User talk:Courcelles/Archive 86

Archive 80

←

Archive 84

Archive 85

Archive 86

Archive 87

Archive 88

→

Archive 90

Undelete request

Vaughan Corporate Ctr. (VIVA) I have reviewed your reasons for deletion and I agree that most of the VIVA-station articles should be deleted due to lack of notability. However, the Vaughan Corporate Centre station is slated to be relocated 2014 to a spot directly above Vaughan Corporate Centre (TTC) subway station, thus making it a terminal connection. I recall a statement in this deleted article referring to that relocation. Your debate on notability implies that terminals are notable. So, this article should be reinstated. jstreutker (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, but that still wouldn't justify bringing back an article on a bus station, and that's not what the debate said, anyway. Look at Template:VIVA Stations, the ones that are still separate articles are about the subway stations, and merely mention the VIVA stations. Not one VIVA station has it's own article, they have all been either deleted or merged. Courcelles 18:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Politics of Angola

@Courcelles: I am at present revising the article above, because the text was completely outdated. In doing so, I am having a technical problem with the table on the right, were several informations are outdated: I simply don't know how to access the source text in order to correct it. Can you please explain how to resolve this problem? And please bear with my ignorance.... -- Aflis (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Are you trying to find and edit Template:Politics of Angola, which is on the right of that article? Click the link you should be able to edit it. Courcelles 20:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am trying to do: sorry for not being precise. What I need is a foolproof explanation of how to go about it: in your answer, I don't understand what you mean by "click the link mad". What is the link you are speaking of, and what does "mad" mean in this context? Thank you for your patience! -- Aflis (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Typo, you can simply click the link above, and proceed to edit it. When you see that template in the field, you'll see at the bottom:

"Other countries · Atlas Politics portal view · talk · edit"

• You can click on "edit" there to edit the template. Courcelles 22:18, 26

August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you once again: this time, the fool understood the explanation and has started editing. -- Aflis (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Hello there. On December 30, 2010 you deleted File:Devilslake Train Station.jpg under the F4/F11 rationale ("no evidence of permission"). The image in question is part of a collection known collectively as the "Passenger Railroad Guide," maintained by Hikki Nagasaki. The file description page reprinted a disclaimer from Nagasaki's website which states, in part, that "all rights are not reserved. You are free to use all my photos on the website. You do not need to let me know when you use my photos." In addition, the original image was linked directly to establish its source.

I'm not the original uploader of this image but I've uploaded other images from that site and I'm concerned at the way this was handled. Nagasaki's disclaimer is explicit and it seems to me that Wikipedia's requisites were satisfied. I'd appreciate if you could either reverse the deletion or provide a further explanation. Best, Mackensen (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• You cut off the most important part of that quote, "(You are not allowed to use photos from other people)". And, I looked, but I could find, neither then nor now, any distinction between which photos are the site's owner's, and which ones we would be prohibited from copying. Unless he states specifically which images he is releasing, that is an insufficient statement of permission. Furthermore, that's not a PD designation, that allows use, but does not explicitly allow modification of the images, and under our policies, any images we use as free must be allowed to be modified into derivative works. Courcelles 20:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • He explicitly states on the site when an image is courtesy of someone else. If you really want I can dig up examples of him doing so; all images are by him unless stated otherwise. It's true that he's silent on the question of derivative works, probably because it never occurred to him one way or the other. "All rights are not reserved" is perhaps an ambiguous declaration, but I think the message here is to use these images however you want, even without attribution and without permission. Mackensen (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you could email him, and get him to state (either on his website, or in an email which you can forward to OTRS—both Courcelles and I have OTRS access) that he releases his images into the public domain, or under an appropriate free license? That would clear up any confusion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)"All rights are not reserved" is about as ambiguous a statement as we can get. Basic linguistics means this statement is nothing like the {{PD-self}} it was trying to emulate, "all rights are not reserved" logically just requires him to release one of his moral rights, not all of them, notice how different PD-self's "I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." is. Restoring this image would be playing guessing games with copyright, and that's not something we do. If we want to use them, we either need him to modify his release, or send something to OTRS along the lines of the standard, explicit release given on commons:Commons:OTRS. Courcelles 21:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
      • What he said. "All rights not reserved" could mean 'not all rights are reserved', which would be more intuitive an interpretation than 'no rights reserved'. If it goes to OTRS, let us know and I'll keep an eye out for the ticket. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it could mean a number of things. I question whether a speedy deletion was really the best way to handle this, especially given that the uploading user is inactive, but that ship sailed years ago. Hopefully Nagasaki will write with a clarification. Mackensen (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a point of order: It's not "normal" speedy deletion—somebody tags it (and is supposed to notify the uploader) and an admin deletes it a week later if there's no sign of any progress in addressing the issue. It's not just Courcelles and I stumbling upon the images and zapping them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Courcelles. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thank you for not abusing rollback

I am sure that, in future, we will not be seeing any more edits like this which use rollback despite not being an edit "reverting obvious vandalism" – thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Clerk of the Parliaments─╢ 15:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Well, rollback is for edits that need no explanation as to why they were reverted. That did not. Note what WP:ROLLBACK actually says, "To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear" (emphasis mine). Courcelles 20:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

  But since WP:RPA suggests that, when removing personal attacks, they should be replaced with {{RPA}}, your reversion would seem to be out of order. ╟─TreasuryTag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 07:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Grammy FLC

Hi Courcelles. Since you have reviewed Grammy lists in the past, is there a chance you might be able to review this Grammy list currently at FLC? I'd be much appreciated--the list needs reviews badly. --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Already promoted! Heh! Courcelles 02:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

re Haymaker - Roscelese interaction restrictions

Haymaker has responded positively to the appointment of TParis with a suggestion to limit the iban to an initial 6 month period, after which parties may agree to extend. I have recommended acceptance to Roscelese, so hopefully things will be in place in under 24 hours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• thanks for the heads-up, sounds good. Courcelles 01:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Men's Light-Contact at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -94 kg

Looks like this was missed in the text of the AfD - what should be done ? Mtking ^(edits) 02:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Damn. Another AFD would be a waste of everyone's time, so deleted, but if anyone challenges this one in particular, I'll restore it and nominate it for deletion through process. Courcelles 03:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Think that is the best approach. Mtking ^(edits) 03:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

• News and notes: Abuse filter on all Wikimedia sites; Foundation's report for July; editor survey results

• In the news: Wikipedia praised for disaster news coverage, scolded for left-wing bias; brief news

• Recent research: Article promotion by collaboration; deleted revisions; Wikipedia's use of open access; readers unimpressed by FAs; swine flu anxiety

• Opinion essay: How an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Tennis

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Four existing cases

• Technology report: The bugosphere, new mobile site and MediaWiki 1.18 close in on deployment

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Marco Bueno

Hi, I just saw that the page for Marco Bueno was deleted on 4th of August due to the reasons including that there is no confirmation that he is not even played for Liverpool FC. There is a spanish wiki page for him? http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Bueno. There is enough articles which specifies that he is a Liverpool player. So can we create an English page for him?

Jishnu Viswanath talk 09:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• We can create his article when he plays (makes an appearance, not just sits on the bench the entire match) for the first team. Only then is he notable under WP:NSPORTS. Courcelles 08:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of NBC slogans

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of NBC slogans. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. nymets2000 (t/c/l) 20:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• No wonder I don't remember this one, it was 13 months ago. No big deal, but in the future, if the closing admin is active, it's best to talk it over before going to DRV. Courcelles 07:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Unprintworthy?

I seem to see a lot of edits by you with a summary that says "Bypass unprintworthy redirect using AWB." Just what is that supposed to mean? I can see saying bypass a redirect but what has unprintworthy got to do with anything? I hadn't seen this particular summary used by an administrator and I am a bit confused. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• See Category:Unprintworthy redirects, basically, they're errors of some form, that are likely to be searched for, but should not be linked to. Usually common enough typos or misnomers. Courcelles 07:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

  Interesting. Do I assume correctly that if a person has an article at his non-diacritic name yet you find links on other pages in his diacritic form, that you also tag that diacritic form as unprintworthy when you correct the redirect? Or is this something you do only for the common English versions of names? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

  • With rare exceptions, yes. (For instance, Martina Navratilova before 1975 should be Martina Navrátilová) You'll notice that Martina Navrátilová is not in any category related to printworthiness, because sometimes one is correct, sometimes the other. Courcelles 08:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

    Ok I think I understand. Then shouldn't Novak Đoković be in the unprintworthy category since Novak Djokovic is considered the correct form here on wikipedia? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

    • Hmm, that page has been moved around since the last time the redirect classification bots were ran, I think, so, yeah, it should be. Redirect categorisation is nowhere near complete, there were some bots around 2008 or so that sorted them then, but I don't know of any since, so if a redirect doesn't get categorised on creation or page move, it may not be sorted into proper location for a long time. Sorting out redirects was once considered low-priority enough to have an April Fool's joke about it, see WP:FRED. (Note that there are 5.7 million live redirects in the database, 5 million of which are in article-space, and the immensity of the task becomes clear.) I can't prove it, but my instinct says that running into an unsorted redirect is more common than a sorted one. Courcelles 08:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

      • Forgive my ignorance, but what is the advantage of sorting a redirect? Readers being redirected to the correct location aren't going to notice whether the redirect (assuming they know what a redirect is) is in a category relating to its "printworthiness" (in an online encyclopaedia!). I can't help thinking that this is a bit like inventing work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

        • It's a vestige of the Wikipedia 1.0 project. It may never happen, but we have lots of odds and ends lying around to aid the conversion of Wikipedia into printed form, and this is one of them. Some of those ideas stuck and used universally (Wikiprojects rating articles in talk page banners), and some, like the sorting of redirects, are so obscure that even an experienced admin like yourself has never heard of them. There's no particular reason Wikipedia has to only be an online encyclopaedia. This, like many things, serves editors, not readers, anyway. Courcelles 10:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Vivastation undelete request

Regarding Vaughan Corporate Ctr. (VIVA)'s deletion and your comment on my comment which you have already archived: both this AfD and this AfD have comments by others (not by you, sorry for not being clear on that) that indicate that terminals should remain. Even though this subject bus stop is not presently a terminal, my case for requesting the undelete rests on it being a future certainty. Is that not enough to meet the notability requirement?

Another point of notability that I've noticed is that even if a transit company calls a station a "terminal", if it doesn't connect with other transit systems, its notability is doubtful. YRT commits that sin for several of its Viva "terminals", likely because of a marketing idea that keeps its YRT routes separate from its Viva routes, pretending they're two different systems. However, in this case, Vaughan Corporate Centre will, in the future, connect three different systems: Brampton Transit, TTC subway, and YRT.

Perhaps what instead should be done is taking the existing Vaughan Corporate Centre (TTC) article and changing its name to Vaughan Corporate Centre Terminal, to broaden it to include YRT's and Brampton Transit's involvement, similar to such articles as Richmond Hill Centre Terminal? What do you think?

Also, why wasn't an effort made to move the important information from Vaughan Corporate Ctr. (VIVA) to the Other Vivastations article? (In this, I make an assumption that this is a typical thing that Wikipedia administrators do.)

jstreutker (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding any future certainty, this is a fairly common situation on Wikipedia, the policy WP:CRYSTAL was written to answer that common situation. Your second and third paragraphs are editoral matters, and would be better answered by someone who knows a think about transport in Ontario. Closing admins rarely, if ever, merge content themselves (and a "merge" close is quite different than a "delete" one, which we had here.) The way I'm reading the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/16th-Carrville (VIVA), it looks like that other Vivastations article could fall at a later AFD, based on that closing admin's statement. Courcelles 08:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • That is informative. Thanks. jstreutker (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)