User talk:PPEMES/Archives/2019/June

This is an archive of past discussions with User:PPEMES. 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.

Hi! I noticed you used {{wikify}} in this edit. Since {{wikify}} is deprecated, I would recommend using {{Cleanup|reason=<reason>}} with a brief description for the <reason>. Retro (talk | contribs) 18:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

OK. PPEMES (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sailing ship#Scope?, regarding what should be included in the article. You'll find a proposed outline, there. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

An RfC should be clear and neutral statement of the question you would like discussed, usually one with a binary answer (support/oppose). The RfC is neither clear, nor is it neutral (ending as it does with a statement about what is standard that itself has been subject to contestation). As such, while I appreciate that you have broken the 'you do it, no you do it' that has been going on for days, you are unlikely to get clear responses without a clear question. Agricolae (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry, could you help me with some relevant question then? PPEMES (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I have suggested a couple in my comment on the page: Should a five-generation ahnentafel template be a standard part of biographical articles? or maybe less far-reaching: Should the 5-generation chart be the preferred standard when the Ahnentafel template is used? or to phrase it based on the specific issue that has precipitated the discussion to begin with: Should 5-generation charts be trimmed to 4-generations in most cases? or even an entirely policy-based one, as alluded to in the past few days: Does WP:NOTGENEALOGY apply to 5-generations charts included in many biographical articles? A single question is best, because asking multiple questions at once can muddle responses: if you want to ask multiple questions, you should list them separately to allow separate 'response' subsections.

And just to be clear, as the editor asking for comment, you are free to advocate your point of view in the discussion, but this should be segregated into a separate Comment, not as part of the neutral phrasing of the question. Agricolae (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC have you publicised this RfC at the locations suggested by this section?

• Have you advertised it at WP:VP?
• I have added a heads-up section to what I think is the most involved WikiProject Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Genealogy#RfC: Ancestry of 5 generations "overdetailed"?.
• I would suggest that "Talk pages of closely related articles or policies" should include Help talk:Family trees (I see that you have already included WT:NOT (WP:NOTGENEALOGY)

-- PBS (talk) 08:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Where is it? Impatiently yours, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Ahnentafel. Feel free to help. PPEMES (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Processional pole, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. BoothSiftTalks 18:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Boothsift: You did so one second after I created it, which means I cannot carry out the intended subsequent edits. Would you mind holding your horses for a few minutes and revert this bureaucratic intervention? PPEMES (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure. For some reason I didn't notice the time that you created it. My bad--BoothSiftTalks 18:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. PPEMES (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, PPEMES. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Grand Highness".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (📧) 12:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The Template:Fraternities and sororities does not contain Phi Beta Kappa, so I don't think that the template belongs in the article.Naraht (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)