User talk:QuicoleJR/Archives/2023/April

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hey, real quick just wanted to know what was wrong with the dab page I created for Ferdinand II of Spain? I'm sure I did something stupid as I often do, but I can't quite figure it out. Thanks, Estar8806 (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Ferdinand II already exists as a disambiguation page. This article is therefore unnecessary. Sorry. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

No worries. However, I would also point out that Ferdinand I and Ferdinand I of Spain also exist separately. Thanks for the quick response. Estar8806 (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

That is a fair point. After a little thinking, I decided to retract the speedy deletion. Sorry for the inconvenience. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

No inconvenience and certainly no need for an apology. Glad we were able to sort this out. Estar8806 (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed that you added a stub template to Baker Hot Springs, however the article was already assessed as a Start class. I went ahead and added more content and citations, but please make sure to check the article talk pages before adding a template, which has been removed. You can also of course improve/expand stubs and start articles to help build the encyclopedia. Happy editing! Netherzone (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

If I knew about the talk page, I would have reassessed it to stub-class. I'm glad you added more content. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

FYI, the content you added makes it start-class in my opinion. I use the stub/start requirements of WP:DESTUB50K. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, @QuicoleJR, Every article has a talk page associated with it (except some very new articles).

Wikipedia:Content assessment is a much better, more detailed guide to article assessment, rather than the destub competition "challenge" which is a contest, not a guideline. The shortcut to the content assessment guidelines is: WP:ASSESS.

The article was indeed Start Class before your reassessment to a stub; additionally it had 6 citations (now has 8). Start class criteria, as defined by community consensus is:

An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources. Y; The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following: A useful picture or graphic Y; Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic Y;A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic Y; Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article Y.

Not all short articles are stubs, this one checked all five criteria from WP guidelines. If you are interested in de-stubbing, you could try adding sources and content to stubs you come across, rather than tagging them without doing the necessary work for quality article improvement. Hope that this is helpful information! Please don't hesitate to ask if you have questions. Happy editing. Netherzone (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I chose my stub-class system per Wikipedia:Stub#How big is too big?, which says that there is no set point where a stub stops being a stub, and that it is up to editor interpretation. Which guideline is to be followed? QuicoleJR (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi! When I was a new editor I was directed to follow WP:ASSESS, which I find useful and detailed. I usually don't go by word count, but rather I look for elements in the article. In this case, it's a short article, however it has reliable, independent sources; a photo, an infobox, subheadings (sections); links to other articles as well as incoming links (not an orphan). I know it's confusing when different information is found in different places on WP, I guess that is just one of the hazards of a collaborative crowd-sourced encyclopedia. Cheers, Netherzone (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

In light of the additional sourcing and expansion, do you still believe the article should be deleted? Cbl62 (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

No. I stopped monitoring that one after a few days, thanks for bringing this to my attention. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Question: Why withdraw the AfD? I think you were literally right on the money - despite being a well-written article in theory, it has nothing in the vein of WP:SIGCOV. It is a Good Article, but a non-notable one. I would have easily voted merge. Kung Fu Man was incorrect in their assertion that you should have taken it to GAR and BD2142 was also incorrect that "notability has already been vetted". Not so shockingly, the article became a GA in 2009 when standards were massively lower. Its GAR at Talk:Astaroth (Soulcalibur)/GA1 hardly involved any vetting besides a simple once-over, and Kung Fu Man was the original user who brought it to GA, also rather unsurprisingly. I suggest undoing the withdrawal. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course, the rationale could stand to be a bit better. Like "all secondary sources found are trivial", because it demonstrably does have secondary sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

How do I do that? I still think it should go. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I also did that to Wikipedia :Articles for deletion/Nightwolf (2nd nomination) by reverting the page and afd log. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 21:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Did I do it right? QuicoleJR (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm: @GlatorNator: Un-withdrew. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I wonder why you tagged most of the articles notability template except Soma Cruz. That alone is worst than Astaroth (which was recently merged now). GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Did not notice that one. Tagged it. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Side note: Why do so many of the older character GAs, like Astaroth and Soma Cruz, use quotes from the games as references? QuicoleJR (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe because their standard that time was downgraded. I'll recommend sending it to afd, but be sure to provide better rationale if you will. Regards. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 16:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I think I will pass for now, since I worry about the backlash if I nominate another GA anytime soon. Would support deletion if it was nominated, though. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Alright. I guess do the one that isn't a GA article with better rationale only if you will. Regards. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 16:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

To answer your question, you can cite dialogue from the game for the sake of explaining plot or other elements. Those references don't contribute to notability but let the reader understand more context of a statement within the article's main body, and shouldn't be used in the reception section except in very rare cases.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Just a thought, but the info you added to San Rafael, California might be a better fit at San Rafael City Schools. Joyous! Noise! 18:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I was considering nominating that for deletion. Unsourced and seems non-notable. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The school district? I mean, you can try, but school districts generally are perceived as notable at deletion discussions. Joyous! Noise! 19:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

It has been nominated. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm wary of the optics of restoring my own CSD tag, but policy does explicitly say that G criteria apply to drafts. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 22:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Will self-revert. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Giving a head's up, but after burning the midnight oil I redid a reception section from complete scratch and cited appropriate sources. It should pass SIGCOV and WP:N, but given it was your nomination last time felt it suitable to let you know and make sure you're okay with the restoration.-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. Not perfect yet, but enough for me to hold off from voting in the AfD. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)