User talk:John B123/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Nina Mauricius-Sanders subject

i even made the nlwiki connection link, for this specific soap series character, and i have few more sources i'd like to add if you let me do that, would that be enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missnicky1991 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Missnicky1991: Hi. I changed the references you added to "inline" rather just added to the bottom. If you have some more references it would be good to add them. Regards --John B123 (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Articles of Battle of Banavar and Battle of Trichinopoly

Hi friend, you have given refimprove tags the articles of Battle of Banavar and Battle of Trichinopoly created by me. I am finding more sources on these battles and will cite more more sources once I get them. Thank you for suggesting improvement in my article. Cheers. Charvak157 (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Charvak157: Hi. Let me know when you've added the references and I'll have another look. Apart from the references the articles are coming along nicely. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes sure, I will tell you once I finish the job of finding more references, thanks Charvak157 (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi John, I have found and added some more relavant sources in the articles of Battle of Banavar and Battle of Trichinopoly (1682). Please have a look at them. Thank you, cheers. Charvak157 (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Charvak157: Hi. That's fine, I've marked them both as reviewed. Both articles link to Muhammad Adil Shah, which is a disambiguation page so you need to link to the specific Muhammad Adil Shah. Regards --John B123 (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah sure! Thanks Charvak157 (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Manchester University Chemistry Department Scientists

Dear John, thank you so much for reviewing articles and giving feedback on where to improve, I have created 6 articles so far, and is planning to create 14 more on the lecturers. Much appreciate the support. Could you please, when you have some time, state your opinions on the following articles, and where appropriate, review them if possible; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_S._Mair, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_P._Mills, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_F._Chilton and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_J._Procter. Again thank you, and much appreciate the feedback. Dukula Jayasinghe (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dukula Jayasinghe: Hi. I've had a look at the articles and made a few small changes, but nothing major was needed. They're all marked as reviewed now. Regards --John B123 (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Asking on Timeline COVID-19 article

Hi, would you be able to advise me on this? Earlier on, I told a user I was going to convert the links into a single Timeline link for simplicity. But now the user is saying that I'm not following that user's guideline. Would appreciate any help. Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, is this in regard to Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in December 2019#See also? --John B123 (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@TheGreatSG'rean:, sorry, forgot to ping you when replying. --John B123 (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@TheGreatSG'rean: I supported your initial addition of the various "Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in ..." articles as this was consistent with other articles in the timeline series. I also thought your change to Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic was logical as that article lists all the other timeline articles. The other user seems to thing the only "See also" link should be COVID-19 pandemic on social media, which seems a slightly random link to have as the sole link. They have WP:FORUMSHOPPED this without support, but insist on keep changing the links. Their "guidelines" are simply their thoughts and nothing that should be binding on you. Just because they have posted their views on the talk page doesn't give that any authority. Regards --John B123 (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@John B123: True, everything is based on consensus. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Robust English

This is just a side comment to the COVID-19 timeline discussion with Sechinsic. There are quite a few languages where double negatives or negative questions operate differently to English. I suspect that Sechinsic misinterpreted I can see no reason why this material shouldn't be included to mean I can see no reason why this material should be included. Negative questions are even worse: in both Polish and Japanese, in response to the equivalent of the question "Don't you want any cabbage?", the answer to give, assuming that you do not want any cabbage, is "Yes" - meaning "Yes, it is a true statement that I do not want any cabbage." So in situations where there's a risk of confusion, using English that is harder to misinterpret (even if it sounds less natural) can often be helpful. Sechinsic's style of writing increases my empathy with people who have to try to understand what I'm trying to say in Polish. However, I'm fairly sure I've never tried to WP:OWN any pl.Wikipedia articles - I'm aware of the general problem of inadequacies in my Polish. Boud (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

BTW, you forgot to sign this, I think. Boud (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Boud: Hi. Thanks, that certainly makes more sense of Sechinsic's reply. Unfortunately my language skills are not good, even in my native English. (I once asked, in what I thought was acceptable French, for a train ticket from Vilvorde to central Brussells. The ticket seller replied in immaculate English "Please talk in English so I can understand you"). Thanks for your support over the ownership issue. Regards --John B123 (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

:) Boud (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

ref=none

Hi John, I saw that you added |ref=none to citations recently, which appeared to me as being unnecessary. However, before removing them again, I thought it would be better to ask why you added these parameters in the first place. Is this because of the recent change to citation templates that CS1-style citations generate harv-style citeref anchors by default now as well (like CS2), and that this causes some user scripts to show pseudo-error messages? If so, the actual solution would be to update these user scripts, not to add this parameter. This thread might be helpful:

Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Cite_book_Harv_warning

Or is there another reason why you added this parameter? Greetings --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Matthiaspaul: Hi. I've actually been adding ref=none to suppress unused harv anchors for quite a time. Templates such as {{Cite ODNB}} have been adding harv anchors automatically for as long as I remember. The amount of times I add this has obviously increased since the changes to the cite templates.

The script I use is to find sfn/harv errors. (The use of short footnotes doesn't seem to be fully understood by a lot of editors). It's useful to pick up errors such as {{sfn|Smith & Jones|2010}} rather than {{sfn|Smith|Jones|2010}}. Matching the "error messages" shown up by the script simplifies fixing the error immensely. To remove picking up unused anchors from the script would make it a far less useful tool.

The main reason for my adding ref=none is not for "errors" in the wikicode, but to stop unnecessary anchors being added to the html when the page is parsed. Thanks for the link to the talk page conversation, I've added a fuller explanation of why I think adding ref=none is important there, although I'm happy to continue the conversation here. Regards --John B123 (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi John, thanks for your answer here and there. I appreciate it.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

My article

Thanks for the tip im new. i will expand on it and add more info Mazum24 (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mazum24: Hi, if you need any advice feel free to ask. Regards --John B123 (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

ok Mazum24 (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Alan Brisdon article

Dear John, thank you so much for reviewing articles and giving feedback on where to improve, could I please know on how to specifically improvise the article, I asked one of the science Wikipedia makers and she said linking to articles is what I've done at the bottom of the page. Could you please elaborate more on this, and where to improve. Thank you! Dukula Jayasinghe (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dukula Jayasinghe: Hi, the Alan Brisdon article itself looks fine, it just needs more articles linking to it (as you have recently done at Organophosphorus compound). Regards --John B123 (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@John B123: Hi, thank you so much for the guidance, I realized what this really means after a while. I have linked it to the possible articles I can think of. Again much appreciated. And I have done the same to all the remaining articles to be reviewed as well. Really did not know about this before, and therefore thanks for guiding me on this. Regards -- Dukula Jayasinghe (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dukula Jayasinghe: No problem, I'm glad you've got it worked out now. Regards --John B123 (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Stubs

Thanks for your work on page curation, but w

Why did you think Chaturangi was a stub? At 4k bytes, well sourced, it's a solid little article. Not every new article is a stub, and as a regular  stubsorter I seem to be finding quite a few where I've disagreed with you on this. PamD 04:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@PamD: I'm not stupid enough to think all new articles are stubs, as witnessed by the number of new articles I assess as start or C class. I assessed this as a stub based on WP:STUBDEF. Using the WP:DYK standard referred to there, the "main text" of Chaturangi is short, in fact not much more than [1] which is given by WP:ASSESS as an example of a stub article. The current definitions of what makes an article a stub are subjective and open to individual interpretation, so there will be differences between different editors assessments.

I wasn't aware page size was a criteria for defining stub. The 4k you mention could easily be achieved by See also, Further reading and External links sections without any significant content.

If you are unhappy with my page curation, feel free to ask a relevant admin to intervene. --John B123 (talk) 07:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@PamD: If you reassess an article and remove the stub tag, as you have at Chaturangi, Euphemia Bakewell, Vadamanappakkam etc, logic would suggest you need to complete the job and change the classes in the Wikiprojects on the talk page to suit. --John B123 (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair point though I'm sure there's a bot which would sort it out. Of course the extra work to do that - especially when working on my phone - is a substantial disincentive to changing the class. Perhaps I'll just leave edge cases to some other stubsorter. Or go with the flow and stick a sorted stub template even on what I consider non-stubs. Ah well. Happy editing! PamD 17:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello John B123,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

• A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
• Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
• A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.

• Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Translated pages

Thanks for your help. I had not realised that the template could be used for partial translations. Roundtheworld (talk) 07:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Roundtheworld: - No problem, it's also far easier than writing out an attribution in full! --John B123 (talk) 07:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

HMS Danae (1779)

Hi. You tagged the above article here, checking you're okay with that being removed now there are additional references. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Euryalus: Hi, that's fine. I've removed the tag, I was going to mark the page as reviewed by someone had already done it. Regards - --John B123 (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Yep I noticed that. Eighteenth century ship pages generally have very few readers, so thanks for looking at it! -- Euryalus (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Ideas

Hi John B123,

Was wondering if you have any suggestions for reducing the length of the Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Malaysia article? I was thinking of creating a separate article for the statistics section. But other similar Wikipedia articles on COVID-19 don't have similar articles devoted to statistics. It's unusual for a timeline article to have a lot of prose sections but that was when it was part of the COVID-19 pandemic in Malaysia article. Or should I discuss it with the other people working on the Malaysia COVID-19 related articles? Any advice? Andykatib 10:40, June 19, 2020 (UTC)

@Andykatib: Hi, there's quite a few COVID articles that are "too big" and need splitting, so you may have to be the trendsetter here. One way would be as you suggest, to split off the statistics. Another would be to split the article into months as the main timeline articles are, eg Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in December 2019. I think you're right bringing it up on the talk page, a WP:BOLD split would probably bring up objections. --John B123 (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi John B123, thanks for your advice. I agree it’s best to discuss it with the others on the talk page. Will see how it goes. Cheers. Andykatib (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

re your tag for more references: Miss Disco

I forgot to put in reference (now:12) that covers the all the remaining text in the Broodmare Section. And, I used the reference (1) in the lede to insert in the second paragraph of the Background Section (now:4). I did this because I have no idea how to set up a "repeat reference". Somewhere on Wikipedia I saw something but didn't copy it and was not successful finding it again nor how to do it on my own. If you could explain how to create a reference repeat setup, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Stretchrunner (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Stretchrunner: Hi. To re-use a reference you need to "name" the first occurrence of the reference, such as: <ref name="ref1">content</ref>. When you want to re-use the ref all you have to do is insert: <ref name="ref1" />. See WP:REFNAME for a fuller explanation. Regards --John B123 (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Didn't think it would be so easy! Stretchrunner (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Stretchrunner: No problem, glad to have been of help. Sometimes these things can seem daunting when you don't know how to do them. --John B123 (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

More footnotes tag: 1996 Direct Line International Championships – Singles Qualifying

Hi there - you added a "more footnotes" tag to a page I created (1996 Direct Line International Championships – Singles Qualifying). As the page is, in vast majority, not text - being the bracket for the competition - inline citations do not seem appropriate. This is consistent with all other pages for tennis tournaments. Please advise more specifically how this could be implemented in this case. Many thanks. WilliamF1two (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@WilliamF1two: Hi. It's always difficult to reference predominately non-prose pages. The guidelines on references don't really take pages like this into account. A lot of sports competition articles are expanded as the competition develops, with the results of individual matches or rounds added with references soon after they are played. In this case, as the page is being written after the competition with a complete set of results available in one document, it would be pointless adding the same reference to every round. I would suggest the best thing would be to add the reference to the end of the introductory sentence.

Generally, it's frowned on to rely on just one reference, although it looks as if your reference is the "official" results. It might be wise to add another couple of references if available to prevent someone tagging the article with {{One source}} in the future. Regards --John B123 (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

In-line citations for plots

Please see MOS:PLOTSOURCE: "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary." Thanks! Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kingoflettuce: And the next line from MOS:PLOTSOURCE is However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps discourage original research. --John B123 (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

No, the fact remains that 1) there is no need for in-line citations (encouraged in certain other scenarios doesn't mean it's mandatory), hence 2) it doesn't call for a refimprove tag and moreover 3) there is no original research (if that's what you're suggesting) Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks like original research in your interpretation of MOS:PLOTSOURCE; encouraged in certain other scenarios isn't what it says. --John B123 (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Zzz, don't be tedious John. "Does not need" is clear as day, case closed! Anything after that is secondary and not necessary. I'm saying (yes, I'm saying) in this scenario, ie the pages where you have improperly slapped refimprove tags, there is no need for in-line citations in the plot section & that is in line (no pun intended) w policy... Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I am getting the feeling I just told a new mother her baby was ugly. If you can't be civil and discuss things in an appropriate manner, please don't post on my talk page. --John B123 (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk of civility is rich when you're the one bringing in ugly baby analogies (and why mother as opposed to parent—is that casual misogyny I smell?) I'm just stating for the third time that the plot sections as they stand need no citations. This is well-supported by policy... I'd be happy to consider any concrete suggestions u may have but if you're just going to be trigger-happy w your Refimprove tags then no thanks Kingoflettuce (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Which bit of "please don't post on my talk page" are you having trouble understanding? --John B123 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Unfair

Hi im really rubbish at using talk pages i hope this is ok, i find it unfair that my article wasnt published yet many others are publsihed without sources, for example Hirdre-Faig and many other small settlements on Anglesey. Penmorfa is such a small settlement finding sources is difficult, i will try though. Mattcymru2 (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mattcymru2: - Apologies for not replying earlier, I have only just seen this. All content on Wikipedia need to be verified by citations - see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Hirdre-Faig was created in 2014 when the rules were either less stringent or weren't adhered to so much. Regards --John B123 (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, John B123. 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.

Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

SuspendThePres

What do you mean suspendthepres in not notable? 2019AlwaysLit (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@2019AlwaysLit: How is a Twitter account that re-tweets everything Donald Trump, the President of the United States, tweets notable? --John B123 (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

It is a notable experiment that has mentioned in several articles by notable companies

Catenella

Thanks. I don't know how to categorise! Thanks for your comment.Phycodrys (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Phycodrys: Hi, see Wikipedia:Categorization. I note somebody else has added a category to Catenella caespitosa, so I've marked it as reviewed. Regards --John B123 (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - I rely on somebody else to add the categoriz! Also the "Typopage" - if that's the correct name - will check . Thanks again.Phycodrys (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Speciesbox" ? - I think that's the word.Phycodrys (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Why this?

Why my wiki article The Cousins Thackeray isn't coming in Google search? It achieves WP:NBOOK criteria. --Krishna's flute (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Krishna's flute: - Hi. I don't really know as I don't work for Google. Possibly Goggle hasn't found the page yet as no other articles link to it. --John B123 (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Krishna's flute: I found it OK on Google in the UK just now. And I've added an infobox, uploaded the cover image, and done a few little edits. PamD 13:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I want to learn how did you do that.--Krishna's flute (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Draftspace

Thanks. --BRICK93 (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Robert Lee Durham

You had tagged this article for more sources when the article was undergoing through more changes. Now it has been finished. Can you mark it as reviewed? D4iNa4 (talk) 10:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@D4iNa4: Hi, I've marked the article as reviewed. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Trains articles

Hello, I noticed you added ratings to a couple of the Chinese railway station articles I added. I plan to add more routes and stations in the future, so shall I rate them all as stub class/low importance? Thanks NemesisAT (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@NemesisAT: Hi. If they are about the same length as the previous ones you have added then stub class is appropriate. If they are longer then they might be start class. Unless they are one of the main stations in a large city then they will be of low importance. If you are in any doubt about an individual article then I'm happy to have a look. Regards --John B123 (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@John B123: Thanks for this, yes I imagine they'll be a similar length. I have created articles before, but never got involved in a WikiProject. It'll save other editors' time if I rate the articles myself! NemesisAT (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@NemesisAT: Thanks, it will. --John B123 (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

1982–83 Espérance Sportive de Tunis season

Why, all the results and details in this site footballvintage.net and you can check by yourself. Hichem algerino (talk | contribs) 21:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hichem algerino: Hi. As written, the citation appears only to apply to the lead paragraph. The other sections have notes such as "Source: Competitions", which link to other sections of the page, not the external source. Also from Template:One source:

A single source is usually less than ideal, because a single source may be inaccurate or biased. Without other sources for corroboration, accuracy or neutrality may be suspect. By finding multiple independent sources, the reliability of the encyclopedia is improved.

See also WP:ONESOURCE. Regards --John B123 (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Please help

Thanks for your edit to Isaiah McKinnon. Can you please help me expand it? I want to nominate it for WP:DYK.VR _talk 18:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Hi. I'm afraid it's an area I don't really know a lot about, so can't really help. Good luck for the DYK. Regards --John B123 (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)