User talk:JamesLucas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:NoAmCom)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Removal of places of birth/death from firstsentence[edit]

Hello, I understand why you're doing this, but please don't remove birth/deathplaces from an article's first sentence without making sure they're already elsewhere in the article lead/body. At the Alexandra Rodríguez Long article, where I noticed you doing this, I moved the birthplace to an appropriate location. Their presence in an infobox is not enough, as infoboxes are supposed to summarise content that's already in the article. Graham87 14:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Graham87. I agree with the general principal that the infobox should summarize what's in the body, but I don't view a DOB parenthetical in the lead sentence to be intrinsically different from an infobox in that respect. Yes, it's in a paragraph, but it's not part of a natural English sentence, its appropriate contents are strictly limited, and it's not an ideal place for references.[a] I'd argue that a place-of-birth/death is always better located in the infobox than it is in the DOB parenthetical, regardless of where else that information appears in the text.[b]
The one big caveat to this point arises when the place-of-birth/death appears only in the DOB parenthetical and is supported by a reference appended to that parenthetical. In those cases I try to be mindful that my edit is not not divorcing the place-of-birth/death from the reference that supports it.[c] In the instance of Alexandra Rodríguez Long, the place-of-birth/death had no obvious supporting reference, so my edit did no harm on this front.
While I remain convinced that my edit was a (small) step in the right direction, it's inarguable that your subsequent edit improved the article, and I certainly appreciate your contribution. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 17:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. As a screen reader user, I often scroll right past tables containing biographical infoboxes because they usually don't contain any information beyond what's in the article. It's an admittedly minor point, and sometimes article categories also contain things that aren't in the article ... and they're far more inaccessible to the average reader. I for one would rather have a slightly misplaced birth/deathplace in the lead than none at all in the lead/body. Graham87 03:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
It's always good to get feedback from Wikipedians accessing Wikipedia in ways. On that note, I hope footnote b didn't come across as absurdly lecture-y; I didn't realize you were a screen reader user. I certainly agree that essential information shouldn't be hard to find (I almost never look at categories myself!), and I'll continue to weigh your suggestion as I progress in my NoAmCom project. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 02:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ I'd estimate that fewer than one in three featured biographies has a reference appended to the DOB parenthetical.
  2. ^ Yes, there are ways to access a Wikipedia article that do not (readily) include infoboxes, and this should be considered when editing, but a clear and to-the-point lead sentence is a priority for the same usergroup because in some contexts only the first n characters or words are included.
  3. ^ I'm sure I've erred on this, particularly when reference links are broken, but hopefully these lapses have been rare.

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Rollback granted[edit]

Wikipedia Rollbacker.svg

Hi JamesLucas. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Stop redirecting rivers[edit]

Hi, I see you're redirecting the Brazilian rivers you recently nominated for AfD. Some of these rivers aren't notable, but some are, including ones you've already redirected (the Capitão Cardoso River has multiple references in Google Scholar, for instance) and creating a redirect isn't helping with the cleanup. Please stop redirecting any more of these based on your own determination of notability. SportingFlyer T·C 03:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I've gone through and reverted any redirect where a simple WP:BEFORE search for Brazilian/Portuguese langauge books showed there may be more to write in the article. Some are perfectly valid redirects - Rio Da Dúvida was renamed Rio Roosevelt anyways. I'm not implying these should be kept, but notability is a property of the topic and not the current state of the article, so the ones I've reverted need a second look. If you want to keep going through the rest, we could set up a mini-project like I did recently with Arizona geography stubs here. SportingFlyer T·C 04:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
(A) SportingFlyer, this is the greatest subject-line that will ever grace my talk page.
(B) Making this a more official project could be good if it brings more editors aboard, but I hope that doing so wouldn't add baggage to what can and should be a pretty quick process. I saw that you were judicious in your reversions—four out of the dozen or so redirects I implemented—but even that ratio strikes me as over cautious. Let me make a few arguments to this point:
  • Common sense tells us that the small scale and relative isolation of these rivers makes the odds of notability for any given one quite low. That these stubs are more than a decade old with virtually no improvement further suggests that there is no perceived notability. Neither of these points establishes a lack of notability, but they do mean that assuming notability until resources are exhausted is going to require a significant time investment since we'll be trying to prove a negative over and over.
  • For most of these rivers, a two-minute review of the algorithmically found references is likely to turn up as much relevant information as an hour-long review. A Portuguese speaker will be able to more fully review the scholarly sources, but between my familiarity with Spanish and the aid of Google Translate, I have reasonable confidence that the Google Scholar hits for these rivers fall into three categories:
    1. subjects with the same name as the river—sometimes regions or tribes proximate to the river but sometimes entirely unrelated
    2. the river in question being used to define a boundary ("such-and-such tribe's land extends west to Rio A")
    3. a technical description of the river ("the source of Rio B is X meters above sea level" or "nearby topsoil is Y centimeters deep"), usually in the context of a hydrology report or a scientific study
    I don't think anyone is arguing that these establish notability, and in reviewing the four stubs that you restored I'm still failing to find anything of greater substance. I fully acknowledge that something could be out there but maintain that there's compelling reason to suspect that there isn't.
  • The amount of information being removed from Wikipedia with the creation of these redirects is virtually zero aside from a lat–long coördinate (sometimes of questionable accuracy). Even if the process I'm advocating removes one or two (or ten!) stubs that will someday be revived as proper articles, the setback is minimal or non-existent. I would argue that careful targeting of redirects (as I am doing) is in many cases actually more relevant information than a lat–long coördinate.
I believe this process to be worth doing because it will remove accidental duplicates, it will reduce confusion over rivers of the same name, and it will concentrate efforts on more significant articles and hopefully lead to their more rapid improvement. If formalizing this process brings more editors (particularly some Portuguese-speakers), that's good, but if it turns a five-minute process into a 50-minute process and takes editors away from other things, that's concerning. Nevertheless, please consider my mind open. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 16:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
We have very low standards for geographic notability per WP:GEOLAND since we're a gazetteer - some of these rivers are truly non-notable, but some of them do get written about, especially because larger rivers appear to be the way to mark the locations of where different tribes live. The data's not great, though, especially considering one of the rivers with an unsourced stub article is literally now the Roosevelt River. If you'd like, I'm happy to take a week and go through the ones which were at the AfD and see which I think should be kept and try to source them. SportingFlyer T·C 03:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
It can only be good to have more minds on this, so if you have time to take a look, please do. I'll hold on the matter while you look, but ping me if I can answer any questions. (One note: I'm pretty sure there was at least one article that made it into the AfD via a copy/paste error, so if you see anything that's substantially more developed than others, assume we're in agreement to keep and don't waste time on it.) —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 11:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll make a list based off of the AfD and will post a link once I've started - already updated my user page. Also glad you like the section title. SportingFlyer T·C 11:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

It's been a couple weeks so I thought I'd check in, SportingFlyer, and see how things were on your end. Any chance to look into this yet? Cheers —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 23:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 15-meter band, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Loran (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)