This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Hello, just moving this discussion here from WP:PNT#Ralf_Brockhausen. This discussion is about a machine translation of Ralf Brockhausen from German Wikipedia. Mathglot ( talk) 00:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Just wanted to add my 2¢ as well. I realize you just wanted to help, and I wanted to explain why google translation is a bad idea, and why, imho, fixing up blatant translation errors afterward is even worse. The problem is, that machine translation sometimes gets the facts wrong, even completely backwards, so if someone comes along and fixes up the grammar, syntax, and style so it reads like proper English, this masks the fact that a machine translation took place which may have garbled the facts and introduced complete misstatements. If you see a machine translation from a language you're not bilingual in, the best thing to do is flag it, not fix it up.
That said, we can certainly use your help on the Translation project, and there are plenty of things you can do that don't involve speaking a language. Feel free to add a section to the Talk page at WP:PNT and volunteer. For example, if you find an article in an area that interests you on German Wikipedia that we don't have, add a link to it at the Talk page, and say you'll help on the scaffolding (non-translation) aspects of porting it over, and see what happens. Thanks again for your contributions, and happy editing! Mathglot ( talk) 00:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
This user is a member of the World War II task force of WikiProject Military history. |
Sure, why don't you poke around and see if you can find an article on French WP in an area you're interested in, or a narrow subject area on English WP that you'd like to work on that you think has some missing articles that ought to be added. I've worked on some WWII stuff, mostly in the areas of Vichy and the Holocaust (they call it Shoah). I've also noticed that fr WP has a lot of Buddhism-related articles that we don't, in case you happen to be interested in that; for example, I translated 70,000 Character Petition which is a fascinating story, and was completely missing on en WP. Try the WWII Project that you're already a member of, and compare that with the equivalent French Project, or click the Portal tab there and check out fr:Portail:Seconde Guerre mondiale, or try some of the en portals like Portal:Military history of France and related ones. If you find an article you'd like to work on for en WP, drop me a line on my talk page. Mathglot ( talk) 02:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I wonder what led you to Draft:Hans-Hermann Sachenbacher to which you applied a speedy tag. If you are feeling so inclined, you may care to see that there are a few other drafts by Mad7744 of similar vintage and similar length. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 13:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: @ RHaworth: To expand on the original point, my goal in nominating drafts etc for deletion is an attempt to clean up the draft namespace of the number of abandoned and unsuitable articles within (ads etc) and helping users who made user pages in the wrong spot (by moving them to the correct ones) as well as publishing articles. I have a question for you RHaworth, does an article that is nominated for deletion (and then deleted) count as a deleted edit on something like xtools? -- TheSandDoctor ( talk) 18:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@ RHaworth: Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi You are 100% correct Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and feel free to continue, you seem to answer quicker than I can haha :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSandDoctor ( talk • contribs)
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to
Draft:Austin Powers: Oh, Behave!, from its old location at
Austin Powers: Oh, Behave!. This has been done because the all of the article content appeared to refer to a different video game, which could be confusing to Wikipedia readers. Please feel free to continue to work on it at the new location. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on
my talk page. Thank you. --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
22:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, honest mistake |
Your article meets basic requirements now, so I've approved your Draft. It still won't show up on Google hits until it's been reviewed by New Page Patrol, so there will be a slight lag in its discoverability until then (they're kinda backlogged).
A few suggestions on things to improve:
Nice work, you've done something rare in finding a topic that people talk about a lot but nobody has made a Wikipedia article for. Congrats! MatthewVanitas ( talk) 00:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
User:TheSandDoctor - It seems, based on three times that you have referenced drafts that I had reviewed and declined, that you are going through drafts and are trying to have some of them deleted. Why? We have strict quality control standards in article space, such as notability and verifiability. Most of the standards that apply to articles do not apply to drafts. That is why you have to use custom rationale for two drafts that you tagged for speedy deletion that I contested and which were then declined (and so retained as drafts). As I said, A10 doesn't apply to drafts, and some of the other speedy criteria do not apply to drafts. Now you have nominated a draft for deletion via MFD on notability grounds. Notability doesn't apply to drafts. In fact, one way to deal with non-notable pages in article space is to move them to draft space to give the author time to improve them. Please don't tag drafts for either speedy deletion or deletion discussions for reasons that don't apply to drafts. If you want to help out with drafts, you can become a reviewer at Articles for Creation, and can accept and decline drafts, which only involves requesting their deletion if they are attack pages or spam. If you have further questions about drafts, you may ask me at my talk page, or you may ask at the Teahouse. Please don't request deletion of drafts for reasons that don't apply to drafts. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Just so you know, I am not following you around declining your speedy deletion nominations. I was reviewing speedy deletion nominations and the way I do it is to use this page Category:Candidates for speedy deletion for unspecified reason. I then look at any of the categories on the top right box. I look at anything in the Attack category first, then move on to the Unspecified reason category. That is where I found your nominations since you didn't use one of the standard criteria. I then worked through clearing the category. The criteria you were using was not any of the valid ones listed at WP:CSD and that is why I declined them. Everything deleted via speedy deletion is supposed to fit exactly into one of the valid criteria. RHaworth's page has been on my watch list for a long time and that is how I saw your edit there. ~ GB fan 18:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Hello, just moving this discussion here from WP:PNT#Ralf_Brockhausen. This discussion is about a machine translation of Ralf Brockhausen from German Wikipedia. Mathglot ( talk) 00:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Just wanted to add my 2¢ as well. I realize you just wanted to help, and I wanted to explain why google translation is a bad idea, and why, imho, fixing up blatant translation errors afterward is even worse. The problem is, that machine translation sometimes gets the facts wrong, even completely backwards, so if someone comes along and fixes up the grammar, syntax, and style so it reads like proper English, this masks the fact that a machine translation took place which may have garbled the facts and introduced complete misstatements. If you see a machine translation from a language you're not bilingual in, the best thing to do is flag it, not fix it up.
That said, we can certainly use your help on the Translation project, and there are plenty of things you can do that don't involve speaking a language. Feel free to add a section to the Talk page at WP:PNT and volunteer. For example, if you find an article in an area that interests you on German Wikipedia that we don't have, add a link to it at the Talk page, and say you'll help on the scaffolding (non-translation) aspects of porting it over, and see what happens. Thanks again for your contributions, and happy editing! Mathglot ( talk) 00:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
This user is a member of the World War II task force of WikiProject Military history. |
Sure, why don't you poke around and see if you can find an article on French WP in an area you're interested in, or a narrow subject area on English WP that you'd like to work on that you think has some missing articles that ought to be added. I've worked on some WWII stuff, mostly in the areas of Vichy and the Holocaust (they call it Shoah). I've also noticed that fr WP has a lot of Buddhism-related articles that we don't, in case you happen to be interested in that; for example, I translated 70,000 Character Petition which is a fascinating story, and was completely missing on en WP. Try the WWII Project that you're already a member of, and compare that with the equivalent French Project, or click the Portal tab there and check out fr:Portail:Seconde Guerre mondiale, or try some of the en portals like Portal:Military history of France and related ones. If you find an article you'd like to work on for en WP, drop me a line on my talk page. Mathglot ( talk) 02:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I wonder what led you to Draft:Hans-Hermann Sachenbacher to which you applied a speedy tag. If you are feeling so inclined, you may care to see that there are a few other drafts by Mad7744 of similar vintage and similar length. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 13:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: @ RHaworth: To expand on the original point, my goal in nominating drafts etc for deletion is an attempt to clean up the draft namespace of the number of abandoned and unsuitable articles within (ads etc) and helping users who made user pages in the wrong spot (by moving them to the correct ones) as well as publishing articles. I have a question for you RHaworth, does an article that is nominated for deletion (and then deleted) count as a deleted edit on something like xtools? -- TheSandDoctor ( talk) 18:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@ RHaworth: Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi You are 100% correct Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and feel free to continue, you seem to answer quicker than I can haha :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSandDoctor ( talk • contribs)
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to
Draft:Austin Powers: Oh, Behave!, from its old location at
Austin Powers: Oh, Behave!. This has been done because the all of the article content appeared to refer to a different video game, which could be confusing to Wikipedia readers. Please feel free to continue to work on it at the new location. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on
my talk page. Thank you. --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
22:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, honest mistake |
Your article meets basic requirements now, so I've approved your Draft. It still won't show up on Google hits until it's been reviewed by New Page Patrol, so there will be a slight lag in its discoverability until then (they're kinda backlogged).
A few suggestions on things to improve:
Nice work, you've done something rare in finding a topic that people talk about a lot but nobody has made a Wikipedia article for. Congrats! MatthewVanitas ( talk) 00:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
User:TheSandDoctor - It seems, based on three times that you have referenced drafts that I had reviewed and declined, that you are going through drafts and are trying to have some of them deleted. Why? We have strict quality control standards in article space, such as notability and verifiability. Most of the standards that apply to articles do not apply to drafts. That is why you have to use custom rationale for two drafts that you tagged for speedy deletion that I contested and which were then declined (and so retained as drafts). As I said, A10 doesn't apply to drafts, and some of the other speedy criteria do not apply to drafts. Now you have nominated a draft for deletion via MFD on notability grounds. Notability doesn't apply to drafts. In fact, one way to deal with non-notable pages in article space is to move them to draft space to give the author time to improve them. Please don't tag drafts for either speedy deletion or deletion discussions for reasons that don't apply to drafts. If you want to help out with drafts, you can become a reviewer at Articles for Creation, and can accept and decline drafts, which only involves requesting their deletion if they are attack pages or spam. If you have further questions about drafts, you may ask me at my talk page, or you may ask at the Teahouse. Please don't request deletion of drafts for reasons that don't apply to drafts. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Just so you know, I am not following you around declining your speedy deletion nominations. I was reviewing speedy deletion nominations and the way I do it is to use this page Category:Candidates for speedy deletion for unspecified reason. I then look at any of the categories on the top right box. I look at anything in the Attack category first, then move on to the Unspecified reason category. That is where I found your nominations since you didn't use one of the standard criteria. I then worked through clearing the category. The criteria you were using was not any of the valid ones listed at WP:CSD and that is why I declined them. Everything deleted via speedy deletion is supposed to fit exactly into one of the valid criteria. RHaworth's page has been on my watch list for a long time and that is how I saw your edit there. ~ GB fan 18:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)