Jump to content

User talk:Dlthewave

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Faqu (talk | contribs) at 02:37, 21 May 2020 (→Lookout, Wyoming). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Confederate monuments

I was hoping you'd comment on a matter at the Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials talk page.--MagicatthemovieS

CDPs

What you need to realize is that Census tracts are different from census designated places, which are always presumed to be notable and pass GEOLAND #1 as legally recognized places. If you disagree, I would raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features) rather than creating AfDs. What are sometimes deleted are unincorporated places and neighborhoods. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 16:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editorofthewiki, thanks for pointing out the difference. There are many opinions on what constitutes an "officially recognized place", ranging from appearing on a map/database to being an actual legally-established entity. I couldn't find any guideline or discussion that specifically mentions CDPs as "presumed notable", are you aware of any? My understanding is that they're used only for statistical purposes and don't constitute official government recognition.
I edited both AFDs to clarify that they're CDPs, not census tracts, and will hold off on nominating CDPs until we get some feedback from other editors. Again, thanks for your perspective. –dlthewave ☎ 16:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your consideration. I might be somewhat presumptuous by saying CDPs are presumed notable, but I certainly consider them an official government recognized location since there is census data and a feeling of place among residents. With regards to several other unincorporated articles you have nominated for deletion, with at least a few you could be BOLD and probably redirect to the township page. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 20:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unincorporated communities

Um, do we have to nominate so many unincorporated places for deletion all at once? No doubt, many may be non notable, but maybe not all. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of a dilemma since we have editors who mass-created dozens of articles per day from the GNIS database, which contains thousands of erroneous "populated places", but we're expected to put in hours of WP:BEFORE research and space out our AFD nominations just because a few of them could be notable (just as a stopped clock is right twice a day). At this point my preference would be to delete the lot with no prejudice against re-creation if folks can find sources to demonstrate notability. If you have suggestions for a better way to handle thousands of mass-created articles, I'm all ears. –dlthewave ☎ 02:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern. My preference would be to space out the AfD nominations so voters can do more thorough before searches. Some of the locations I have found do have notability, such as Dahlgrens Corner, Virginia which was the site of a famous raid during the civil war. Though I understand, there's not a lot to save with a one-line stub, still some could probably be saved at AfD. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having lived previously in Northern Virginia, the vast majority of GNIS-only place names aren't in any way notable and the nominations I saw today are all correct. Unless there is some historical reference to the place name, these are only "real estate agent names" or subdivisions. My recommendation is that if a search of Google Books does not turn up anything, it probably isn't in the former category. Most of Virginia is unincorporated and services are provided at the county level meaning these places are classic WP:MILL database dumps. These could easily be combined into multi-AfD's to ease the supposed burden on !voters. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Folks complain about the burden whether they're bundled or not, for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Shop Corner, Virginia recently closed as Procedural Keep mainly because it was too big of a batch. In this case they're probably similar enough (late-20th-century Charlottesville subdivisions) to work as a batch though. –dlthewave ☎ 01:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

California places

Hey, there's a few of us who will work on California places and we'd be glad to have you join. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_California#Cleaning_up_all_those_GNIS_location_articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject California/GNIS cleanup task force. Going through these one or a few at a time at AFD is going to be futile against this scope. Thanks, Reywas92Talk 03:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primary source

Please, for the third time, can you finally familiarize yourself with what a WP:PRIMARY source is?

You again added a primary source tag to the Rushton & Jensen 2005 source. It is a peer-reviewed article published in the Psychology, Public Policy, and Law journal of the American Psychological Association. An article released in such a journal, especially one that reviews research by others and offers insight by the authors, is not a primary source.

Your misundertanding of the sourcing policy was pointed out in two earlier AE requests: 1 & 2. This is starting to get disruptive. --Pudeo (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, publication in a peer-reviewed journal does not automatically make a source non-primary. I'll be happy to discuss the Primary tag after you've read WP:ALLPRIMARY, specifically "A peer-reviewed journal article may begin by summarizing a careful selection of previously published works to place the new work in context (which is secondary material) before proceeding into a description of a novel idea (which is primary material)." and disabused yourself of that notion. –dlthewave ☎ 00:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the name of the article would be a good start: "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability" (doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235). It is a review article. So in this sense any article in a journal would be a primary source. So what's the point of doing this tagging, if per WP:ALLPRIMARY all sources are primary for something, I wonder. --Pudeo (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made a thread on RSN because it would be great to have a better understanding on this: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Peer-reviewed journal R&I articles as WP:PRIMARY? Happy editing! --Pudeo (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can help? New to this

Dlthewave. I am trying to make a article but, I need help trying to get the quotes to Format properly can you help me and with anything else you see? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_Rape_By_German_forces_During_The_Second_World_War#Historians_assessment_on_Mass_Rape_by_German_forcesDriverofknowledge (talk) 02:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of Spaghetti Junction, Kentucky

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Spaghetti Junction, Kentucky, which you proposed for deletion. It's a real place. I updated the article. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Normal Op (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lookout, Wyoming

Hello Dlthewave, i answered you on the page's talk section. I'm at your disposal to clarify issues related to the matter.
Your sincerely,
Faqu, talk. 21 May 2020, 02:37

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dlthewave&oldid=957909036"