the QD nominator, but your action evidently precluded further intervention. I've recently returned to working on Simple English and surely have to learn the ropes so expertly handled by you regulars. A less veteran editor than I might be discouraged at this point; I ask for solutions. What would you advise me? -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Edited to add: @Hydriz:, @Auntof6:, @Eptalon:, @Chenzw: -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Deleted for the reason given: text copied word-for-word from English wiki. It is an editor's job not to put pages onto our wiki until they meet the requirements of our wiki. A deletion does not prevent an editor from putting up the same topic in a manner which meets our criteria. And you should know all this by now, I think. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

As far as the G8 for unsimplified complexity after import, I did put work into suiting the page for this WP - I diligently:

• Applied the Template:Complex
• Removed redlinked templates, categories, and See also pages
• The vast bulk of page content is tables; there's relatively little text to simplify

The QD - A1 was applied when the page had a single line of text. I didn't think to change the QD reason or template, nor did anyone else. I don't understand why the QD went through without considering that this was a valid page worth editing as I'd manifestly started on. Why did you not think to move it to RfD? -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I generally agree that articles should be in good shape and meet our requirements for simplicity from the beginning: I don't think mainspace is for development. There are some ways this could be handled:

• Develop the article in userspace (a "sandbox") until it is ready.
• Put the {{simplifying}} template on the page, although it shouldn't be left there very long (I'd say only a few hours), and should only be used when you're actively simplifying.

You said there's relatively little text to simplify. However, the lead, where that text is, is longer than many of the articles here, so it's not a negligible amount.

I am willing to restore the article if either you're going to simplify the text right away or you'd like it restored and moved to your userspace to be worked on there. Let me know. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I'd like the article (which I didn't create, only adopted) restored as a sandbox version in my Userspace. Your other points are noted, with appreciation. When I searched for a supposed template for "{{simple}}" it redirected to "{{Complex}} - which I applied in hopes of attracting the efforts of other editors. I can also see the point of inspecting the redlinked pages in the present version to see whether these pages are equally notable for inclusion here. I'm not objective because I'm myself an immigrant in a wildly polyglot country, but I'd think readers of the Simple WP would be interested in this and related topics. So my To-Do list now includes importing and simplify the other major language lists (FR, AR, ES, etc.) in due time. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. It's at User:Deborahjay/List of territorial entities where English is an official language. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Deborahjay: If you need any templates imported, just leave a message at WP:AN

And I know what you mean about Israel being multilingual. I have a friend from the US who teaches English there, and she has interesting stories to tell! --Auntof6 (talk) 10:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)