User talk:DoubleGrazing

Welcome to my talk page!

Hello! Please leave a new message. I will respond to your message as soon as possible. Thanks and happy editing!

Also take care of the following points:

If I left you a message; please answer on your talk page, using {{ping|Username}}, {{reply to|Username}} or {{u|Username}} in your response, or add {{talkback|Username}} or {{whisperback|Username}} to my talk page. And if you leave me a message; I will answer on my talk page, using {{ping|Username}} or {{u|Username}} in my response, or add {{talkback|Username}} or {{whisperback|Username}} to your talk page.
Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page or at the bottom of the respective section, and use a new ==Descriptive heading== for new topics.
Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ":"
Sign and date your entry by inserting four tildes "~~~~" at the end of your message.
I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your talk page (or the article talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply.
Avoid personal attacks, do not troll or use this page as a chat room.
Please, always assume good faith.
If the topic is something personal, please email me and leave {{ygm}} on my talk page.
And if you are impressed by my contributions, consider giving WikiLove.

⇒Start a new topic⇐

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49

Scam warning!

There is a scam underway, targeting editors who attempt to publish Wikipedia article(s); see WP:SCAM for more information. If you have been approached by someone offering to create, accept or otherwise help publish an article in exchange for a payment, please e-mail the details to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. This may help others in a similar situation to avoid becoming victims of this vile scam.
PS: If that someone claims to be me, they emphatically are not!

If I declined your draft at AfC, and you came to ask me to re-review it, please don't (unless I expressly said you could) – I feel it's fairer to the other drafts that yours goes back to the pool... and probably also fairer to your draft that someone else reviews it next. (And if you just came to tell me you've made changes, that's great, but no need to inform me.)

If you still want to leave me a message about a draft or article, I'd appreciate if you could please link to the page in question, so I don't have to go hunting for it. Ta.

Top AfC Editor

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2024 Top Editor
		In 2024 you were one of the top AfC editors, thank you! --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help with possible edit war.

Hey there, I wanted to bring to admin attention that there appears to be some kind of edit war going on at the BLP Kay Granger over wether certain information is reliable or not with multiple IPs involved. I think the page could benefit from temporary semi-protection while the content dispute is worked out on the talk page. I already requested it but there is a backlog and the edits are coming in very quickly, so it would be good if you can look into protecting the page. Thanks! -- Lenny Marks (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I must've had just downed tools for the night when you posted this. Anyway, it was taken care by another admin. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Nicoffernandezmusic (01:38, 24 December 2024)

Hello, it is a pleasure to start collaborating on Wikipedia. I have a question: How do I cite something true so that it is not deleted due to vandalism? --Nicoffernandezmusic (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

Hello DoubleGrazing: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Happy holidays!

	Happy holidays!
	Wishing you a Merry Christmas filled with love and joy, a Happy Holiday season surrounded by warmth and laughter, and a New Year brimming with hope, happiness, and success! 🎄🎉✨ Baqi:) (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block log

Obviously the right action for The Last Hungry Cat. But it looks like you pasted the wrong ANI section-title in the block-log. DMacks (talk) 11:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, thanks for the heads-up, @DMacks! Fixed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grantchester Woodland Railway

Many thanks for your input. I'm not sure whether this is the most appropriate procedure, but I'd like to solicit your further help and advice regarding requirements for this article (about a publicly-accessible miniature railway). These appear to relate primarily to notability, and its confirmation via independent references. The latest version does include 7 references. In fact, the railway has a high external profile, at least in the Cambridge area, and is extremely popular during public access days. It also has a long and interesting history, with public usage dating back over 60 years. The submission provides detailed confirmation about these points. As you're doubtless aware, there are many Wiki articles dedicated to (rideable) miniature railways, most of which have fewer references. Just to give a snapshot (of UK railways), these include the Abbeydale Railway (2 refs), the Barton House Railway (4 refs), the Caldecotte Railway (3 refs), the Eaton Park Railway (3 refs), the Barking Park Railway (4 refs), the Conwy Valley Railway (2 refs), the Swanley New Barn Railway (1 ref) etc etc - in fact, most articles of this type have fewer references than the 7 in the submitted version (and it's probably fair to say that, in many cases, the references that they do have are rather less 'independent' than those in the submitted article). In any event, your further guidance and assistance would be very much appreciated. BillClyne (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @BillClyne, and thanks for reaching out.

I'll start with your last point, the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument (which, alas, is a fallacy). There are all sorts problematic articles among the nearly 7m in the English-language Wikipedia. Many are insufficiently referenced, some haven't a single source, but that doesn't mean we should create more such problems. Some of these articles may go back to the early days of Wikipedia, when it was thought more important to create articles than to worry about such niceties as verifiability and notability. Some pre-date our current reviewing processes, and were possibly created without anyone reviewing or 'accepting' them in any sense. As this is an entirely volunteer-based project, we can only deal with issues that we become aware of, and if no one flags up a problem article, it can stay in the encyclopaedia sometimes for years. (If you have come across articles that have insufficient sources, you're very welcome to either improve them, or highlight the issues with appropriate maintenance templates, or if neither of these is possible, commence deletion proceedings.) Be that as it may, all new articles must comply with our current policies and requirements.

Of these, notability is perhaps the most fundamental. Notability in the Wikipedia context does not mean 'well-known' or 'famous' or 'long-standing' or 'popular' or anything of that ilk. It means, in simple terms, that 'sufficient independent and reliable secondary sources have previously published significant coverage about the subject'. This goes to the heart of what Wikipedia articles are, and how they're meant to be written: they mostly summarise what other sources have previously published. It therefore follows that if no (or not sufficient) such sources exist, then their coverage cannot be summarised, and no Wikipedia article can be based on them.

In the case of Draft:Grantchester Woodland Railway, the sources are insufficient because:

Moovit is a mobility-as-a-service app, not an actual source.
NRPS is a primary source.
Similar to #1
Google search results is not a source, it's a portal to possible sources.
Blog
As #2
User-generated, and just a photo which only supports (at best) a minor factoid in the draft.

Hence my earlier comment that none of the sources cited contributes towards notability.

Hope this helps, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your prompt and constructive response - it's very much appreciated. I'm fully supportive of these policies. I take the point about some existing articles being in need of improvement. For example, the one on the Audley End railway is very limited, despite the fact that it's a major, and very successful, commercial enterprise. I know a bit about it and I'll look into improving the article. The Grantchester Woodland Railway is an example of a slightly different scenario, also being very popular locally, and having a very attractive physical set-up, but being run on a much less commercial basis - the people running it are all amateurs, motivated by enthusiasm for railways and for seeing the enjoyment it brings to the people who come along. This is the main reason for there being relatively little in the way of external secondary sources of information - it's something of a local 'secret'. On the other hand, I think that there would be benefits to having a Wiki article - it would raise the profile of the activity in a helpful way.

I'm certainly hopeful that you'll be supportive of having one, provided it does conform to the (excellent) guidelines for Wiki articles. I can see some parallels with another article that I created a couple of years ago (DoITPoMS), which I think you may also have helped to pilot through. That also is a (quite significant) activity run entirely by unpaid volunteers, widely used but with limited secondary sources. Anyway, I would like to check with you about changes to the current version of the railway article that might help allow it to be accepted. An obvious additional reference is the website of the society (https://cdmes.uk/). Of course, it's not a secondary source, but it does provide quite a lot of independent information. For example, the google reviews there (of which there are a substantial number, with an average star rating of 4.8) provide a clear picture of the perception of the people who come along (often repeatedly). I could also cite the gov.uk website for the company. I take your points about the existing references, although hopefully at least some of them could be usefully retained. Your further views and advice would be very much appreciated. BillClyne (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BillClyne: your comment about "limited secondary sources" is the key here. Notability, for most subjects incl. this, really does boil down to sufficient sources. If you can find at least three sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, it should be possible to create an article. If you cannot, then I'm afraid it will be impossible. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say that I have tracked down another secondary source, which is the main article published last year in an issue of the 'Model Engineer' magazine. It features on the front page (which I've uploaded as an image to the latest version of the article). BillClyne (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

happy new year

happy new year, @DoubleGrazing! Leonardo da vin (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NexDock...

Hi DoubleGrazing -- Sorry for that comedy of errors; at least we were trying to do the same thing, even if we kept overlapping! Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 07:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, @Espresso Addict, "many hands make light work" etc. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doubled work, in this case... Sigh. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Article You denied of mine

Hello, I'm still confused on the reason you thought it should be denied. The sources I am using HAVE to be "hyperlocal", due t it being about a school club there aren'tnational articles about some schools latin club lol. Also.. the need for significance; we have that because the point was to inform about what the club is and that it is arguably the oldest latin club in the nation. I know I seem stuck in my own sort of thought-bubble on this but I am just looking for some input on how I can get this into a publishable status. Thanks

Draft:Societas Classica Academiae Pinkertoniae Aperson118 (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aperson118 (talk page watcher) School clubs are generally not independent notable and should be merged with the school. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So how instead am I supposed to make it "notable" Aperson118 (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aperson118 it is impossble for you to make it notable. It either is, or it is not. My view is not. So why not merge it with the school? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does the fact that it's arguably the oldest latin club have no merit? Aperson118 (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aperson118 You mistake notability for merit. Please read WP:NORG. This club appears to fail it. So please merge it with the school article. You are blowing this out of proportion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So your saying that the club itself isn't really big enough to be a stand alone article? I also have no clue how to merge it with the school article (I'm really new at this). Does that mean I somehow add a whole new section to the existing wiki page on just Pinkerton Academy? Also I think your misinterpreting my lacking knowledge as somehow "blowing it out of proportion", I was just assigned to this project and am still sort of figuring out how to use Wikipedia. Aperson118 (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for covering for me, @Timtrent, appreciated.

@Aperson118: yes, 'merging' in this case means you take the salient points in your draft, and insert them in the existing Pinkerton Academy article. If there's already a mention of the club there, you can expand on it. If there isn't, find some other suitable location, or create a new section. Just make sure that anything you say is a) well supported by reliable sources, and b) neutral in tone and content. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense. And this is the only way that my article/ points made could become added to wiktionary? There is no way for me to make this a stand alone page? Thought I'd try one last time :) Aperson118 (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aperson118: there's a fundamental difference between creating a standalone article on a subject and adding something to an existing article. The former requires evidence of standalone notability. The latter only requires reliable source(s) to verify the information (and for it to have some encyclopaedic value). If sufficient sources don't exist to support an article, then yes, the only way to publish the information is to include it in an existing one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you. Aperson118 (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aperson118 Please define with precision "I was just assigned to this project". By what organisation were you assigned to it and what are the terms of the project as it affects you. Please do not expose real life names.

Your lack of knowledge is precisely why you have been blowing it out of all proportion. Your first reaction to advice appears to be to fight against it.

Ah DoubleGrazing, everyone has a right to sleep, sometimes. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing it as a task for the celebration of the clubs centennial. No it was just taken wrong, I just asked some questions on what I had believed was how I make a wiki article. Aperson118 (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Greeting hope you are well Qatarijournalist (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

can you see this topic please https://g.co/kgs/c9ZP7ds Qatarijournalist (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Qatarijournalist, what can I help you with? Yes, I can click on that link; what of it?

Please don't go around posting this link on other users' talk pages unnecessarily, that could be regarded as spamming. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @DoubleGrazing thank you Can you tell me about this Subject?

in addition to sources, we have 3 local and international sources

Daily Sabah newspaper

And Anatolia Agency

And TRT WORLD channel because I can't create the article Qatarijournalist (talk) 11:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qatarijournalist: no, I cannot tell you anything about this subject. I can, however, tell you that if you would like to create a new article, you should go to WP:YFA where you will find all the info and advice you need. Happy editing! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi kindly can you check this draft and add sources please Qatarijournalist (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qatarijournalist: there is no draft at that location, I'm not interested in editing someone else's drafts, and I also don't provide on-demand reviews. Please create your draft using the wizard at WP:YFA, and submit it for review through the AfC process. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

many thanks ! Qatarijournalist (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

just if you have time take a look my user page I cant add last name here and thank you Qatarijournalist (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very persistent LTA. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]