This 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.

Precious

Six years!

-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Gosh, has it really been that long? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

		New Reviewer Award
		For being the top article reviewer for August, among the new reviewers. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 05:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for sending through the CV-unsure categories. Please keep an eye on how big the backlog is across all of WP:CP though, since a few others are sending through other backlogs in a somewhat frequent stream, and we're quite swamped right now. Sennecaster ( Chat) 04:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

OK. My point was primarily to alert the board to the attention of that stream, which hopefully will now get carried on by the regulars there (and to help clear Category:Clean-up categories from 2004 and Category:Clean-up categories from 2005, whose existence was annoying me, although that's been dealt with another way). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Pppery,

You are a fantastic contributor and I hate to ask you to do more than you already do. But it would be great if when you reverted bad moves to Draft space, you posted a talk page notice to these editors who, I'm pretty sure, aren't aware of that Village Pump RFC. When I see that you have reverted a move to Draft space, I frequently do this myself and I must have passed notices of this RFC on to at least a dozen editors. I think once they are told not to move older articles, they don't ever do it again so I think the messages are effective. But I don't watch your move logs and so I'm sure I miss some of your move corrections. I know that many editors are more comfortable with leaving a template message than a personal note but I find that they generally work better and, besides, we don't have a template message that covers this mistake.

Any way, I just wanted to come by and make my pitch to you and also state my appreciation for all that you do on the project. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I ping them in the edit summary. Is that not sufficient? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 12:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi

I think it was an edit of yours that put in the tag "according to whom" in the sentence:

"The term 'plenitude' is an important[according to whom?] neoplatonic term." under the subtopic: Gnostic

Thank you for picking up that weakness. That part of the sentence now reads:

"The principle of plenitude is important in neoplatonism,..." with a citation to Remes 2008, p. 46.

The reference is the authoritative work "Neoplatonism" by Remes 2008, p.46, where Professor Remes includes it as the fifth basic principle of Neoplatonic metaphysics. Once again, thank you for picking up that weakness in the sentence. A very impressive pick-up.

The whole sentence now reads as follows:

"The principle of plenitude is important in neoplatonism;[103] however, in Plotinus' neoplatonic doctrines, the principle of plenitude is the productive activity of a hypostasis.[104][105]"

103 = Remes 2008, p. 46, The first principles and the metaphysical hierarchy.

104 = Goodman 1992, p. 114, From What is One and Simple by A. Hyman.

105 = Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014, p. 494, Plotinus’ aesthetics by P. Vassilopoulou.

To construct the final precise sentence was a hard task and took a couple of hours.

Regards

Daryl Prasad

Darylprasad ( talk) 23:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I have run into this a few times at FAR, I hesitate over sending the message manually since to me it seems to circumvent the editor's desire not to see mass messages. Admittedly, maybe my use case is not considered a real "mass" message, since other FAR regulars just copy and paste them in manually. ( t · c) buidhe 03:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not an explicit desire, it's that a few years ago I implemented the unanimous proposal at Template talk:Not around#How to avoid inactive users having their talk pages spammed with unread Signpost subscriptions etc. to automatically opt-out user talk pages tagged with {{ not around}} from MMS. Since FAR apparently wants to notify people even if they're inactive, and I noticed the failure when patrolling the mass message log (which I've been doing since circa 2020), I figured I would save everyone a few rounds of confusion by manually reposting the message. Apparently I was mistaken, as I triggered this discussion on my talk page instead. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

No, you're right. If there are some people whose messages are just deactivated due to inactivity, I should make sure that they are notified, and if that also gets some people who have the mass message disabled I am not concerned about that. ( t · c) buidhe 05:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Pppery, may I ask you why you deleted my update for the BCD Travel article? I would like to know and improve it. I am not that familiar with wiki markup and I am sure I am making several mistakes.

As for the content, you now redirect to the Dutch BCD holding company, which is not operational at all, but whose small subsidiary Park N'Fly has its own article, while the third largest travel agency in the US is not enough for its own article?

The BCD Group would be nothing without BCD Travel, which generates about 90% of total turnover. So wouldn't it make more sense to redirect from BCD Group to BCD Travel? Many people have stumbled across the "BCD", but these are two different companies.

What is an example of trivial coverage here compared to TripActions (a smaller travel agency), CWT (a subsidiary of Carlson, by the way) or American Express Global Business Travel (subsidiary of Amex)?

CWT only uses "Travel Weekly" and content from press releases. That seems to be fine. But why? Amex Global Business Travel has listed its acquisitions - is that more relevant? TravelPerk even listed its awards.

Do you know the travel industry and its major media and news portals? Because "Travel Weekly" and "Business Travel News" are relevant sources and used elsewhere in Wikipedia, such as CWT , American Express Global Business Travel or Tripactions.

I'm trying really hard to understand the criteria, but shouldn't they be applied the same way everywhere? I would like to improve my article, what can I do next? Thx Stefge Stefge ( talk) 09:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Appealing to " other stuff exists" when that other stuff dates from years ago prior to the modern page review proccess is not a convincing argument; the only way to improve the page is to cite the required independent sources providing significant coverage of the company. None of your sources did so, as seen in the table below:

Created with templates {{ ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?	Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Ref 1 (Travel Weekly)	The fact that the source says at the bottom "Some Power List companies have resubmitted their numbers, which have resulted in changes in the rankings" means it's clearly based on information provided by the company
Ref 2 (BizVibe)			With only one paragraph about the company in a listicle, there's not enough content to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization
Ref 3 (company website)	The company's website is not a useful source here.
Ref 4			This is, to quote my edit summary, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage [...] of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business
Ref 5			Ditto
Ref 6
Ref 7			More routine announcements
Ref 8			Ditto
Ref 9			Ditto
Ref 10			Short list entries do not constitute significant coverage.
Ref 11			Short list entries do not constitute significant coverage.
Ref 13	If you read the methodology for this report, you see quotes like some TMCs are unwilling to supply us answers to every question for this report, including the key financial statistics that we use to rank TMCs, meaning it's based on information provided by the company, and hence not independent content
Ref 12	Everything is "according to the company"		See above quote
Ref 13			See above
Ref 14			See above - all of these are standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage [...] of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business
Ref 15
Ref 16			See above

Yes, if I performed a similar analysis on the other articles listed, I would possibly nominate them for deletion or come to the same conclusion. But that does not matter, since I was new page patrolling when I saw your article, and not looking at other articles. As I said above, you need to find at least two sources that tick all four boxes in the above table to improve the article to the point I won't think it should be redirected. None of your sources do that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand that you need reliable references according to ORGCRIT. I'm just struggeling to install the Template:ORGCRIT assess. Just a few questions about my references:

You wrote about Ref 1 "...based on information provided by the company." Of course it does. Numbers about revenue and turnover comes always from the companies itself. Who is able to valuate this from outside? This would be a mere guess. What about the "List of top earning travel companies" ? Do you believe Wall Street Journal or Financial Times would have different sources of informatuion?

Ref2: as you wrote, it's a listicle. Of course it's not enough content to write a whole article, just a paragraph and in a pie-chart. But in the context of the first sentenses it shows that the company is one of the largest. (But anyway, if listicles doesn't count, ok)

In regards of Ref4: "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage [...] of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business" - Are you really sure? Did you even read this? This is an article about the creation of the company in 2006, TUI is a stock exchange listed company and sold its shares in TQ3 to BCD Holdings BV, which owned World Travel BTI. At that time, not even the future name BCD Travel was clear. Only that one of the largest travel companies was to be created. Does this not contain significant coverage? What else is significant if not this?

Ref13: again - who else can provide numbers, if not the companies itself? BTN Europe wrote: "A few years ago we decided to include all of the major TMCs in this ranking, regardless of whether they supplied the necessary information. This means that, for some TMCs, we have to make estimates of certain key figures, notably the gross sales figure, rather like the compilers of the Sunday Times Rich List do. These are clearly marked." If a company does not provide numbers, it's always a guess. Which source can fullfil this criteria?

I tried be find something better. Would this source fullfil the criteria? https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/shake-up-of-business-travel-agents-g8tswlchm67 (unfortunally behind a paywall) or this article about the foundation of BCD Travel https://www.breakingtravelnews.com/news/article/btn20060104112134257/ or this https://www.presseportal.ch/de/pm/100004222/100502602 (as I wrote, TUI is stock listed and has to inform its shareholders - but its content from a company of course ;-) )

Here is a listicle too, but maybe this works? https://www.zippia.com/advice/largest-travel-companies/ or https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/5-biggest-travel-companies-in-the-world-912750/2/

Statista should be a valuable source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/202250/air-ticket-transactions-of-travel-management-companies/

I don't want bother you, but maybe you can help me a little bit? Thanks Stefge ( talk) 17:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:ORGIND; useful sources have to include content that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Disagreeing with that requirement will not help, and I'm just not seeing the sources that do it. Re your new sources, I can't access the times source, but the rest still seem to be simple listing of corporate transations or listicles lacking in-depth coverage. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi stefge, reading through your comments, there appears to be some confusion about the criteria for notability for companies. I'll try to summarise the main points based on my experience and questions asked in the past.

1. First thing to understand is that there's two main ways in which a source/reference may be used. The first, to support facts and information within an article. For these references, it really only has to pass WP:RS (I'm simplifying) and none of the rest of what we're going to discuss applies
2. For companies and organizations, WP:NCORP guidelines apply. For now, we'll assume the references are reliable sources. In summary, we require multiple (at least two) sources from different publications/authors. We look at the content of the article/reference in question. As per WP:SIRS *each* article used to establish notability must pass *all* of NCORP - in other words, we don't combine sources and say that in aggregate we have multiple sources that meet NCORP.
3. We first look at the content with WP:ORGIND in mind and especially we look for "Independent Content". Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that *relies solely* on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. We need to see the journalist/author providing some independent opinion/analysis/fact checking/investigation/etc and this must be *clearly attributable* to either the journalist (i.e. that it is clearly their opinion/analysis/etc) or a source unaffiliated with the topic company (ie an analyst, commentator, etc).
4. When we've isolated the "Independent Content", we then look at WP:CORPDEPTH to check that it is deep/significant. If it is, chances are we've got a source that meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability

So .. back to your comments about the refs above. Articles that publish a company's published financial figures *without* providing an analysis/opinion/etc fails ORGIND - there's no "Independent Content" and the author is simply regurgitating company information. Brief mentions in listicles fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Articles that rely entirely on reprinting/regurgitating PR/interviews/announcements must also contain in-depth "Independent Content" in order to meet the criteria for establishing notability.

It's not easy, it might appear to you that obviously this company is notable - but in many cases its really closer to the truth to say that most companies issue a lot of announcements/PR which get published in the media. If a company is truly notable though, someone will write about them, in-depth and with "Independent Content". HighKing ⁺⁺ 16:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey @ Pppery I just wanted to give you a heads up that I nominated Clean Up for deletion. I saw that you had edited it recently so I just wanted to keep you in the loop. Dr vulpes ^{( 💬 • 📝)} 06:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I guess sometimes AfD is cleanup, huh? jp× g 21:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

No, just a non-notable subject with a confusing name. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Ppery. Just wanted to inform you that I was notified of your post regarding MegaSmike's mess on the Disney XD template. Just so you know, I was trying to undo his disruptive edits. I apologize if you thought I was editing disruptively when cutting and pasting in the old template, even though that was not my intention. BrickMaster02 ( talk) 04:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I wasn't blaming you, just providing a neutral description of what happened. Personally if I had seen this situation I would have requested someone sort out the cut-and-paste move mess at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge rather than taking any action myself, but your behavior there makes sense and was certainly done in good faith. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Pppery. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{ You've got mail}} or {{ ygm}} template.

(Filler so Twinkle adds my signature since it doesn't if I leave this field blank.) Steel1943 ( talk) 21:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I am planning to go through some of the AfDs I hit with last night's run in a few hours -- I see you have caught a couple of errors. Thanks for the help! I feel kind of bad making other people clean up after me, so I am planning to go through them all myself. Of course, it's a huge pain in the ass, so if you want to help I will certainly appreciate it. If so, I think it would probably be a good idea to share notes somewhere and avoid duplicating each other's efforts (my notes right now are at User:JPxG/old AfDs). jp× g 21:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I've been going through [1] and manually loading each entry. I've completed the first three pages of search (up to entry 60), and caught 10 errors (so about 1 in 6). I guess I'll stop with this then and let you handle the rest. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually I decided to just clean all of them myself since it was easier. The most bizarre thing I saw was a series of errors made by an admin-meatbot in 2008 which moved every page from "Talk:X/Delete" to "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X", picking up a bunch of "Talk:X/Deleted material" style pages that were never AfDs at all. I also found a bunch of article drafts misfiled as AfDs, which I mostly left alone except for one that was so promotional I tagged it for G11. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Aw, shucks. I suppose I can repay you by not half-assing the regex next time -- what I'm pretty sure caused all of these was the "xfd-closed" tag not being in the old substed close templates. I will try to write something more robust (incorporating all the versions of the template and all versions of the boilerplate)... as for the weird /Delete ones, I was wondering what the heck the deal was with those. A bunch of them were just random paragraphs or sections from articles -- obviously something weird had happened, but I couldn't figure out what. On that note, have you seen any of those weird ones where the entire page"s revision history is a single comment from somebody saying "don't delete this article", seemingly out of nowhere? It is a mystery to me. jp× g 22:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn't consider myself to be cleaning up your mess, but instead us both to be cleaning up the mess of the past. If I had to guess the "don't delete this article" comments are someone misunderstanding the relatiotionship between PROD and AfD; people misinterpreted something like if a PROD is challenged and you still want the page to be deleted, start an AfD as telling them to start an AfD to challenge a PROD. Or got confused by another wiki wanting them to do that, as Commons' equivalent of PROD works that way sometimes.

The list I posted to your talk page used a similar approach (find certain phrases that every AfD should have and list ones that don't have them), but if you tackle it note that sometimes the problem isn't the AfD not being opened properly but instead unreverted vandalism (i.e Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Do It My Way) or someone deliberately breaking the standard formatting as an April Fools joke (i.e Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vowel, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gibberish). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello Pppery,

Could you please explain why you inverted my additions to the page? I did not do something different from the other Universities pages on Wikipedia. I just gave information on the history, the departments and facilities of the institution, which is a public university and not a private company. Please clarify what we need to do to have accurate information of the University on Wikipedia Sylvia2022 ( talk) 05:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Please see the edit summary of my removal: Per WP:NOTDIR/ WP:NOTADVERT; that is it is inappropriate for Wikipedia articles to contain a complete listing of every single department ( WP:NOTCATALOGUE), nor include language trying to promote the university ( WP:NOTADVERT). Also note that I did not revert all of your edits, and left the changes to the history section and departments table alone, so I'm not sure what's inaccurate about my version. Furthermore, essentially the same edit has been made to the page numerous times over its history, each time by a single-purpose account or IP address, and has been undone every time by an experienced Wikipedian ( Mean as custard six times, Graham87, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, Jerm, as well as me 5 times). Are all of them wrong, or are you?

Wikipedia is notorously understaffed, so the existence of other articles filled with the same level of promotional, poorly sourced cruft does not make this one should be, but instead that those articles should likewise be cleaned out. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi - just a friendly heads up that I always navigate to the AfD page by typing AFD in the search box, and then clicking on the hatnote at top. I just did that and noticed the hatnote was gone. I looked in the history and noticed your edit summary for the removal saying the link was redundant. It turns out that the hatnote and the link at the bottom are two different links, so both are useful. I think it's rude to revert experienced editors who are making good faith edits, so I thought I'd just point this out. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead then; evidently two people disagree with me (I made a similar edit here) so my desire to prune sources of redundancy is against consensus. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism to me :-/ Usa265 ( talk) 12:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLAR-ing poorly-sourced articles is not vandalism * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, You proposed Comparison_of_open-source_wireless_drivers for deletion but I didn't find the page where to discuss that deletion.

Could it be somehow linked in the Comparison_of_open-source_wireless_drivers page?

If that page doesn't exist it probably also need to have the reasons inside that page (they could simply be copy-pasted) instead of referring to other pages to make the discussion easier.

In these two concerns above it would be best if you could do it since you're the one who proposed the deletion, this would make sure that all the correct arguments are there and that we have no duplication of deletion pages.

As for the deletion itself, the only argument that I saw was that it was "Extremely niche".

And I think that can be a very subjective criteria and a way to sort that out is also precisely to have some discussions on that. A more neutral point of view would be to determine if the article meets the Wikipedia:Notability criteria and if this can be fixed and if so how. GNUtoo(my point of views(for npov)) | talk 13:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I used the proposed deletion process. You are free to object to the deletion by removing the {{ proposed deletion/dated}} tag from the top of the article, although I will likely follow up by starting a proper discussion soon after (assuming the other AfDs I started on these topics close as delete). My reasoning for deletion isn't just that it's extremely niche, but that it's a type of article that consensus has repeatedly shown is not acceptable in 2022's Wikipedia. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't necessarily want to prevent the deletion, but I definitively want to discuss it publicly GNUtoo(my point of views(for npov)) | talk 13:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Note that if there is a central place to discuss it it also works for me but discussing it on already deleted page doesn't seem the right thing to do. GNUtoo(my point of views(for npov)) | talk 13:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

OK then. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of open-source wireless drivers is now open for discussion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick revert of that edit on Indigenous science. I'm glad I'm not the only one who follows the updates on that article.

Dr vulpes ^{( 💬 • 📝)} 04:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)