User talk:Oiyarbepsy/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Nomination for deletion of Template:2015

Template:2015 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pppery (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20160825

Languages of Nepal

Hello, I saw you edited this article, and I'm looking around for anyone who knows about Nepal. Recently there was a move war where someone was moving Nepalis to Nepali Bhasi. I just moved it back, per WP:RMTR, but now I'm wondering what would be a normal arrangement of articles in this space. There is a page at Nepali (disambiguation) that has no entry for Nepalis. Would you have any interest in looking into this, and perhaps fixing it? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• User:EdJohnston, my first question is why the talk page is a redlink. My second question is what exactly the article is about. How exactly are Nepalis an ethnolinguistic group when only 44% speak the same language, and when the languages used in the country have no linguistic relationship in the slightest?

BTW, I'm not particularly knowledgeable on Nepal, and I probably stumbled across the Languages of Nepal article because of my interest in languages.

In short, start a talk page discussion, ping the guy who keeps moving the page and ask why. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I think I'll wait for the move protection on Nepalis to stir up anyone who doesn't like the current arrangement, since I have no specific knowledge either. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20160921

RfC for page patroller qualifications

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20161006

User group: New Page Reviewr

Hello Oiyarbepsy.

Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed.

New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20161119

Your G6 request at Apple blossoms

I am going to decline your request to delete the redirect page Apple blossoms so that Apple Blossom (disambiguation) can be moved there. Your reasoning was "No article specifically discusses apple blossoms". That didn't make sense to me. IMO the DAB page should remain at its current name. It's mostly about things named Apple Blossom, not plural, and with a capital B. Or are you suggesting there SHOULD be an article about apple blossoms? If so, the way to create it is to expand the redirect into an article. If I am misunderstanding your intention here, please explain and I will look at it again. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

User:MelanieN, To explain better, we have an article about apples, and an article about blossoms, but no article specifically about apple blossoms. The article on apple doesn't even have a section discussing blossoms. So a redirect to apple blossom to apple is not really useful. Therefore apple blossoms has no primary topic and should be a disambiguation page. I maybe skipped a little too many steps on this one. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

What would you like me to do - if anything? Maybe we should simply delete "Apple blossoms" as an unnecessary redirect? We don't need a page called "apple blossoms" at all, since we already have "Apple blossom" (a redirect), "Apple-blossom" (a redirect), and "Apple Blossoms (disambiguation)" (a DAB page). On the other hand, it isn't doing any harm and "redirects are cheap" as the saying goes. --MelanieN (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

User:MelanieN I say all should go to a disambiguation page. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense. Right now the redirects to "Apple#production" which as you pointed out doesn't make a lot of sense. I'll redirect everything to the DAB page. --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Fixing this

• I'm here because Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review flagged Apple. There's a hatnote on Apple that says Apple blossom redirects to that page. Changing the redirect makes the hatnote untruthful.
• The redirect to Apple#Apple production was done by Neelix. That's problematic because
  1. The section title Apple production was changed to simply Production.
  2. That section doesn't mention blossoms.
  3. Blossoms are discussed in the Apple#Botanical information section: "Blossoms are produced in spring simultaneously with the budding of the leaves, and are produced on spurs and some long shoots. The 3 to 4 cm (1.2 to 1.6 in) flowers are white with a pink tinge that gradually fades, five petaled, with an inflorescence consisting of a cyme with 4–6 flowers. The central flower of the inflorescence is called the "king bloom"; it opens first, and can develop a larger fruit."

These issues make me less than enthusiastic about redirecting to section links. Such redirects also bypass the {{redirect}} hatnotes placed at the top of the page. For section links that are strongly supported, the hatnote should be placed at the top of the section.

• You neglected Apple Blossom, the one redirect that arguably should go to the dab, as it's in the form of a proper name.
• Also Appleblossoms, Appleblossom and Apple-blossoms. I deleted those, and Apple-blossom, per WP:CSD#X1.
• I think consensus would find that Apple is the WP:primary topic for apple blossom. If you disagree, feel free to start a discussion at WP:RFD. Note the links in Altes Land and Usher (fragrance). The fact that cherry blossom is an article supports the idea that apple blossom is an {{R with possibilities}}. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: Yikes, what a mess! Sorry for doing such a half-baked job of this. Those others didn't show up for me on the search suggestions - one of the disadvantages of having a million similarly-titled redirects. Thanks for deleting all those unnecessary / redundant redirects, that will make the situation much simpler for a searcher. What would you think about deleting Apple blossoms as well? Does it serve any purpose not already served by Apple blossom? If people are offered a simple choice between Apple blossom and Apple Blossom it could make searching easier.

I have changed the target of Apple Blossom to the DAB page. Is the (disambiguation)-named page even necessary? I believe we could move the dab information to plain Apple Blossom and eliminate the middleman; would that be a good idea? Never mind, I see you already did this.

Of course you are right that Apple blossom should be a redirect to Apple. (When I saw that the redirect target did not mention blossoms, I had wondered what was the point of redirecting it there.) Would you suggest making it go to #Botanical information and moving the hatnote there? Or do you prefer a redirect to Apple and leave the hatnote at the top? (Darn Autocorrect, it keeps changing the word hatnote to whatnot! 0;-D)

@Oiyarbepsy: what are your thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I moved Apple Blossom (disambiguation) to the base title, per WP:MALPLACED. We keep the parenthetical (disambiguation) page around for intentional links to disambiguation, such as in the hatnote at the top of Apple. This is so such links will not be tagged for disambiguation by WP:WikiProject Disambiguation members or others. In fact, if we did delete Apple Blossom (disambiguation), a bot would likely soon re-create it. Apple blossoms is probably a legitimate {{R from plural}}. I wouldn't hang that one on Neelix, though I'm ambivalent about deleting it, as no articlepages are linking to it. wbm1058 (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements and the lessons! It's good to have input from an expert; I can tell you deal with redirects and similar issues all the time. Along with now and then cleaning up after and educating the rest of us. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20170619

Thanks for noticing !

Thanks for reviewing the new article I wrote, Trump Tower: A Novel ! What do you think of the article? Sagecandor (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Sagecandor, I think you jumped the gun. I haven't seen the article, I just reviewed a couple of redirects to it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah okay, well, let me know if you do get around to reviewing it. Sagecandor (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20170620

Christ's sakes RfD

Hey! Just noting that when you moved your RfD nomination of Christ's sakes back a day (not quite sure why you did that, as Twinkle placed it on the correct date in UTC), you didn't change the link on the nomination template (it's fixed now). :) TheDragonFire (talk) 06:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks TheDragonFire. Since I was nominating two pages together, I Twinkled them both. The first Twinkle placed on one day and the second got placed on the next day. I moved the second so that the whole thing would be the same day. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that makes way more sense actually. Have a great day. :) TheDragonFire (talk) 08:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20170716

Hello

Elena Franklin may be a non-notable actress with very few acting roles to date, but sources point to her being mostly a full time musician now, is that enough to let the article stay on wikipedia? --Wikiman103 (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikiman103 I suggest you post it at the deletion discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elena Franklin. However, my quick look for her music background suggests she isn't notable there either. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20170808

Neelix

Hi, you moved some of the Neelix redirects to the X1 section of the page, were you intending for these ones to be tagged Db-x1? If so I have already done it, but if not i'll remove the tags Emk9 (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Emk9: Because of the huge amount of redirects on the Neelix pages and the large amount of redirects nominated for deletion, the protocol has been not to put tags on individual redirects and instead move them to that X1 section, where admins will review and delete. This is to keep the speedy deletion categories for getting clogged with Neelix redirects. Thank you for working thru all those, it can certainly be brain-killing. Happy editing, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh, good to know. I just found the talk page info on it. Maybe a note should be at the top of the page, since it makes it easier for the admins. Emk9 (talk) 05:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/20180205