User talk:Spinningspark/Archive 31

This user has opted out of talkbacks

• If you want to discuss an article or other page with me, please provide a link to it
  
  
• Please do not post talkback templates on my page or copy back my own comments. If I left you a message I will have watchlisted your page so talk to me there.

Cultivar reverts

I see you've reverted a number of the PRODs I've placed on cultivars, with the rationale that there are WP:ATDs. Please see WT:PLANTS#cultivars, where there is a reasonable consensus from WikiProject participants that cultivars are not notable, and where no one has objected to my PRODs. As all of the PROD-tagged cultivars are hybrids of two species, it is not possible to simply merge & redirect them, as you cannot redirect a page to two pages. Creating lists of non-notable cultivars to merge these articles to is also not suitable, as it would basically be replicating the cultivar registries in a violation of WP:NOTSTATS. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

From what I could see, the species articles already contain long lists of cultivars. The one piece of information in all these hybrid stubs that could be merged is the identity of the other parent species. If a list of hybrids is encyclopaedic, then a list of the hybrid's parents is also encyclopaedic. Thus I am at WP:PRESERVE for this piece of information. By the way, all these lists are redlinked. If you don't want people endlessly creating these stubs you should unlink them. A redlink is an encouragement to create an article. That's their very purpose. SpinningSpark 19:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

That's such a good point. Having lists of non-notable cultivars at the species and genus level is totally WP:UNDUE considering that the cultivars are individually not notable, and it encourages people to mass-create articles on non-notable topics. I will remove all of the lists from the species and genus articles, redlinks and all. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, that is not what I just suggested. SpinningSpark 19:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Then what are you suggesting? Because I see a statement that basically amounts to you saying that these stubs should be kept because they're mentioned at the species articles, which is not a criteria for inclusion I've ever heard of, and then an admonishment that I should remove the redlinks because they encourage article creation. A merge is not technically possible in the case of a hybrid, because an article cannot be redirected to two parents, and there is not really an objective criteria to determine which parent species to redirect to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Preserving information is not the same as preserving stubs. SpinningSpark 19:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

A pithy response that doesn't answer the question, which tells me that you don't actually have a plan for preserving the information, you just disputed the PRODs as a knee-jerk response. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

No, my sesponse was short because there was somewhere else I needed to be in a hurry. I thought what I was suggesting was fairly obvious. The parentage information (the only unique information not already elsewhere on Wikipedia in most cases) could be added (along with the cited source) to the relevant entries on the list of cultivars on species pages, thus cross-referencing the two species. This information is in the stub infobox, not the article text. I wouldn't have thought that there would be an attribution issue with this, the edits could be made under your own name by extracting them directly from the source. But if necessary, the pages could be preserved as a talk page subpage, possibly all merged on to a single page, which would then allow deletion of the mainspace pages. SpinningSpark 09:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated the first ten in a bundled AfD nomination here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tillandsia 'Feather Duster'. I didn't ping you directly because I didn't want to appear to be singling you out, but I would welcome continuing the discussion there. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, much easier just to have them deleted than to do the hard work of preserving the encyclopaedic information. I'm not going to waste my time fighting this. Obviously the stubs can't be justified as standalones so the AFD is going to be approved. I would volunteer to help preserve the information, but I'm not going to devote a huge block of time to do it by myself in the teeth of determined opposition. But I really think you should read WP:PRESERVE as I think you have forgotten what that says. Our core task here is to build up encyclopaedic information, not tear it down for bureaucratic reasons. SpinningSpark 09:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Premeditated Chaos: in case you have stopped watching this page. SpinningSpark 12:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• It's downright rude of you to assert that I'm being lazy by nominating those articles for deletion and that I don't understand WP:PRESERVE. What possible encyclopedic value exists in the bare sentence "'X' is a hybrid cultivar of the genus Tillandsia in the Bromeliad family," especially considering that it's sourced solely to a user-generated and therefore unreliable database? What is there to preserve that meets our verifiability guidelines? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• And it's downright disingenuous of you to imply that I am trying to preserve non-notable permastubs. I am not – I have consistently talked about preserving the information, not the articles but you stubbornly refuse to get the point. Of course parentage of cultivars is encyclopaedic information. This is the first time you have raised the issue of source reliability to me. Previously, the conversation (and your prod nominations) have focused entirely on notability. That is what I have been responding to. From the sources website The BSI is the only International Cultivar Registration Authority for Bromeliaceae, appointed by the International Society for Horticultural Science's Commission for Nomenclature and Cultivar Registration. So it is not immediately obvious to me that they don't do any checking. Of course you have to write to them to register something. That doesn't prove anything. SpinningSpark 16:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Their rules of registration show that they do some checking. Photographs must be provided to show that the cultivar exists and has unique features (which must also be described). Although some trust is placed in growers to be honest, their rules and advice seem quite extensive. They don't let in purely made up stuff or plants that are not truly different. SpinningSpark 16:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) If you'd actually read the AfD rationale, you'd have seen that the argument I laid out there comprehensively discusses both the notability of the individual stubs and the verifiability of the information contained within them. In any case, if you look at the BCR website in any depth, it's evident that they do little if any quality control or scrutiny on submissions. On their general information page, they invite submissions from anyone even if they don't have full details about the plant they've acquired. "Why not take a photograph and give me as much detail as possible (and a new name instead of the grex formula) and I'll put it in the Bromeliad Cultivar Registry."
  Asking for photos and a text-based description is meaningless in the age of photoshop. They don't ask for seed or cutting samples, they don't mention testing of any kind, submission isn't restricted to verified breeders, it's just "hey anyone send in a form and we'll put it up." In other words, it is entirely taken on good faith that the plant exists as described and actually has the ancestry in question. That is clearly problematic from the point of view of verifiability, and allow me to suggest that you need to read WP:USERGENERATED if you can't understand why that might be so. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Why was this article deleted?

I noticed that you deleted the Gurobi article for having "no credible indication of importance." But I wish this article had not been deleted: this software package is frequently used in other mathematical optimization software packages (such as GAMS, Pyomo, and Mathematica), so it seems obviously notable. Jarble (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jarble: "No credible claim of importance" is a much lesser test than notability. It failed that test because quite simply the article makes no such claim. But even if I were to restore the article and send it for a full deletion debate, in its current state, it would still likely get deleted on notability grounds because all the sources are to the product's own website. Do you have any sources that establish notability? If so, I might restore it for you. Note that your claim that it is notable because it is used in other notable packages is a WP:NOTINHERITED argument. Such arguments are always rejected in deletion debates. See this page for a brief summary of the kind of sources you need to find. SpinningSpark 09:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Sock

With regard to this: Please have a loo at the SPI where the use has been confirmed as a sock (it's just a matter of time before they are blocked). Best, M.Bitton (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Deleted now. Sorry, I should have spotted that, I only looked at the confirmed category, which is where the link in the template goes to. SpinningSpark 22:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Electrical Telegraph

Hey, just wanted to ask you before touching this article since you seem to be fairly over-represented in edits and talk. The opening paragraph starts in past-tense, outright framing it as something that existed in the past and no longer existing now. However, that's manifestly silly, telegrams are still used by the millions every year, even other pages like Worldwide use of telegrams by country point that out, though that obviously isn't a source. Regardless, I was wondering how this slipped through the cracks for so long, since it isn't a recent edit, and if the opening paragraph can be re-framed to not mislead the reader like it currently does. I apologize for everything I am doing wrong, I am obviously not an editor as my lack of account shows. Hence wanting to ask someone closely involved with the article.73.229.90.255 (talk) 11:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Telegrams nowadays are pretty much never sent by telegraphy. The telegraph infrastructure is long dead and gone. The only thing modern telegrams have in common with the old telegraphy is the personal delivery service. SpinningSpark 11:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, is there a difference between electrical telegraph systems and Telex? Telegraph services still use Telex infrastructure, at least here in the US, but I have no idea if Telex lines are different from electrical telegraphy lines.73.229.90.255 (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I doubt that there is any PTT in the world which will rent you a Telex line as such (or maybe they will, but you will pay through the nose for it). Users can, of course, connect a telex machine to a telephone line via a modem. This will work if the telex service provider also has a dial-up modem facility at there central exchange, but I doubt that anyone is even doing that any more. Telex services nowadays, like telegram, are nearly always implemented over the internet using an app on a standard device (PC, phone etc), eg [1]. Of course, there is always a crazy grognard somewhere in the world who won't give up their old technology, but the reality is that there is no infrastructure any more and as a system it can only be emulated on more modern technology. SpinningSpark 14:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Multi7001 (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Forms of address in Chile

Hi, would you oppose me turning Forms of address in Chile into a redirect to Style (form of address) § Chile? JBchrch talk 00:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, probably I would. It's deletion by redirect if you don't actually merge anything. If anything on that page isn't included, I'd want to hear a rationale why it doesn't belong. My gut feeling is that the page is actually notable and Spanish language sources will exist. Yes I know WP:MUSTBESOURCES, but forms of address are usually documented at great length. For instance, my battered old Collins dictionary lists them in an appendix over several pages for various levels of royalty, aristocracy, politicians etc etc. It's more than likely that something similar is in Chilean etiquette handbooks. SpinningSpark 01:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I guess the rationale would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE, since the information is based on only one source. But I'm not dying to have this information deleted, especially now that an admin is involved, so I will just leave it at that and move on. JBchrch talk 01:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: You shouldn't let my administrator status influence you here. I am acting entirely as a regular editor in this, there is no behavioural problem that needs addressing. I picked up this one because I personally believe that this is the kind of fine detail of knowledge that an encyclopaedia should be covering, putting sourcing issues aside. It stood out from the mass of non-notable bios that nobody is going to care about in 50 years time, if indeed anyone cares now. SpinningSpark 08:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

in case you dont see my reply to you on my talk page

ok hello again..

so to help editors repair the link (which link? there is no dead link on original wiki, a working link on the wiki leads to a page full of junk), am i supposed to somehow point something out to some editor somewhere?

i think you might be missing my point here..the link on the wiki page is not dead, however it links to a completely outdated page from 2008 that is full of nothing but dead links and does not contain any reference whatsoever to the information being stated back on the wiki..so my point is, theres no way for a wiki editor to fix the dead links on this non wiki page. so even though the link on the wiki page is working, i feel it should be removed due to the fact that its destination is basically garbage.

now i could be wrong and i hope you understand im just trying to learn etiquette here. speaking of which, could you please share with me the method you use to create the link in the first message you sent me that read "this edit" and then had a little square with an arrow in it?? and please also let me know what you think about that link being removed because it links to a page full of junk and dead links that no wiki editor can actually fix since its not a wikipedia page.

here is the page the link sends you to, check it out. hopefully youll agree it has no business being referenced to by the wikipedia page for circular reporting. https://neologisms.rice.edu/index.php?a=term&d=1&t=15989

here is the original wiki for circular reporting. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reporting Snarevox (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

History split for Kinecta and Xceed

Now that the Rfd is archived this is just a reminder about the history split for Kinecta Federal Credit Union. Thank you. -- SLV100 (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)