User talk:Largoplazo/Archives/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Please stop deleting facts from Wikipedia

You are abusing Wikipedia. The edit at Namecheap was a fact and it was not advertising. You deleted it and this can be regarded as vandalism. I linked out to a blog that proclaims this fact and this website itself does not appear to be a Domain sales website like Namecheap or others. The link to the article that I am referencing is exactly the same as the link to the tomsguide article before it. There is no difference between the two.

A website selling domain names is not a reliable source for statements like "is considered to be one of the cheapest domain registrars". Given the other links to the same website you've inserted into other articles, drawing attention to that website appears to be your primary motivation. Tom's Guide, in contrast, is a neutral source of balanced reviews, so it isn't "exactly the same" in any relevant sense. Largoplazo (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I see you've edited again but your IP address has changed. One of your edit summaries under the newer IP address: "The link is to a blog that proclaims this fact and this website itself does not appear to be a Domain sales website like Namecheap." (1) A blog is not a reliable source for verifying assertions. As though falsehoods are never found in blogs. (2) The website's home page makes it crystal clear that it's selling domain and associated services. (3) You claim not to know that that's the site's purpose but you're sufficiently taken with the site that you've inserted links to it in three different articles, and that's the only editing you've done here. Largoplazo (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The page has now been protected.

In addition to what I've said before, see WP:BRD about what to do when you add content to a web page and someone reverts you with a reason. Your approach isn't the correct one. Largoplazo (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

89.176.54.137‎

I blocked this IP. The outburst on Talk:Czech Republic‎ was immediately after expiration of their previous block for inappropriate comments on that same talkpage. DMacks (talk) 23:43, 16 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Largoplazo/Archives,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

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

18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Please I am pleading for reconsideration

Dear Wikipedia great admins and super moderators,

I am writing to make an apology for violating the rules and regulations of Wikipedia.

With no pride and haughty temperament, I have admitted wholly with my humble self that I have gone against the terms and conditions of Wikipedia. I offer my profound humble apology to the whole staff of Wikipedia for what I have done.

On this day (11 December 2020) notification bumped up on my screen and I found out that my websites; xclusivepop.com and xclusivesongs.com have been flagged and blacklisted. Honestly, I have no grumbles and I have admitted this's all I deserved for I violated the rules guiding Wikipedia by creating multiple accounts and involving in spams.

Please accept my deepest apologies for my mistake in regard to multiple accounts.

It was not my intention to create such an awkward and embarrassing situation for Wikipedia. My aim is to be part of Wikipedia communities that will contribute, not to cause damages.

In a humble apology, I plead the whole staff of Wikipedia to consider giving me a second chance and remove my website from the blacklist. I promise I shall remain ever obedient consistently so to give out a genuine and genius result to the world. I will be engulfed with pleasure if my request and apology are granted.

Please feel free to let me know your thoughts and concerns over this matter.

Sincerely,

Desmond Afam. Desmond Afam130 (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Desmond Afam130:, you have been blocked. Every time you create another account for the purpose of posting anything anywhere on Wikipedia, including my talk page, you are violating your block and breaking the same rule against WP:Sockpuppetry that got you blocked in the first place (well, that and spamming articles with links to a particular website). The only place you should be trying to communicate with anybody is on the talk page of your blocked account.

Moreover, spamming is not allowed. The only reason you would ask for the website to be removed from the blacklist is so you could start posting links to it again. No, that won't happen. Largoplazo (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear

Hi, Largoplazo. I thought perhaps the user was very young, I mean really young, but not according to their userpage. Sigh. I'll block if necessary, but not for a while yet. (I would e-mail you this remark, less enigmatically, if you had e-mail enabled, but you probably know what I'm talking about.) Bishonen | tålk 21:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I do, and that was a reasonable first guess on your part. The person clearly didn't get the point is all. At least the second time I used what's classified as a notice rather than a warning. Largoplazo (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

They've started removing some warnings (or notices) from their page now. Allowed, yes, but not a good sign. Bishonen | tålk 12:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I saw they left an inquiry at the help desk and got a nudge in what I hope will be a successful direction for them. Largoplazo (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, good nudge, but it hasn't helped. I've never blocked for pure CIR, but I suppose I may yet. They have now got a warning from yet another user — a very sharp and I suppose unkind warning, but.. relevant. Bishonen | tålk 23:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC).

Unkind warning leaver here--I suspect that, if all the user has said about themselves is true, that they may have some sort of psych/social deficiency. They may just be lonely or have OCD, but they are acting solely from emotional need, from what I see. If they persist and you block them, at least they will still have Facebook.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

It does seem like a case of no-fault-of-their-own WP:CIR. Largoplazo (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

गाँव जीवना

Can you explain why the English language Wikipedia is accepting articles not written in English, like गाँव जीवना? That seems very weird. The Banner talk 22:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@The Banner: I can't explain why Wikipedia accepts them because Wikipedia doesn't accept them! That doesn't mean they can be deleted under WP:Speedy deletion: they can't. There is a specific procedure, explained at WP:Pages needing translation into English. Basically, they get listed at that page, and they get a two-week grace period in case someone wants to translate them. If they haven't been translated after two weeks have gone by, then they can be put up for deletion either under WP:PROD or, if someone has already tried PRODding the page, under WP:AFD. One or another of the regulars at WP:PNT usually take care of that. Largoplazo (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The page can still be deleted for any of the other reasons that apply to all articles. That includes deletion under WP:CSD A10 if the article duplicates a topic already covered in an existing article. (That happens sometimes when someone translates an article that's already here and puts the translation here instead of on another Wikipedia. Or when someone copies in an article from another language's Wikipedia that covers a topic already covered here in English.) In addition, an article not in English can be speedily deleted (WP:CSD A2) if substantially the same article already exists in that language on the Wikipedia for that language. Largoplazo (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all. I have to use the slow procedure of AfD? The Banner talk 13:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@The Banner: I didn't create the process so there's nothing to be achieved by arguing over its merits with me. That's the process as we have it. It has led to some suitable additions to Wikipedia through translation (some of them by me).

An article left untranslated by the end of the grace period has to go through AFD only if someone has PRODded it once before (as someone did in this case), because there's an absolute prohibition on PRODding an article more than once. I don't know why there isn't a speedy deletion option for articles that remain untranslated after the grace period, but at this time there isn't. Largoplazo (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I have fixed the link to the disambiguation page that made it appear in de maintenance list. Now I will not see that eyesore any more. Problem solved, from my point of view. The Banner talk 19:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@The Banner: I saw you said you'd put a lot of effort into putting up the machine translation, so you restored it. Well, it's still a machine translation, which generally does more harm than good. See WP:MACHINETRANSLATION. Therefore, I've again restored the original language. If it isn't translated properly, it will be deleted. Largoplazo (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

No, I did not. I only removed the link to a disambiguation page. Due to reverts from others multiple times. The Banner talk 14:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@The Banner: My apologies, I see that you're correct. Largoplazo (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

That was me who kept machine-translating. I misread the instructions and thought the MT would help editors see what a POS the article is. I swear, it's a joke on the part of its socking creator, a college student.--Quisqualis (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

About titles, honorifics and appeal to popularity

Hello and greetings,

This is just for your kind info. Since previously you have participated in an inconclusive RfC discussion at this RfC in year going by, and since some related aspects are under discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Titles, honorifics and appeal to popularity may be you want to join in to share your inputs or opinions.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, merry Christmas and have a happy new year

We had a few past disagreements and i want to say sorry f0r being rude and say have a merry Christmas and a happy new year THEREALhistoryandgames (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Replacing the foreign-language spam EL

Hello Largoplazo,

I am aware that foreign-language sources are acceptable. However, there have been numerous additions of this Vietnamese website by unregistered WP users to many WP articles. Some relate to sales figures in Vietnam, which I assume are correct and do not bother to check. However, others have been removed by a number of different editors. This is because they have been deemed Xeoto.com.vn links as spam. This is the case for the addition to the Sedan (automobile) article. The page has a very elementary explanation of the difference between coupe and sedan (which does not contribute much to the WP article) and then the text continues to promote Honda cars. In other words, the provided "reference" link is mostly spam, but in Vietnamese.

Moreover, please also review the entire website to check if it up to WP standards for use as an authoritative source. The following is the translation of their business description:

Xeoto.com.vn 's goal is to provide people with detailed information about Vehicles with a website where people can chat, rate, and discuss about X e cars and motorcycles with others. aspirational, discover new Cars to see photos and videos through community contributions and make friends.

I hope this will explain why I removed the contribution made by 171.241.90.225. I noted the change as "foreign-language" when it should have been described as improper "spam" EL and also a non-authoritative "enthusiast" source.

Cheers and Happy Holidays! CZmarlin (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@CZmarlin: Greetings! That certainly does explain it well, and I agree with that basis for removal. Thanks for writing. Regards, Largoplazo (talk) 13:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Complain

Why you vanished my wiki page, bustard..... Idyllicmatz (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

1996Larry

Hi Largoplazo, I have moved the report to WP:ANI to allow the user to respond to the report. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for disruptive editing

Hello there, Largoplazo. This is 1996Larry here. I want to apologize again for my disruptive editing. I generally would never edit a page or add content to it without providing a reliable source. – 1996Larry, 19:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

email Id pls

Hi Largoplazo, Thank you for editing the page Pop Shalini. There are a lot of missing infos that I would like to share so you can update the page. Pls forward me your mail id so I can send you the material.

Warm Regards, Nakshi — Preceding unsigned comment added by NakshatraShinde (talk • contribs) 07:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Szekely language

Exactly my point, you pointed very good. So, why not the article to explain this? To speak about history, evolution of the language etc. Why POV-pushers like Hungarian editors just redirect the article, when it should be explained like you said??? Magysze (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

In Unio Trium Nationum the offical documents from that era it was stated that 3 nations with 3 languages etc. One of them was szekelyMagysze (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Magysze: Either you're arguing that not being a separate language from Hungarian is a reason why there should be a separate article for what Székely people speak (which doesn't make sense), or you think I made a point that I didn't make.

As others have pointed out: Unless reliable sources consider it a separate language, then when you claim it is one and that Wikipedia should treat it as one, you're the POV-pusher.

The one document you just cited above may assert it to be a different language, but it isn't a piece of scholarly linguistic research, and it could simply be a misstatement if it does say that they're different languages. Also, it's only one source. Largoplazo (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I see, but still why they don't develop the article instead of redirect it? Magysze (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Magysze: Several people are explaining it to you, and I don't understand why you don't understand the explanations. A summary is: because there's no separate language to write about, and you aren't providing reliable sources to say that there is one or to verify anything you might write in the article to distinguish it from Hungarian if it is a separate language. Largoplazo (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I will open a new article to say about controversy on it. As long as some people define themselves as Szeklers that speak Szekely language then it should reflect this. There are 2 people different: Szekely and Hungarians. And 2 languages apart. Magysze (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

They were estimated to number about 860,000 in the 1970s and are officially recognized as a distinct minority group by the Romanian government. Magysze (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Peoples are peoples. Languages are languages. Multiple peoples frequently speak the same language.

There can't be an article about a controversy without reliable sources showing that there's a controversy and supporting whatever the article might say about it. Largoplazo (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

That means that lost Szekely language as a result of complete Magyarisation? No one can speak about Szekely language as a lost language? Magysze (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Again: There can't be an article about anything without reliable sources showing that it exists and supporting whatever the article might say about it.

Also, you seem to have completely changed the topic from your original one, which was your claim that Székely people now speak a language different from Hungarian.

I'm tired of talking about it, anyway. I've said as much as there is to be said, and I tend to stop once I find that I've already answered everything new that the other person brings up. You're already carrying on this conversation in two other places. That's enough. Largoplazo (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

travel insurance

HI Largoplazo, thanks for your comments. The TI page didn't have any referecne to pre-existing conditions and the waiver that comes free if people buy wihtin a timeframe - hence why added it — Preceding unsigned comment added by CA17ARY (talk • contribs) 15:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@CA17ARY: The content you added read as an advertisement for policies with a particular feature, extolling its benefits, singling out one product for discussion, and providing two links to the same commercial website. This isn't appropriate for an objectively, neutrally written encyclopedia. See WP:NPOV and WP:EL. Largoplazo (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Lies

It was not a hoax article. --Polegåarden (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The airline doesn't exist, by any evidence discernible through Google, and the airline codes you claimed for it belong to other airlines so, yes, by definition it was a hoax article. Largoplazo (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Revert of Bob McPhee's Death post

I see you reverted Bob McPhee's death because you couldn't find a source. Fair enough as he just passed away yesterday. I will repost once his obituary is published in the Calgary Herald. I support Wikipedia's vigilance so thanks. Never gave it a thought but I agree totally. Jeffkov

@Jeffkov: Thanks for understanding! I have no reason to doubt the news, but Verifiability is a Wikipedia policy, and this site has certainly had plenty of edits marking people dead when they weren't. Regards, Largoplazo (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

OK there is not a front page article in the Calgary Herald which I have referenced. https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/bob-mcphee-titan-of-calgary-arts-scene-dies-of-cancer He was a superb guy and left us a little too soon.

Bullet Fee

Do me a favour. Take a look at this article and tell me what you think. I personally think it's bullshit and should go. Hanoi Road (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hanoi Road: I restored the sources. The comments you left when you removed them were mistaken. I rescued two sources from the Internet Web Archive—and found that the CBS one was a reprint of the Washington Monthly one, so I removed it. The others in English, including the ones about China, all mention the bullet fee, whether or not they used that phrase. Largoplazo (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've researched this a little, and can cute many counter-sources which state bluntly that this is fiction. It's a question of reliability. Washington Monthly? It's hardly the Washington Post. And this issue is sensitive. Hanoi Road (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hanoi Road: I was going to say that the place, then, to raise this issue is the article's talk page, but then I found you've been there, raising the issue several times since last July. But you haven't listed any of the sources you've alluded to here. If sources exist to support its deletion as a hoax article, then you ought to initiate a deletion discussion, per WP:Articles for deletion. However, if reliable sources suffice to establish it as a notable hoax, the outcome could be that someone rewrites it as an article about the hoax. Which you could do directly, instead of calling for its deletion, if you have sources to support one and are so inclined. Largoplazo (talk) 10:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how did you happen to choose me to discuss this with? Have we crossed paths before? Largoplazo (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

No, we've not crossed paths. Found a correction you'd made to something which I found very insightful, and just wanted an opinion. Hanoi Road (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Be more careful with your reverts

Your edit summary suggests you wanted to undo a tiny change of facts, but you in fact reverted a lot more than you probably realised. Please be more careful with the revert feature next time. EditorInTheRye (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@EditorInTheRye: Sorry about that, thanks for the note. Largoplazo (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Erased links

Please check this page and the Faro Airport Transfers article, every link (for private advertising) must be erased from this article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faro_Airport#Faro_Airport_Transfers

Thank You

• There was the one link, in that section, about which I agreed with you. I've removed that section. But I don't see any other similar links. Largoplazo (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeffed sock

Hi there, User:92.14.210.82 is patently the latest WP:QUACKing IP WP:SOCK of WP:INDEFfed User:92.14.216.40. They pop up periodically under a new IP, pursuing campaigns in a common vein. The course I take is per WP:DENY, WP:REVERTBAN and WP:EVADE. It's counterproductive and futile to engage and any point they reckon they have is neither here nor there, unless and until they successfully appeal their block. They are not allowed to edit so it is proper to simply revert their edits. All the best. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mutt Lunker: OK, I did see that it was mentioned in the reversion edit summaries, but thanks for the affirmative note on this. I'll do likewise in the future. In the meantime, I had already decided after my last edit that I wouldn't even look at any further input by that user, to avoid the temptation to continue responding. Largoplazo (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Sarsu, Bihar

Hello, Largoplazo. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sarsu, Bihar, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Undid revision 1021268057 by Largoplazo (talk) - This is a genuine correction, the wrong person is tagged, and I the know the real actor. I am also in the process of fixing the name tags in IMDb and other websites.

Hi,

I have added a link to a cast member's name in the list of actors of the movie "The Namesake". I see that you had reverted my edit recently. It is okay since I didn't use a wiki account, so it might have seemed illegitimate. But I ensure you that the wrong person is currently tagged in websites and slowly but steadily I am working on fixing it. So I will be obliged if you do not revert the link I added to the actor's name.

Thank you.

@Akarshik: Sorry, but as I wrote the first time, see WP:ELPOINTS. There's no external linking like that from article bodies. Largoplazo (talk) 03:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks I just added her full name without any external link now. Akarshik (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

That ends the positive, motivational portion of my presentation on the substantive question.

Thanks for the chuckle, I'll try to remember that one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thanks for the feedback, I'm delighted! Sometimes I get in a mood, especially when it comes to that talk page. Big smile here now. Regards, Largoplazo (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Arabia Peninsula tribe

It is true that Islamic Scripture are written in Arabic. But the Arab tribes are in Jordan and Iraq, and not only in the Arabian Peninsula. referred to the Levant before Islam as being within as (the Arabia Petra). Also, the Arab tribes are not only in the modern Arabian Peninsula Samlaxcs (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

"Protagonists"

Hi. After your edit to The Chronicles of Narnia I did some quick checking, and it would appear that the Protagonist article continues to say that a work can only have one protagonist largely because you keep making sure it does. Just so you know, regardless of the origin of the word, that is not how it is currently used in English, and Wikipedia follows current English usage, not idiosyncratic etymological purisms. —VeryRarelyStable 04:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@VeryRarelyStable: What's guiding me is my sense of what an encyclopedia is, and what an encyclopedia article is. Keeping in mind that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, I'm conscious of keeping an article on its topic and avoiding digressions into alternative meanings. The article Protagonist is essentially about the topic that the classical term refers to, which is distinctive and differs largely from stories that have two or five or 20 characters that are all merely important.

I think that in an encyclopedia our primary interest is in being informative. We ought to make the distinction between the more precise uses assigned to a term and loose definitions casually associated with them by people who are less well informed about the field to which the term belongs. Making that distinction affects what the article can validly say. Let's say we start with the article covering only protagonists based on the classical sense of that word, and we say X, Y, and Z that are all true about the role of a protagonist. Then somebody changes the lead to say "A protagonist is any important character in a story, whether there's one or 20 of them." Then, boom, all of X, Y, and Z may no longer apply to this alternative topic, also called "protagonist", with which the original topic has been replaced, because all of them may pertain to the very specific story form in which a single person has the stand-out role. So we have to remove X, Y, and Z. And then we no longer have an article about the classical protagonist.

An exaggerated comparison would be if someone replaced the lead in the article Blue with a paragraph about sadness and, after that, all of the content relating to light and color was accordingly replaced in bits and pieces with content about mood and tragedy—leaving us without an article on the cover. But I don't think it's a complete exaggeration. After all, there really is a point to the focus on the protagonist-driven form, with much to be said about it that simply doesn't apply to all of the individual significant characters in a story that has lots of them. All of that gets diluted or driven out if the article tries to be about every sense of the term.

Having said, that I believe that the question of using the term in its looser sense elsewhere is a separate matter.

• If it is used that way, then I think it's inappropriate to link it to the Protagonist article for the same reason that the word "blue" used in the sense of "sad" shouldn't be linked to Blue: because the article's topic isn't the one that the word is being used to refer to.
• I recommend in general that we strive to avoid casual uses of words as the ambiguity involved can create confusion. I don't know why "four protagonists" would be preferable to "four main characters" or "four lead roles" or some similar formulation. (If this is a special case because, as I think you communicated to me, Lewis himself used the term for the children, then I have less of an argument against using it here. But, in that case, insofar as its an idiosyncratic use of the term contrary to its classical meaning, linking it to Protagonist is confusing rather than illuminating, so it shouldn't be linked.

What do you think? Largoplazo (talk) 06:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree entirely at almost every point.

• First, I apologize for the misunderstanding: no, Lewis did not refer to the Pevensie children as his "protagonists". He was of the generation of literature scholars who said "hero" or "heroine" rather than "protagonist", which gets a little awkward when he's discussing Paradise Lost and having to call Satan the "hero". (This usage has now fallen far enough out of use that it would no longer be appropriate for a Wikipedia article.) What I was referring to was the fact that he wrote an entire book on how words change their meanings over literary time; it's called Studies in Words.
• Second, no, "protagonist" in contemporary usage is not simply a synonym for "important character". In a plot-driven story, a protagonist is a character whose goals drive the plot; in a character-driven story, a protagonist is a character whose character development is the focus of the story. You can have more than one of those without all the main characters falling under the term. Aang and Zuko are protagonists of Avatar: The Last Airbender in a way that Suki and Uncle Iroh are not. Jon Snow and Daenerys Targaryen are protagonists of A Song of Ice and Fire in a way that Tywin Lannister and Robert Baratheon are not. This usage allows for a degree of precision which "main character" does not, without excluding villain-protagonists and antiheroes the way "hero" would – hence the utility of the term. If we insist that only Aang can be the protagonist of Avatar: The Last Airbender, what term shall we use for the thing that Zuko is but Uncle Iroh is not? And which of the half-dozen or more candidates is the protagonist of A Song of Ice and Fire?
• Thirdly, I don't think your comparison is fair. The primary referent of the word "blue" in contemporary English usage is the colour, and so people will come to the article Blue primarily to read about the colour, and will link to the article primarily to refer to the colour. The emotional meaning is secondary. This is not the case with the Protagonist article; most English-speakers use the word in the sense I have just described, and the "sole primary character" meaning is a historical-etymological curiosity. If I might make a comparison of my own, your position is analogous to someone insisting that the article Pink must only refer to the flower, not the colour, on the grounds that once upon a time the flower was the primary referent and the colour was named after it.
• The solution to your concern about the original meaning being "lost" or "diluted" is childishly simple. Expand the Protagonist article to cover the contemporary usage, but cordon off a section titled "In classical literature" or what not, just below the lede, in which you explain the classical usage.
• I think you have WP:NOTDICT all twisted around. Looking up that article I find it has a heading titled "Wikipedia is not a usage guide," which begins: "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, phrases etc. 'should' be used (but it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to discuss how a word is used)." How the word "protagonist" is used is the contemporary usage, which allows more than one protagonist per story. In its present form, the Protagonist article is effectively a treatise on how (some think) the word should be used – in defiance of WP:NOTDICT.

—VeryRarelyStable 06:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Derek Currie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Winger.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

On removing information

On Punics you reverted an edit despite it having encyclopedic coverage. You misunderstand WP:NOT#DICTIONARY information that has encyclopedic information onto the subject is perfectly acceptable. As an example Mot (god) has an entire section on etymology, plenty of articles have sections of etymology if it relates to the subject. Here it does very much so, as it shows the history of the word "Punic" in fact Phoenicia the origin of Punic has an etymology section. The revert therefore is unjustified in my view (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry, but it's as though you've read nothing I'd written because you're repeating what I already responded to and disagreed with or explained. To the extent that you're trying to change my mind, you'd need to incorporate my arguments into your follow-ups. If you'd like to solicit input from others, the place to do that is on the article's talk page. Largoplazo (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the Hyperlink is currently fine enough to provide information as to the origin of the term Punic. However I don't think you understand the origin of the word "Punic" comes from Phoneticians, the Romans would later fight multiple wars with the Carthaginians as they were known thereby the word "Punic" entered Latin as a word for "treacherous". You misunderstand how consensus works, it's not something you can just decide when something goes on the page, and hold it indefinitely, currently the article is just in the stable version until we can figure this out. I don't think this will be resolved soon, so I am just asking for a third opinion, although I do think maybe we can reach consensus just based off the Wikitonary link as I do think it's adequate if the reader wants more information. Thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Parte Zaharra

Hello! Alde Zaharra is just a general way of naming any old town in Basque, whereas Parte Zaharra is the local name for the Donostia old town. They are both correct in euskara batua (standard Basque), but Parte Zaharra is the only traditional Basque name for the Donostia old town.

Koldo Mitxelena was very acid in his criticism and often cryptic in his writings. I guess that in that sentence he refers to those Basque nationalists that do not speak Basque but want to show Basque names as different as possible from Spanish names. Mitxelena was a Basque nationalist himself (a member of PNV first, then of Eusko Alkartasuna), but sharply critical of those Basque nationalists that do not speak Basque. --Xabier Armendaritz^(talk) 07:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Xabier Armendaritz:Thanks, I appreciate the elaboration! Very interesting. Largoplazo (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Credit Card

"Has nothing to do with the section's topic, "‎Vintage, old, and unique credit cards as collectibles", and it's false anyway, as an invitation-only card restricted to the super-rich is the opposite of democratization. "

There are companies that produce collectible premium credit cards that are accessible to everyone. They convert plastic cards to metal. Thus they have democratized access to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Ministry (talk • contribs) 15:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Wiki Ministry: OK. But none of that is conveyed in the text I removed, which discussed cards that aren't accessible to everyone and that aren't made with collectibility in mind.

Besides that, I don't understand what converting plastic to metal has to do with it, or how a metal credit card works, or why a company would first make a card out of plastic before turning it into metal instead of just directly making it out of metal, or what it even means to convert plastic to metal. Can you shed some light on what you meant by that? Largoplazo (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)