Simple talk/Archive 165

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.

Seriously?

Is there really such a title as "First Gentleman of the National Committee of Brazilian Art"?

Thalison Lanoa is the page. 2601:644:907E:A70:A88A:D01:D812:BC47 (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems that such a title actually exists - it was translated literally into English from "Primeiro Cavaleiro do Comitê Nacional de Arte Brasileira (CNAB)". However, this person does not seem to be notable and the article has already been reported to the RfD. BZPN (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated the page for deletion. Notability of association and this officeholder in particular is unclear Eptalon (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Template:Section resolved/standard module

Re-set talk-pages (in January)

Some talk-pages, maybe need a re-set. Such as this one. 2001:2020:317:B3DB:3DF1:503E:D78C:34DF (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that article to our attention. You can also do this yourself by replacing the content with {{talkheader}}. Griff (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Help in reviewing the battle pages

We seem to have many battle pages that lack reliable sources for verifiability. There is also a chance that those are battle within wars which are notable, while the battle itself is barely significant in comparison. Or some could simply be hoax as we have found a few. I am listing here a few that do not have enwiki equivalent and are not going through RFD, any help in reviewing them would be appreciated.

Thanks,--BRP^ever 00:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The pages on List of battles involving Kurds probably need a review as well. BRP^ever 02:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@BZPN, @Griffinofwales, @Eptalon, @Chenzw who are already involved to some extent. BRP^ever 02:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

A little bit more background in case it's useful: while I can't remember which page it was, but a few weeks ago I also happened to come across one of the battle-related articles that appeared to be an attempt to bring content from one of the Fandom wikis, to this wiki. The Fandom wiki in question appeared to primarily consist of fictional/"alternate universe" content. Chenzw Talk 07:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, I'll take a look at it today :). Best regards, BZPN (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

A little time ago, I closed Massacre of Salmas (1918) (then called ...(1930)) as a keep. In that incident, it wasn't so much Kurds against the others, but rather: Likley predominately Muslims killing a patriarch of a small Christian denomination. Most sources I found were off-line, and in French. What I think this might mean is the following: A serious review means that whoever reviews, might likely want a library of a university, offering degrees in history/history of religion/christian theology. I haven't looked at the listing in detail yet, but I propose, that all articles should include at least one source and be more than 2-3 sentences. If they aren't we can likely delete them? Eptalon (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I would think so, if they just don't have good context or if it's too non-notable. RiggedMint 09:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Eptalon I have spent time reading several pages of 3 books often mentioned. Most of the battles mentioned here have very little content even there, in those pages. Whoever is using so many registered/unregistered accounts is always welcome to create a summary for the whole war or that specific part of history. But one to two sentence pages with no possibility of expansion and all based on single source without any other sources to verify the content makes me doubt the reliablity and notability in this case. However, I welcome some serious review and have sent most of them to RFD instead of simple deletion unless they have a serious lack of content. BRP^ever 09:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I guess that would be a good option, create 1-2 pages for the respective conflicts, and group the battles there. It also adds context and helps understanding. Rather than: yesterday afternoon I again saw people bathing naked in the pond in the park just around the corner, having an article about the park, or the pond is likely more useful. Eptalon (talk) 09:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I did a quick research and determined if the articles are hoaxes or not. The list is here: User:BZPN/Hoax. I reported most of them to RfD. BZPN (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

There are few pages in List of battles involving Kurds that'd likely need review too. I found some copied from fandom and I am not exactly sure but the license looked compatible. Currently going through RFD. BRP^ever 13:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

From my experience with the warfare/MILHIST members on enwiki, there's very few notable battles that haven't got an enwiki article, so I'd suggest if there isn't an enwiki equivilent we should require a good list of references to back up that both the battle happened, and that it is sufficiently notable.

I see some have already done some research, but the onus should be on the creator to prove both of those things are true rather than us scrutinise it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Bangladesh ips users

I have run into many bad ips and users from bangladesh im also not hating on the people of Bangladesh, just alot of trolls on here.... Any feedback would be greatly appreciated, thank you! BigKrow (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean? BZPN (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Bangladesh ips and users tend to create non notable pages, like those battle pages rfded alot. If I'm not explaining myself enough feel free to ask more questions, thank you. @BZPN: BigKrow (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there are certain IP users from Bangladesh who do that. At the moment, I dont' think it is a problem, I also don't think that the number of users from Bangladesh who create problems is higher than that of other countries. And as always: users (and ips) who create problems may be blocked. Even thouggh, once the user is registered, the ip is no loger visible. These users then get blocked with trheir username, and where they are from is ireleant. Eptalon (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thank you @Eptalon: BigKrow (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

If you are talking about specific users, report them to vandalism in progress; if it is about the correlation of two named users, you can also lit them at thre request for checkuser page. Eptalon (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

K. BigKrow (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Disambig page (in January)

Please move Roland to Roland (leader). ("Roland" should be a disambig page, and i would like to start that title.)
Other meanings of "Roland", see
simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&oldid=10009122
. 2001:2020:347:EF43:642A:F90A:72D6:E5BF (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. BZPN (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Two duplicate pages that both have the wrong title

I have found Chuadhary Sher Ali and Chudhary Sher Ali. I believe that they are about the same person, but the title should be Chaudhry Sher Ali as that is the spelling used in most sources. The others could remain as redirects, because Pakistan doesn't use the English/Latin alphabet, so there may not be an "official" transliteration. Could someone please help to move this page and merge the articles? 2601:644:907E:A70:A565:8C0D:F32A:F878 (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Articles redirected (one deleted) to the now-correctly named article (matching enWP). Article was cleaned up. Thanks for noticing. Griff (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)