User talk:Adamdaley/Archives/2019/November
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Adamdaley. 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. |
Article ratings
In the last two days I noticed talk page assessments being added to a series of articles I started: Florentin Seillière, Joseph Faron, Marie Jules Dupré, Pierre-Paul de La Grandière, Louis Charles Georges Jules Lafont, Agathon Hennique, Antoine Marie Ferdinand de Maussion de Candé, Charles-François de Machault de Belmont, Charles de Tubières de Caylus, Eugène Bonnier, Jean-Baptiste de Gennes, John Harman (Admiral), François-Théodore de Lapelin, François Louis de Fitte, Charles Poncet de Brétigny, Campbell Dalrymple. I assume there is some sort of drive going on at WP:WikiProject Military history.
I am a bit puzzled at the ratings, which seem to be Start or C at random, apart from François Louis de Fitte which got "Stub". All the articles meet B1 (citations; after the lead, every statement is sourced), B3 (structure), B4 (grammar) and B5 (infobox etc.), so presumably they all should be rated C. The degree to which they meet B2 (coverage) depends on what was available online when starting the article. Some of them are decidedly obscure subjects, so there may be little more information available anywhere.
I sometimes wonder about the value of the ratings. Do they matter? Aymatth2 (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- If the "B-Class 5-criteria checklist" is not done and "C" or "B" is entered, it therefore reverts back to "Start" class. Which gives that article a false reading. Yes, this part of assessment is done, therefore goes to a different section that requires a second editor to complete due to the first person. If the the article is assessed as "Start", therefore the "B-Class 5-criteria checklist" is required to be done in order for the backlog to be reduced. If it is rated "Stub", this is where the B-Class 5-criteria checklist is not needed to be done therefore, it serves no purpose to the article. Adamdaley (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- It sounds like once an article is rated "stub" is gets stuck there. The general-purpose definition of "stub" is "The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. ... Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition." The Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment definition is that it meets none of the Start-Class criteria. The François Louis de Fitte is probably a bit more than stub on the general scale, maybe not on the military history scale. I would say that article quality assessments should be consistent across projects, saying how good the article is as an encyclopedia entry on the subject. Not sure if it matters... The importance assessment can of course depend on the project, which seems to matter more. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
 | Hello! 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 |
Infobox spy
Re Template:Infobox spy: The codename3 parameter is no longer displaying on page Anthony Blunt. Do you have any idea why that might be the case? On the talk page you mentioned another article on a spy with multiple codename parameters. I oould not figure out which page you were referring to, but was wondering whether it also was no longer displaying all of the codename parameters. Thanks for any ideas. Best, --Robert.Allen (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)