User talk:Gotanda/Archive 2011 January to June

Service Award

This editor is an Apprentice Editor and has the right to show this Wikipedia Picture Book.

From one teacher to another - for your contributions over the last 3 months, you have earned a Picture Book (also available as a medal or a userbox). Congratulations, Peterdownunder (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I really appreciate it. Working on Simple is not unlike a good day teaching; it is its own reward. Gotanda (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Simplifying contractions

The script I use to simplify contractions is user assisted and the edit you showed was a case of human error rather than a programing error. I may have overlooked the quote since it did several changes in that edit. AWB supports skipping over comments and internal links but not quotes. Thank you, for pointing that out to me. I will try to be more careful. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 14:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the way your tools work. Also, thanks for all of your fixes and for drawing my attention to contractions in Simple Wikipedia. Gotanda (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

A little help

If you want to edit semi-protected pages, you might want to make sure your edit total is 10 and you have been on for 4 days. Loudclaw (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI

this. Cheers. sonia♫ 01:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Now I understand. I kept trying to make the change at New Changes. Duh!. Gotanda (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

RFA

I'd like to thank you for partaking in my my RFA, which ended in a 19/0 pass. Also a delayed thanks for the barnstar. Best, Albacore (talk · changes) 01:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Patroller

I've granted you our new Patroller flag. This automatically marks your new pages as okay and allows you to patrol Special:NewPages if this interests you. Thanks and let me know if you have any questions. Kansan (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Back from an unexpectedly long break

I planned to take a week or so off to focus on work at the end of the semester here and to change to a new job. It would be the understatement of the year to say that some unexpected events on 11 March 2011 distracted me for a while. But all is well, I'm back, and very happy to have this project to work on. Gotanda (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not ...

Fix it instead? Should be easy :) fr33kman 00:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Easier said than done. I don't know enough about these communes etc. to make the fixes. Perhaps the creators, User:Synergy in this case, User:Razorflame in others, can go back and fix some of these--especially if they pop up on their watchlists. Lately, I just haven't had the attention span to write much, but it is easy enough to click "Random" a few times and mark the ones that need help.

That said, there are quite a few of these stubs that I do try to fix. I've probably fixed hundreds of Nameless User's football stubs for Japanese players. Almost all of the Places of Birth are linked incorrectly or incomplete. I don't particularly care for football, but I know others do and I can read the Japanese page to get the detailed and correct PoB. I just fix the articles I am able to fix and mark the rest for the original creator or someone who has the knowledge to make the change. I think it also shows that just because we're saddled with these place name articles, it doesn't mean that that is what Simple is intended to be. It marks them as in need of attention, not properly developed articles.

I guess we're stuck with these things, but I wish we weren't. Not because I particularly care personally, but because it makes getting people involved in contributing more difficult. I walked a colleague through Simple a while ago at work. He is an EFL textbook author and has a great professional network of writers. One of his first questions was "What's up with all of these communes?" It looks trivial and taps into the preconceived (mistaken) notion that Wikipedia is low quality. It really does put some people off. Oh well. End of rant. But thanks for encouraging me :-) Gotanda (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Was coming here to let you know that it is generally frowned upon to tag articles as orphan here. Because we are a small wiki the majority of our articles are technically orphans. Tagging them does nothing to help them and actually makes the wiki look worse. But it looks like fr33kman already brought similar comments here. Cleanup tags in general are frowned upon here, but especially that one. For example on the one line city stubs you tagged, what some people consider a bad situation is made even worse by tagging it as you had. Someone coming upon it as a reader and not an editor wouldn`t have though much about the single sentence, but you slap those tags on and we seem alot more low quality. The stub tag already gets across the idea that this article is not up to the standard it should be. It basically already does what you are trying to do. -DJSasso (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Djsasso. There are always many unwritten "rules" in any organization or project. In this case, it might help to actually put a note on the Talk page for Orphan if it is "generally frowned upon" to use the template. As far as making the wiki actually look worse, I'll just have disagree. The Stub template says the article is short and it appears only at the end of the article--sometimes off the first screen of the article. The Orphan and No Sources templates point out actual problems with the articles. They do so clearly and prominently, and to this reader show that the wiki editors actually watch the content and try to mark articles that are flawed. The templates show some attempt at quality control which Stub does not. "Short and in need of improvement" is quite different from Orphan. Orphan or No Source templates may pop up in a watchlist and prompt the creating editor (or someone else who cares, or else why is it in their watchlist?) to sort it out. This has actually happened in the past couple of days. For example, you added the ref to Bill Houlder. I have little interest in organized sports and had no idea there was an Internet Hockey DB. (Although I should have known such a thing would exist.) I would not have been able to fix it easily, but it got the attention of someone who could--you. In a related note, I see that you removed the Orphan from Bill Houlder as well. Maybe you just deleted that along with the No Source template, but since no other page links there at all (except now this Talk page) it is very clearly an actual Orphan. I didn't check the history before, but I see that you had already removed the properly applied Orphan template once before. I don't want to get into a to-and-fro about this, so would you mind putting it back? Thanks Gotanda (talk) 08:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I won't be readding it because we don't generally use the Orphan template because 90% of our articles are orphans. If we start adding them we make the quality of the articles go down. Its been discussed many times that the orphan template does little to help the wiki and is more likely to harm it than help it because most articles won't have links to them on a wiki this small. And aren't likely to get any, any time soon. No sources templates are a bit different because they are more indicitive of an actual problem, whereas ophaned is not. I would also note that the hockeydb link was already on the page when you put on the nosources tag which is a completely seperate issue all together. As for having removed the orphan tag before, I did, because Hydriz went on a spree of adding it to pages and the community asked him to stop adding that tag and removed a number of them that he added. Something else to consider, you say you don't know enough about the subjects to source most of the articles you tagged. But you don't have to, all you have to do in most cases is go to the english article and snag one of their sources which probably takes no more than 15 seconds and helps the wiki alot more than a random cleanup tag.-DJSasso (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking back, I see that the Hockey DB link was there as an "other websites" link and that the "references" was empty at the time I tagged as No Source. You've promoted it to a reference, but it isn't linked inline. Whatever. Maybe it takes more than 15 seconds to properly source an article? Regardless, it was and still is an orphan. Are you really sure that 90% of articles on Simple are orphans? I suppose it depends upon your definition of "few", but no incoming links is most definitely an orphan.

I'll come back to my first point: if "it is generally frowned upon to tag articles as orphan here", why not document that so that others don't step into this trap? And before you ask, I won't be doing that myself because I've already explained my view of that tag/template. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• I do thank you for sharing your feedback about somebody else being put off by all these one line stubs. (Feedback from non-editors is more valuable than most of us realize - over on en, they occasionally have reader surveys at the end of articles.) I've been pretty much for keeping them but am amenable to listening to feedback from people who think it reflects negatively on the site - my opinion can always change. I think there once was a mass deletion of football stubs once, but it happened before I came here so I don't really know the details. Kansan (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kansan, thanks for keeping an open mind. It is clear on Simple Talk that this discussion is broken and going nowhere for now, so I stopped adding to it. I fully expect this will come up again. (Don't worry! I'm not planning on restarting anything soon!) It is a nagging problem that bothers people. I consider tagging a bunch of these one line stubs as a kind of catch-and-release experiment like wildlife biologists do. In 6 months or 36 months when the topic comes up and there is a new crop of editors around, someone will at least be able to point out that even the one liners tagged for attention (probably) haven't been improved. On to working on some Post 3/11 Japan articles. Gotanda (talk) 08:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Britain

There's a problem with the references here, caused by bringing over from enWP some complex notes+references without understanding the system. You might find this case interesting. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I had a look. Pretty complex mess to try to clean up. It looks like one of those cases where it would be a lot easier to go back and try to start over/re-do bit by bit from the just before the edit that brought in all of those footnotes. But, it looks like Mikeou has really been adding a lot to many military history articles. Will try to wrap my brain around this one if I can. Gotanda (talk) 05:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

La Cauchie

Its orphaned status is indirectly the result of this wiki's size, as DJ explained in an earlier post to you. Also deletion of these "communes of France" articles has already been discussed, they will remain stubs and orphans were appropriate until someone with more time and expertise in the area can change their status. --Bärliner (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for repeating what was said before. The article clearly fits the definition of an orphan. Keeping those articles means keeping orphans. It still doesn't really explain. I think you've got the causality the other way around, though. The orphaned status is actually a result of how the article was made--bot, no attempt to connect it, not the size of the wiki. The size of the wiki has been inflated by the thousands of such low quality articles being added. I did ask DJ, and I can ask you as well: where did the "generally frowned upon" come from, and how is an editor ever to know? Can't find anything on the Orphan template Talk page or elsewhere. No way of knowing if that is actually: a policy, a consensus reached on some Simple Talk discussion long ago, some off-wiki discussion, or just the view of a couple people. If you could point me in the right direction, it would be much appreciated. It might make things clear for future editors as well. Gotanda (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe it would have been on simple talk a couple different times. Its been said that people adding them are just as bad as when we were allowing bots to create articles. It came about because we have an alarming tendency to have editors come here and try to boost their numbers by adding orphan tags to hundreds of articles. If I recall correctly it was felt that labeling an article as an orphan on a wiki where most articles are going to be orphans actually hurt the wiki more than helped. Because slapping a tag on the article won't change anything. So now we have a short article with a large flashing beacon that it is an orphaned article. How much farther ahead are we? The fact that it is orphan isn't a valid delete reason so it doesn't make the page more likely to be deleted. The fact it has a banner on it also doesn't generally help make someone expand it. All it does is place a large eyesore on the page. As far as how an editor is to know...generally they just get told when they are seen adding mass tags to articles. As you have been. -DJSasso (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you've repeated your point. I do understand what you have written. That was not the question. The orphan tag exists here as part of this wiki, and I followed the description when I applied it. What I asked was to please direct me to a discussion where the editors arrived at the consensus that the tag is not to be applied. I did discover this on Hydriz' Talk page. It is mainly about bot approval and bot or script behavior. It also includes you asking Hydriz not to apply orphan. As far as I can tell from that talk page, not using orphan is your opinion, not a consensus of editors on the wiki. There are thousands of uses of this tag. Just at random, I found a few similar tags by other editors, for example, Lindsborg, Kansas-place name stub by User:Neurolysis, doorstop by User:Mentifisto, an admin and steward, Dora, Alabama-place name stub by User:Synergy. It seems not all editors, or even admins or stewards, agree. I followed the documentation for orphan, and explained why I intentionally applied it to La Cauchie in particular on the talk page. I did add many tags in a row one day, and stopped as requested. Adding to La Cauchie was not a "mass edit"; it was the only such tag I added that day. Please point me to the relevant discussion rather than an unclear passive construction that "it is" or "it was". Maybe it should also be made clear on the Orphan page. Gotanda (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

HoftheUS cn templates

First off, use of the CN template might have been in error...it's generally only used for blatently controversial things. Anyways, I've done all but three of those. Why don't you do the last three yourself? They shouldn't be hard to find Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't add any templates, just comments on Talk. Thanks for acting on some of them and I thought your attitude had changed. But, the return of the "Why don't you do it yourself?" response doesn't bode well. I'll be posting a final comment on PGA and then getting on with projects I feel are manageable and interesting. Gotanda (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of use of history textbooks

If it were one history textbook for 70% of the references, you might have a point. But as its 30% of the references and four history textbooks, I think it's acceptable. As I've said, no GA or VGA requirement that multiple references have to be used, and there's multiple references anyway. Also, I've seen the 14.1, 14.2 way the Bailey is formatted used in other article Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 06:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment read. Gotanda (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Italian colonization

Hi, Gotanda. I have translated from It.Wiki an old version of the article "Colonizzazione italiana delle Americhe". If in Italian wiki it is allowed, why not in Simple? Furthermore I believe the article can be maintained in Simple: if you wish, changes can be done....(anyway, Simple will gain an article). Sincerely--2forever (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

See the note on the talk page. Previously deleted article written by a blocked user. Gotanda (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. But Wikipedia policy is to block "vandals" but maintain their writings if useful to the encyclopedia. And the Italian, Spanish and Japanese wiki accept it.....

Chunxi Road

An admin has deleted the page, and will likely also delete the talk section, so I'm moving my comment here. I don't believe it was ever exactly said that all types of places are notable (my dormitory isn't, for example). The recent Reshipora deletion discussion would refute the "all places are notable" assertion. if the article is to be kept (which apparantly it isn't), it needs to be expanded, assert notability, and probably change the title to Chunxilu. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 08:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The notability of places has never been properly decided or discussed, the archives are full of half-hearted attempts. I see nothing wrong with Chunxi Road being recreated, if it can meet at least WP:GNG --Bärliner (talk) 08:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I had a feeling I should have grabbed that before it was disappeared. I would have been very interested to follow up on the IP address or account that created it. Looked like a typical first attempt by a non-native speaker to contribute. Oh well. Interesting how some places are notable, so they pass the notability threshold, but others aren't. Guess I should have added a "please" to the "wait". Thanks for the heads up PBB--much appreciated. Gotanda (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Tropical Depression Ten (2005)

I've fixed/replied to your concerns about the PGA nomination of Tropical Depression Ten (2005). Could you please take a look here and post further comments? Thanks. NotImportant (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Jean Balukas at WP:PAD

Hi there, just wanted to mention that I've (finally) got round to responding to the comments that were left regarding the closure at the Jean Balukas PAD - apologies for my delay! Just wanted to let you know in case you'd given up all hope - I've been really busy IRL, not ignoring them! Cheers, Goblin 10:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC) I ♥ PeterSymonds!

Hi Goblin, I've been busy too. And, with the deadline gone and article demoted, I feel less urgency to get it done. No rushing now. It's happening slowly. Gotanda (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

Having reviewed your edits I've granted you rollback. fr33kman 03:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Fr33kman. I'll have to take some time to read up on use of rollback before I take it for a spin. Gotanda (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)