Jontesta

Hi there! I just wanted to congratulate you on the excellent changes to the Adventure game article, especially the definition section, which I put all the way down the article originally because I knew it needed this sort of work ;) I look forward to seeing what other improvements you can make to this and other video game articles! Playclever (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks! I noticed you were very active on the article as well. It's good to have knowledgeable editors on the topic. I will probably add some more later this week in the Adventure_game#Game_design section. I think the subheadings will be a useful way to categorize it but they may change as I add more. Jontesta (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I contested Ruritania, and thought it was probably just a momentary glitch on your part, but then noticed that you had also proposed Slough of Despond for deletion. If you really think that these are uncontroversial deletion candidates then you need to adjust your sights enormously before proposing any more articles for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from The Island of Ham into The Book of Dave. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Jontesta,

Please do not empty a category "out of process". If you believe a category should be deleted, nominate it for deletion at Categories for Discussion. Just removing all of the contents of a category so it becomes empty is disruptive so please do not do this again. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I see you've done this now with more than one category. Again, nominate categories for deletion, do not empty them in order that they are deleted. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Liz, if you check the articles in those categories, you'll notice that I didn't try to remove the tags from those articles to empty the categories. Rather, someone else filled them after they noticed they were empty. I did change the categories on two or three articles, and if the side effect is emptying the category, it will be up to someone else to decide whether to delete it or refill it with other suitable articles. I intend to continue this work of re-categorizing articles, and unless there's some policy that you think I violated, then I would appreciate you not accusing me of bad faith disruption. Happy editing. Jontesta (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Jontesta: You are invited to vote on the article Motor City Rockers. I greatly improved it from what it used to be. Catfurball (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello Jontesta! As we had this topic several times now I'd like to ask here, too: Would you consider doing the WP:BEFORE search - including searches at Google Books and Google Scholar - before doing more deletion nomations based on the absence of secondary sources? Thanks for letting me know! Daranios (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hey Daranios! I customarily do, and this is a reasonable thing to ask. I'll admit that a lot of google scholar links are behind passwords or paywalls, and it's possible I miss something. But seeing as most of the time I'm within the consensus, I consider my searches to be broad enough. (Many of the scholar links end up being trivial mentions, let alone essays written by students as part of an assignment.)

That said, I appreciate you raising the issue here and in good faith. I have noticed you try to raise it in AFD and it's usually with a tone of accusation, let alone personal attacks. You may have noticed, it's my personal policy to not take the WP:BAIT, especially in an AFD where it can turn the discussion into deep threaded WP:BATTLEGROUND.

Wikipedia is built on WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIVILITY. For the number of AFDs where you have been outside both, I think I'm being charitable by assuming good faith, that we have different views on what's a viable article. If I can do that for someone who is often out of step with Wikipedia consensus, you can certainly do that for the consensus that disagrees with you. I think your ask is reasonable, and I hope you see my request that way, too.

Once again, I appreciate the way you're raising it here, and that's always the better way to handle this. Jontesta (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello Jontesta! Thanks for your reply, and thanks for not taking (too much) offense, good to hear your side of the story. I did reply in the AfDs the way I did for two reasons:

First it seemed to me that you might have not done such a (reasonably thorough) search repeatly, because I did not have a hard time to find sources in several cases when you did not find any. I may have more access to some paywalled sources, which might be part of the reason. In this case I would like to ask you to check out The Wikipedia Library for any promising paywalled hits. I am not sure if this available to every Wikipedia editor, but I hope you have access to it. It does cover quite a number of paywalled journals. Many Google Scholar hits may indeed be trivial mentions or students essays (likewise in any Google search), but a few significant mentions among the others are sufficient after all. Our standards of may also difffer, I try to always keep the "why" of the notability requirement in mind, looking if there's enough material overall for a short article.

My second reason why I reacted badly to some of your nominations was the way you phrased them, along the lines "there are no reliable sources on this topic". This sounds very absolute, especially when I did find sources then (and like, in the last instance, such a statement seems to ignore a secondary source already present). You might have a reason to discount existing sources, but that was not apparent from your phrasing. So if you were to phrase it in less absolute terms, not stating them like you have the definite knowledge that no sources exist in this universe, but rather point to sources you did see in your WP:BEFORE search, and briefly explained why you found them insufficient, I would appreciate that. (Including in cases which are paywalled. It's quite a difference to state "there are no secondary sources, period" as compared to "these paywalled sources may or may not have potential, but I will not assume notability until someone with access will analyze them".)

Anyway, so far for my side of things and explanation why I sounded cranky. I stand by what I have said contentwise. I apologize if I have crossed the line to incivility in tone. Daranios (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

In your nomination, you confidently state several things that simply, and demonstrably, aren't true. I see you've gotten some input from Daranios, above, about BEFORE. So in this case, you either didn't do one, although your statements clearly imply you did, or you failed to find extant sources. I'm AGF'ing that that was the latter, and so here's a free tip: When searching on a fictional element for scholarly analysis, add the author's name to Google Scholar search. Another free tip? Don't nominate things you don't understand. If you seriously thought that Miraz, or any other major character with speaking lines in a C.S. Lewis work, doesn't have sufficient scholarly analysis to pass the notability bar, that is a WP:CIR failure. Please go fix your nomination to be less inaccurate, or, better yet, go withdraw the whole thing so it doesn't continue to make you look bad. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I hate to be back here again, but this nomination has avoidable problems:

• This article is sourced to unreliable sources such as blogs, or promotional sources affiliated with the subject. Could you please clarify how The Joplin Globe, Entertainment Weekly, Birmingham Mail, Popular Mechanics, or KSL-TV fit that description? All were present at the time of nomination, and 5 of 19 is a non-negligible number of sources.
• WP:BEFORE only revealed brief coverage that does not support a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Please describe what BEFORE criteria you used, so I can help understand why you failed to find such.

As before, I am assuming good faith that neither statement is an intentional falsehood. I would hate to see this sort of wildly inaccurate nomination turn into a pattern of behavior that could be interpreted as a user conduct issue. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. I am uncertain why you believed a PROD of Sally Carrera would be uncontroversial. Looking at Page info there are 50 page watchers, and it was getting 200+ pageviews per day. Regardless of your assessment of the notability and sourcing of the article, I do not see any attempt to merge or redirect the article. Please refrain from using PROD on articles that might be likely to attract opposition; in such cases, proceed directly to the AfD process, ideally with an accurate nomination summary. When in doubt about whether an article should be PRODded, I offer my services to assist you in evaluating such cases in the future. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Jclemens, it's time to cease trying to change every content disagreement into a WP:BUREAUCRATIC order. It's okay that we have a good faith disagreement about what belongs on Wikipedia. For seven days my PROD was uncontested, and it was seconded by another long-standing editor, before it was deleted by a competent administrator. That should be enough for you to see how other editors, in good faith, believe that the PROD would be uncontroversial. There are many times where a consensus of Wikipedians agree with what I'm doing, regardless of your viewpoint at the margin.
• To be fair, sometimes the circumstances are the total reverse, and we have each found ourselves at the margin of community consensus at different moments. Instead of using the community consensus as a cudgel to accuse you of abuse of process, I'm going to continue trusting the community to read everyone's comments about the content and make constructive decisions. I am kindly asking that you do the same, and keep your comments directed at the content instead of me as an editor. If you can't accept my basic request then I'm going to ask you to stay away from my talk page. Thank you. Jontesta (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

If you have watchlisted deletion sorting pages? I find it useful to keep track with stuff, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Games, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature, etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I haven't followed all of these but I will keep an eye out. I don't always have time but it's good to be aware of what's is around. Jontesta (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello Jontesta! Just wanted to stop by with a comment to avoid misunderstandings: I did not forget about my recent dePRODs of the video game articles + Bat phone, and was going to look for sources eventually. It's just that there are so many activities with time constraints in my field of interest, i.e. deletion discussions, that I hardly get around to do any improvments on articles. We'll see if I can join the corresponding deletion discussions then. (I wish they did not happen with such a high frequency, to allow for the high time requirements of the search for proper sources...). Daranios (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hey Daranios, I am going to give these more time. It's always possible that I'm wrong and that significant coverage could be found for these games, and that's always a good thing. To keep the volume of deletion discussions to a manageable level, it's been my practice to cap my AFD activity to a handful per week (usually less AFDs and/or more time). Recently, I've added some PRODs for topics that I would assume to be uncontroversial. But anyone can revert a PROD, and if I disagree with that revert, my choices are to increase my activity at AFD or risk forgetting about the issue entirely. It's better for everyone involved if the volume of deletion processes allows a good faith discussion to happen. I likely won't revisit these games at AFD until the new year, and maybe that will give them time to improve. Jontesta (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I noticed that you brought a number of articles about fictional planets to WP:AfD last month. There is a list of such articles (it is at least intended to be a list of all fictional planets with standalone articles) at Extrasolar planets in fiction#List, in case you are interested in looking at the rest and determining which ones you might want to take to AfD. TompaDompa (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for raising this. By the way, I appreciate your work at Mesklin, and I regret raising that article for AFD. Based on your experience both removing and improving articles, I would would throw the list back at you and ask your opinion. I will try my best to rank them from "most likely to take to AFD" to "least likely."

• Darkover and Tralfamadore: These articles lack sufficient sourcing, and I doubt they have it.
• Mogo and Apokolips: Previously nominated for AFD by User:Piotrus, they did not reach a consensus for deletion, with suggestions for potential merging.
• Riverworld: This article is poorly sourced, but I would check for sources first.
• Gallifrey and Skaro: Both are primarily based on biased or affiliated sources, including the primary source itself. Independent sourcing for Doctor Who articles can be a roll of the dice.
• Gor: This is a series incorrectly labeled/scoped as a planet. Some AFD discussions have resulted in changes to the article’s scope or title.
• Alderaan and Coruscant: These articles are not well-sourced and have limited prominence in Star Wars. But they may still be notable.
• Jakku and Naboo: Also poorly sourced, but I have slightly more confidence in their notability due to their significant presence in the Star Wars movies.
• Ego the Living Planet: This article requires cleanup but likely does not need AFD.
• Discworld (world): While in poor condition, my impression is that this is notable.
• Abeir-Toril, Mystara, and World of A Song of Ice and Fire: Are these really "planet" articles, in the encyclopedic sense of how they are categorized? They primarily cover fantasy settings rather than celestial bodies.

The others are likely notable. I would consider the AFD process for the first 3 to 6 articles I listed. The middle entries are more likely as candidates for a merge or cleanup, with the bottom of the list leaning towards sourcing and smaller fixes. Did you think that any of the planet articles need attention? Jontesta (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I haven't looked into it particularly closely, but I do have some quick thoughts about some of the articles. I tried to find sources for Tralfamadore some time ago and didn't find much, so it wouldn't surprise me if sufficient sourcing does not exist. For the Star Wars planets, my intuition is that Coruscant and Naboo are fairly likely to have sufficient sources whereas Jakku and Alderaan seem less likely to have that. I would be very surprised if Discworld (world) could not be properly sourced. TompaDompa (talk) 06:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am certainly interested in this. Quick thoughts for now:

• Riverworld should be rewritten to be an article about the series (which is notable, and covered in that article), not about a book. This is a common failing of quite a few articles, some of which we saved by rewriting them in the past.
• Discworld is an interesting case. The series is very notable, but is the world/universe? I'd expect that we would find it to be notable, but the article is not great right now. And yes, rename to 'universe', as suggested on talk.
• Abeir-Toril etc. Good point - at what point we differentiate between a setting and a planet? There are many settings which are notable and set on a planet, sometimes not even named (World of a Song...). Think for example The Witcher universe (ok, bad example, this somewhat surprisingly don't have a dedicated en wiki article; pl:Świat wiedźmina is pretty weak). All such articles need to be scrutinized, because they may be about non-notable entities and/or about a notable book series or franchises, improperly structured as plot summary fancruft about a given -verse.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the honest input. Starting with the articles with the clearest status, I nominated Tralfamadore for deletion based on a WP:BEFORE search.

I also fixed some of the clear instances of "keep" at the bottom of the list. I fixed some of the fantasy settings that are not really planets and added a short clarification at Category:Fictional planets. We would hope to find at least one source that refers to a place as a planet (instead of a kingdom or country). And if the fiction doesn't really treat it as a celestial body, then it belongs in the section of the encyclopedia with other Category:Fantasy worlds or Category:Fictional universes.

The rest of the articles in the middle will need more time and review. But if any of you get to it before I do, I will try to be of help. Jontesta (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply