If I left you a message; please answer on your talk page, using {{ping|Username}}, {{reply to|Username}} or {{u|Username}} in your response, or add {{talkback|Username}} or {{whisperback|Username}} to my talk page. And if you leave me a message; I will answer on my talk page, using {{ping|Username}} or {{u|Username}} in my response, or add {{talkback|Username}} or {{whisperback|Username}} to your talk page.
I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your talk page (or the article talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply.
There is a scam underway, targeting editors who attempt to publish Wikipedia article(s); see WP:SCAM for more information. If you have been approached by someone offering to create, accept or otherwise help publish an article in exchange for a payment, please e-mail the details to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. This may help others in a similar situation to avoid becoming victims of this vile scam. PS: If that someone claims to be me, they emphatically are not!
If I declined your draft at AfC, and you came to ask me to re-review it, please don't (unless I expressly said you could) – I feel it's fairer to the other drafts that yours goes back to the pool... and probably also fairer to your draft that someone else reviews it next. (And if you just came to tell me you've made changes, that's great, but no need to inform me.)
If you still want to leave me a message about a draft or article, I'd appreciate if you could please link to the page in question, so I don't have to go hunting for it. Ta.
Top AfC Editor
The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2024 Top Editor
Hey there, I wanted to bring to admin attention that there appears to be some kind of edit war going on at the BLP Kay Granger over wether certain information is reliable or not with multiple IPs involved. I think the page could benefit from temporary semi-protection while the content dispute is worked out on the talk page. I already requested it but there is a backlog and the edits are coming in very quickly, so it would be good if you can look into protecting the page. Thanks! -- Lenny Marks (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wishing you a Merry Christmas filled with love and joy, a Happy Holiday season surrounded by warmth and laughter, and a New Year brimming with hope, happiness, and success! 🎄🎉✨ Baqi:) (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your input. I'm not sure whether this is the most appropriate procedure, but I'd like to solicit your further help and advice regarding requirements for this article (about a publicly-accessible miniature railway). These appear to relate primarily to notability, and its confirmation via independent references. The latest version does include 7 references. In fact, the railway has a high external profile, at least in the Cambridge area, and is extremely popular during public access days. It also has a long and interesting history, with public usage dating back over 60 years. The submission provides detailed confirmation about these points. As you're doubtless aware, there are many Wiki articles dedicated to (rideable) miniature railways, most of which have fewer references. Just to give a snapshot (of UK railways), these include the Abbeydale Railway (2 refs), the Barton House Railway (4 refs), the Caldecotte Railway (3 refs), the Eaton Park Railway (3 refs), the Barking Park Railway (4 refs), the Conwy Valley Railway (2 refs), the Swanley New Barn Railway (1 ref) etc etc - in fact, most articles of this type have fewer references than the 7 in the submitted version (and it's probably fair to say that, in many cases, the references that they do have are rather less 'independent' than those in the submitted article). In any event, your further guidance and assistance would be very much appreciated. BillClyne (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start with your last point, the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument (which, alas, is a fallacy). There are all sorts problematic articles among the nearly 7m in the English-language Wikipedia. Many are insufficiently referenced, some haven't a single source, but that doesn't mean we should create more such problems. Some of these articles may go back to the early days of Wikipedia, when it was thought more important to create articles than to worry about such niceties as verifiability and notability. Some pre-date our current reviewing processes, and were possibly created without anyone reviewing or 'accepting' them in any sense. As this is an entirely volunteer-based project, we can only deal with issues that we become aware of, and if no one flags up a problem article, it can stay in the encyclopaedia sometimes for years. (If you have come across articles that have insufficient sources, you're very welcome to either improve them, or highlight the issues with appropriate maintenance templates, or if neither of these is possible, commence deletion proceedings.) Be that as it may, all new articles must comply with our current policies and requirements.
Of these, notability is perhaps the most fundamental. Notability in the Wikipedia context does not mean 'well-known' or 'famous' or 'long-standing' or 'popular' or anything of that ilk. It means, in simple terms, that 'sufficient independent and reliable secondary sources have previously published significant coverage about the subject'. This goes to the heart of what Wikipedia articles are, and how they're meant to be written: they mostly summarise what other sources have previously published. It therefore follows that if no (or not sufficient) such sources exist, then their coverage cannot be summarised, and no Wikipedia article can be based on them.
Hello, I'm still confused on the reason you thought it should be denied. The sources I am using HAVE to be "hyperlocal", due t it being about a school club there aren'tnational articles about some schools latin club lol. Also.. the need for significance; we have that because the point was to inform about what the club is and that it is arguably the oldest latin club in the nation. I know I seem stuck in my own sort of thought-bubble on this but I am just looking for some input on how I can get this into a publishable status. Thanks
So your saying that the club itself isn't really big enough to be a stand alone article? I also have no clue how to merge it with the school article (I'm really new at this). Does that mean I somehow add a whole new section to the existing wiki page on just Pinkerton Academy? Also I think your misinterpreting my lacking knowledge as somehow "blowing it out of proportion", I was just assigned to this project and am still sort of figuring out how to use Wikipedia. Aperson118 (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
