User talk:TompaDompa/Archive 3

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

Mind taking your time to build the list on the subpage? Some people object to removing the existing table without replacing it with a complete one; and in any case WP:NORUSH applies so you should feel free to complete the table on the subpage before copying the whole of it to the article. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• I hate repeating (even more so after that silly AfD discussion); but would you please mind taking the advice suggested by others and working on the table in Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation/temp until that one is complete? You can then just copy/paste it into the main article. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Just saw this; I had just kept editing where I left off. I suppose we could leave the horrible WP:OR mess in mainspace while working on the proper version elsewhere, but why would we want to? It's true that there is no rush when it comes to adding proper content, but Wikipedia:The deadline is now when it comes to removing WP:Original research, WP:POV content, misrepresentations of sources, WP:BLP violations, and falsehoods in general. Our WP:Editing policy even explicitly says that on Wikipedia a lack of content is better than misleading or false content. Having a version that is under construction is definitely preferable to having one which violates our policies. I also don't really see the point in splitting the edit history off to Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation/temp, but maybe there's something I'm missing? Anyway, if anybody restores the WP:OR version I won't add my version back. TompaDompa (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
    • In that case, then, the only remaining criticism I have is that I think it would just help if you could also add the data-sort-value as you are doing it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
      • I figured I'd add those once the table is done, since I think it's easier to add entries through the visual editor and sort keys through the source editor. TompaDompa (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I am now tidying up hyperspace, but pretty much everything needs a rewrite, from Wormholes in fiction to almost everything in the {{Astronomical locations in fiction}}. That template gave me a pause, and I\d would like your input on is regarding the titles: Foo in fiction or Foo in science fiction? Ex. Earth in fiction vs Earth in science fiction, Space travel in fiction vs Space travel in science fiction... Ps. Btw, I left a comment at Talk:Warp drive you may be interested in. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. I rewrote Supernovae in fiction, Black holes in fiction, Asteroids in fiction, Comets in fiction, and Moon in fiction back in September, though I paused my efforts on that last one to focus on some other stuff. I do plan to resume that and then work on Mercury in fiction, Venus in fiction, Mars in fiction, Jupiter in fiction (probably merging/redirecting Jupiter's moons in fiction there), Saturn in fiction (probably merging/redirecting Saturn's moons in fiction and Titan in fiction there), and Uranus in fiction later. I'll probably take a look at the rest of Template:Astronomical locations in fiction as well. I also plan to rewrite Galactic empire. I can't give you a time frame for that as of right now, however. As to your question, I'd use "fiction" rather than "science fiction" in the titles for consistency (and because some of the sources might not strictly speaking be about science fiction). I don't know that it's necessary to move any articles right now however, it might be better to save that discussion for later when the content has been improved across the board. TompaDompa (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your diligence in monitoring the edits I make. I have to admit I was not familiar about the policies you mentioned about converted figures and IMDb as a reliable source. That said, I still would want to update the list of Detective Conan movies with the most recent and most correct figures. Considering your expertise, I was wondering if you can help me search for the box office of the first three movies? A lot of these figures comes from Box Office Mojo and I'm not too sure if they still update the earnings of these movies, which do end up being re-run in Japan. Thank you! ScalaAdCaelum (talk) 9:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Just as an example, my most recent edit was to update the box office of The Scarlet Bullet using a source commonly used in the article, because the Box Office Mojo figure for the Chinese box office does not match news reports and other box office trackers. I wonder if this is an allowable update or should we still defer to Box Office Mojo despite this? In their box office for another Detective Conan movie, The Darkest Nightmare, you can see how poorly updated the figures are, hence why another editor used the same source I did. Thanks! ScalaAdCaelum (talk) 9:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

We generally prefer using Box Office Mojo as a source when possible, since it's a more reputable source than The Numbers. Sometimes they have a higher figure and sometimes a lower figure, but we don't pick the source with the higher figure just because it's higher—we need a good reason to use an alternative source. One example of where we have a good reason to use The Numbers is for Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba – The Movie: Mugen Train, where Box Office Mojo was notoriously spotty about tracking the film properly—for a long time, we used Deadline Hollywood instead since that's also a highly reputable source, albeit one that doesn't necessarily keep publishing updates for as long after the release as we would want them to. Anyway, I think it's better to confine discussions about the List of highest-grossing anime films article to the talk page Talk:List of highest-grossing anime films so everyone can easily find the discussion and join it. TompaDompa (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I have posted in the talk page of the article and I hope it leads to meaningful and productive discussions. I hope you don't mind, but I would just like to ask about the recent edit. In this case, although Box Office Mojo did do a better job tracking the earnings of Detective Conan: The Scarlet Bullet than it did for Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba – The Movie: Mugen Train, it still neglected to update the Chinese box office figure beyond its second weekend. In this instance, The Numbers was able to provide a more updated Chinese box office number, one that is supported by other reports, like from Anime News Network and Endata. Would this not suffice as basis to use The Numbers's figure over Box Office Mojo's? Thank you! ScalaAdCaelum (talk) 7:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know, I haven't looked into it enough to give you an informed answer. I might get back to you at Talk:List of highest-grossing anime films later. TompaDompa (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Surge_Elec (talk) 06:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

For future reference, the discussion was closed with no action taken (closing comment at ANI). TompaDompa (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

It was, but you do need to find consensus before continuing your campaign of redirecting - especially so at List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation II which was the subject of a AFD and deletion review with the result no consensus for deletion. Polyamorph (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Polyamorph, the discussion continued at Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation after the WP:DRV closed. Long story short, the pre-AfD version of List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation was replaced with an entirely different version. List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation II is explicitly an appendix to List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation, but it is now an appendix to a version which no longer exists, and that previous version no longer exists as a result of a very long discussion that started at AfD, then went on at DRV, and then continued at Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. That is what I meant by Respectfully, this has been discussed. This page exists due to a WP:SIZESPLIT of List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation that is no longer necessary after that page was restructured following (very lengthy) discussion. It's rather silly to keep the pre-AfD version of List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation II with that in mind, no? TompaDompa (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, I see that makes sense now. I think in your edit summary when you create the redirect, could you link to the discussion where you have the consensus? E.g. redirecting per consensus at Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. In fact I will do that for you, to save you from having to make another revert. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Polyamorph, what bothers me here is that Surge_Elec went on a massive revert spree, all with the same edit summary, in what strikes me as a very POINTy way, and then takes it to ANI. If they were so concerned with doing things in an orderly fashion, this approach completely contradicts that. Mass rollbacks (whether by hand or automated) should be done only in cases of severe disruption, vandalism, etc., and these were not such cases. I consider Surge Elec's edits to be highly disruptive. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for my disruptive edits. Won't happen again. Surge_Elec (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Surge_Elec. Thing is, it's better to avoid these things beforehand: your edit history right now looks like that of someone who has a bone to pick, even though I'm sure you did all that in good faith. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: I think this could have been avoided if TompaDompa had linked to the discussion where they had consensus for the mass redirection in the edit summary. That said, Surge_Elec's mass reverts could also have been avoided if they'd actually discussed with TompaDompa. Better to descalate IMO. Polyamorph (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	I appreciate your patience in explaining to me. Surge_Elec (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi TompaDompa! Just a quick note re List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Massachusetts Institute of Technology, after a blank-and-redirect is challenged via a reversion, the WP:ATD-R policy provides that you should go through AfD if you still believe it should be converted to a redirect. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I know, I just figured that would have been overly bureaucratic considering the first reversion was due to a misunderstanding. That obviously doesn't apply to the second reversion, though. TompaDompa (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

. Looks like discussion has moved to the talk now. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb, "this should go through AfD"--no, that is not what it says at all; I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't misrepresent your opinion as policy. See the previous section on this talk page, and the discussion linked in TompaDompa's edit summaries: there was conversation/consensus. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Amara Sulya Freedom Movement is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Amara Sulya Freedom Movement until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah B. Smith (talk • contribs) 14:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

For future reference, I'm assuming I got this notification because I made this edit where I removed Template:Disputed title (as part of cleanup of that template, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 October 26#Template:Cleanup title) with the edit summary Cleanup of Template:Disputed title, which is currently at WP:TfD. The page has been moved since the template was added (the template itself has been removed and re-added). If there is still disagreement about what the title should be, a WP:RM should be started., since that is the only involvement I have had with the article in question. TompaDompa (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm guessing you are aware of the huge Stars and planetary systems in fiction. Most of the articles you are trying to remove are effectively splits from that article, although some were split from day one. You could spend the rest of your life trying to remove them one by one and fighting the reverts, discussing ad infinitum, and possibly getting a different answer each time. Fomalhaut in fiction already went, but that just made a mess! Also, un-splitting the largest components will just tend to make the unwieldy mass even more so. If I might suggest, the root article is the place to attack first. I'm not sure what your ultimate goal might be, but whatever it is, it needs to happen to that article more than to any of the individual ones. I'm somewhat agnostic. It is certainly a mess, but outright deletion just leaves the question of what to do with the inevitable notable fictional references to stars. So far they've been kept out of the articles themselves on the basis that very few really haver anything to do with the actual star. Lithopsian (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I was planning on rewriting that later in much the same manner as I have rewritten some of the other links on Template:Astronomical locations in fiction, i.e. turning the current TV Tropes-style list into a proper MOS:POPCULT-compliant prose article. I figured I'd start with turning the subpages into redirects since that could be done a lot quicker, and I didn't expect there to be any real pushback. Oh well, I guess I'll have to move my planned rewrite of Stars and planetary systems in fiction to an earlier spot in what might loosely be called my "schedule". TompaDompa (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree at all with (what I infer to be) your interpretation of the current MOS:POPCULT wording. The intent of that section — and, by my reading, even its current actual phrasing — is targeted at lists of only-vaguely-relevant references to a topic in articles about that topic, not examples of a topic in articles about that topic. I grant that large swaths of many of the astrofiction articles are indeed ill-sourced WP:LISTCRUFT and/or WP:EXAMPLEFARMs that desperately need paring down, but you're also deleting accepted, well-sourced ledes (which don't fall under MOS:POPCULT even by the broadest interpretation I can imagine) and replacing them with — in Stars and planetary systems in fiction's case in particular — a much shorter, drier list in prose format. And rules aside, replacing the entirety of an existing article with a stub just because its stated topic broadly intersects the current definition of "popular culture" doesn't seem to improve Wikipedia. —Twice Nothing (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

That's not really what I said. But we can't very well have a list without examples, now can we? That's why there needs to be sufficient MOS:POPCULT-compliant coverage—so we have enough content to actually write an article.

The lede of Stars and planetary systems in fiction that you're referring to, or more accurately the overview section I'm assuming you meant since the WP:LEAD was a single sentence with no source, was absolutely atrocious, to put it bluntly. It started out with improper editorial analysis of a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, and went on to feature blatant WP:Original research, an outright misrepresentation of a cited source, and straight-up WP:PLAGIARISM of a different source. Replacing it with something that doesn't violate a whole host of WP:Policies and guidelines was the only proper course of action.

Putting MOS:POPCULT aside for just a moment, quite a few of these "X in fiction/popular culture/whatever" lists have been brought to WP:AfD recently(-ish) with the same outcome: pure TV Tropes-style lists that enumerate every time X is featured in fiction/popular culture/whatever being rejected in favour of rewriting the articles in prose form based on proper secondary/tertiary sources. See e.g. WP:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction, and WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction. It doesn't seem reasonable to have to relitigate this separately for every single article like this when consensus has been clear thus far. Relitigating it makes even less sense when one considers that we have MOS:POPCULT which tells us what kind of coverage to base articles like this on. Simply fixing the massive and widespread issues in the manner that has been used in previous instances seems a lot more sensible. TompaDompa (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Just came upon your saves, at Neptune in fiction, etc. and see that some of your work I've criticized has justification in order to save the pages. Thank you for that, nice work. To myself and others, fictional works about astronomical objects constitute an important historical record of how humans imagined the beginnings of the space age as their extension of imagination into the cosmos took rapid shape from the 19th century onwards. Wikipedia as a depository of knowledge adequately covers this progression. Hopefully some of the major cutbacks, like at the Uranus article, can be added back. Language for drastic cuts found in a guideline does not trump common sense for such historical topics, especially pertaining to major articles such as Apollo 11 in culture. In short, I see you jumped in to save pages from the ravages of AfD, but please find more of a middle-ground, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The way I see it, what I'm doing—replacing the lists with prose articles where I can and redirecting them where I cannot—is the middle-ground. The radical approach would be dragging all these articles to WP:AfD, as with the articles I noted above. I actually agree with you about wanting to cover how these various astronomical locations have been treated in fiction over time—I would improve all of these articles and turn them into WP:Featured articles if I could (i.e. if I had the sources and editing proficiency required). And I do mean Featured Articles, not WP:Featured Lists. Prose is much better than list format for covering this kind of information, which is the reason we have repeatedly rejected these TV Tropes-style lists in favour of prose articles in deletion discussions. I want to stress that the general question of whether we want TV Tropes-style lists of appearances of X in fiction/popular culture/whatever with entries that lack secondary (or tertiary) sources is something that has been discussed at some length already, and we don't. The current text of MOS:POPCULT is the result of fairly lengthy discussion about how best to handle this kind of material. TompaDompa (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Such drastic changes, basically amounting a deletion, should have of course been discussed on the talk page for Binary stars in fiction. You have massacred the article and then redirected it to a page that is not quite on the same topic, as it is about real stars that are used in fiction, not all fictional star systems. I plan to revert your edits and you can make an argument for reinstating them on the talk page. I'm all for being WP:BOLD at times, but you've really gone too far here without consultation, deleting years of work and basing on a claim regarding WP:POPCULT which doesn't even apply here as that is just a sub-topic of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections- these articles are not trivia sections, the whole purpose of the article is to show evidence of these 'stars in fiction' so primary sources are OK. You seem to be delighting in removing content and have made no effort that I can see to try to find alternate sources where you deem them to be weak. Mountaincirque^talk 10:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Of course MOS:POPCULT applies; that entire article was a trivia section. That it was split off from the main binary star article in 2006 (see Special:Diff/92055955 and Special:Diff/92056366) doesn't change that. TompaDompa (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not a section at all if it's a full article on the subject...hence the principle doesn't stand, the whole point of that guidance is to avoid articles being overwhelmed by trivia. When you have an article that has an an entire purpose of reporting on a certain issue then of course it is justified to include lists like this. You seem to be well-intentioned but you have misapplied the guidance in my view and deleted a lot of content that readers of the encyclopedia would be interested to read, around 5,000 people were accessing that article to read about fictional binary stars annually and you have redirected them to a page that has no binary stars in the main list and have made no effort to move content over, such as the details on binary stars in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, or those in Jack Vance's works, you've just deleted them despite them having high cultural value. Mountaincirque^talk 11:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Surely you're not suggesting that we should encourage editors to fork such sections into separate articles in order to circumvent the sourcing requirements? That would to my eye be rather egregious WP:Wikilawyering. Community consensus is opposed to TV Tropes-style lists of appearances of X in fiction/popular culture/whatever with entries that are based solely on WP:Primary sources. Consensus is also opposed to basing the content of such articles on WP:Secondary sources about the works themselves, as opposed to sources about the overarching topic of the article (i.e. X in fiction/popular culture/whatever), which has been codified in MOS:POPCULT. This is not something I came up with on my own, this has been discussed pretty thoroughly (the current text of MOS:POPCULT is the result of fairly lengthy discussion about how best to handle this kind of material). For some specific examples of TV Tropes-style lists being rejected in favour of prose articles based on proper secondary (and/or tertiary) sources, see WP:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction, and WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction. Simply fixing these massive and widespread issues with the articles that remain, in the same way we have fixed such issues before with similar articles, seems a lot more sensible to me than dragging a bunch of articles to WP:AfD to relitigate this separately for every single article.

You say the entries have high cultural value, but whether they are relevant examples for an article about the topic of binary stars in fiction is not for us to say but for WP:Reliable sources about the overarching topic to say, which is something that has already been discussed thoroughly resulting in the current phrasing of MOS:POPCULT. The community has rejected having these kinds of TV Tropes-style lists that merely provide examples in favour of prose articles about the topic in question. The way I usually put it is that we don't want list of rainy days in London, we want climate of London (and the essay WP:CARGO puts it thusly: Collecting raw data does not produce an analysis. The raw data can be examples, that demonstrate the analysis. (There are some elephant jokes in elephant joke, for example.) But simply amassing huge piles of them doesn't make an analysis. What makes an analysis is finding the works of experts in the field who have done analyses of the raw data, and then condensing and summarizing their published analyses into the article. (Collecting raw data and then producing our own novel analyses of those data is, of course, original research that is forbidden here.)).

A good example of this is Earth in science fiction, which was nominated for deletion back when it was just a list of examples, but was rewritten as a prose article and is now a WP:Good article thanks mainly to User:Piotrus, whom I gave a WP:Deletion to Quality Award as a result. That article also represented years of editors adding examples (it was created back in 2003) and got an even higher amount of views than binary stars in fiction. It was of course completely overhauled in spite of that, and the deletion discussion explains why. I would have similarly turned binary stars in fiction into a prose article (like I did for e.g. Neptune in fiction) if I had found sufficient sourcing to motivate a stand-alone article on binary stars in fiction separate from a broader article on stars in fiction. You make a point about distinguishing between fictional stars and real stars (though I would like to note that contrary to your assertion, stars and planetary systems in fiction does actually currently contain binary/multiple stars in the main list, namely Alpha Centauri, Capella, Psi Cassiopeiae, and Sirius), but I don't see how that distinction is justified based on the sources—for example, the "Star" entry in Brian Stableford's Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia discusses both real and fictional stars rather than having separate entries for them (it also discusses binary/multiple stars in that entry rather than giving those stars a separate entry), and that's also true of the "Stars" entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and the "Stars" entry in The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy. TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello. This is to inform you that there is an AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brake check which you may be interested in, as you !voted in an AfD on the same article back in May. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 18:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mercury in fiction you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey brother, please search about "sikh empire" And add sikh empire in the list ,that should be included because that empire was also nearly 1 million km² ,so please add it in the list Google shows that about 0.5 million but sikh empire was of 1 million km² in actual,after deep research you can calculate the area of provinces and territories under sikh empire then you will find it is far broader than google's saying so please do a research and make it to the list ,it is very important otherwise unlock this page I will upload it 2402:3A80:1F84:6856:0:0:6CB:EE0 (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

This is presumably about list of largest empires, and would be more appropriate to add to that talk page rather than here. At any rate, we need a WP:Reliable source which explicitly says what the area of the Sikh Empire was at its greatest extent and which year that was (both need to come from the same source). There are some sources at the article Sikh Empire that provide an area estimate but unfortunately they do not provide an exact year so they cannot be used for list of largest empires. Calculating the area ourselves is not allowed per Wikipedia's policy WP:No original research. TompaDompa (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

	The No Spam Barnstar
	Many thanks for cleaning up what once were space sci-fi slums! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

On 13 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Anne Rice, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 07:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The article Mercury in fiction you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Mercury in fiction for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 05:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

This space goat fully approves of your hard work cleaning the aforementioned space slums. Keep up the baaaaa work!

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Thank you, and I appreciate your work on similar articles. I'm currently working on Saturn in fiction and I plan to take care of the rest of the Solar System afterwards. I've noticed that you've been working on what might be called technological articles such as Hyperspace and Space travel in science fiction and there are a couple of those that still need to be fixed such as Wormholes in fiction. Perhaps we should split our efforts along roughly those lines so we don't end up covering the same ground? TompaDompa (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

It's an interesting question to what degree collaboration is good - as in, I think simultaneous editing of a given topic is not ideal (due to edit conflicts etc). Which is why I'd not make major edits to an article that someone is currently editing. That said, I am afraid I am not sure what new sf topic will tickle my fancy, I have to admit I tend to chose my topics based on spur of the moment. Whether it will be Mars in fiction, Venus in fiction, warp drive or something else, I am unsure. In all honesty, I am leaning towards the first two right now, also b/c a certain editor we know who is interested in the fictional drives and such has been a bit difficult to work with, and I fear if I start working on warp drive we will lock horns again. Why risk that if there are plenty of topics were presumably nobody will get annoyed with the cleanup :>? PS. Note the cuts I've done at Mars/Venus, and also AfD for Venusians. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The article Moon in fiction you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Moon in fiction for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

A suggestion:

Doing major rewrites is okay. So is moving masses of content to another Wikipedia article.
But WP:Copying within Wikipedia still applies. It should have been noted in the history pages, and at the talk pages of both articles. Do better next time, please. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

You're not wrong, but you're telling the wrong person; while the rewrite of Moon in fiction was done by me, the copying of content to List of appearances of the Moon in fiction wasn't (see initial revision thereof). TompaDompa (talk) 16:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

No offense intended. This interlude was entirely avoidable if the contribution had been noted on the article's talk page.

It is an article which is outside my ken.

Happy holidays. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

None taken. TompaDompa (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Dronebogus (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

On 8 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Moon in science fiction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that fiction about journeys to the Moon has been written since at least the second century? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Moon in science fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Moon in science fiction), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

On 8 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Moon in science fiction, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that fiction about journeys to the Moon has been written since at least the second century? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Moon in science fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Moon in science fiction), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The point of categories is not to present a view on a person that advocates for a certain point of view. I also have to admit I dislike the category because I strongly suspect some will try to elide those who oppose Covid vaccines per se, with two other distinct groups. Group B is those who think Covid-vaccines are good, but who do not think that mandates forcing other people to take vaccines are justified. I know some extreme advocates of vaccine mandates try to portray anyone who does not embrace their level of desired mandates as opposing all vaccines, but there are clearly people who have been vaccineated and have tried to convince other to vaccinate but who do not want to see governents, companies or other entities forcing vaccines. In the US there is even a third group, people who feel that states have at least in theory the power to create vaccine mandates, but feel that either A-the constitution precludes federal mandates on things such as vaccines or B-Congress could if it chose to create a vaccine mandate, but it is not within the proper power of the federal agencies that are trying to impose the mandates to do so. Even if we would focus this category only on the first group of people, which I have little hope of happening, it would still boil down to a clear violation of NPOV attack category. Even in cases where we can agree that there is a clear consensus that one position has scientific backing, this should not be seen as open season to create articles and categories that demean and attack those people who differ from that position.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Getting close to the WP:GAN stage. Any comments appreciated. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Finish Talk:Hyperspace/GA1 before moving on the the Venus? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure. TompaDompa (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Can you tell me what issues remain unresolved at Hyperspace? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Working on it as we speak. TompaDompa (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey! As we all know that back in 2011, the last Potter movie broke many box office records. I was wondering if we could make a wiki page about box office records broken by DH:part2 ( like Infinity war and Star Wars 7 have one) as most of its records are not mentioned in existing wiki page and adding them would most probably make the page look messy. 223.177.73.161 (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that's a bad idea. Lists of box office records inevitably become trivia magnets as fans of the films want to include all sorts of records regardless of actual significance. We've had a few such lists that have been turned to redirects to their respective parent articles, see Talk:List of box office records set by Deadpool, Talk:List of box office records set by It, and Talk:List of Black Panther box office achievements. Frankly, I think the four that are still around—List of box office records set by Avatar, List of box office records set by Star Wars: The Force Awakens, List of box office records set by Avengers: Infinity War, and List of box office records set by Avengers: Infinity War—should be turned into redirects as well, and it's worth keeping in mind that I created two of them and (re-)wrote the majority of the other two. TompaDompa (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

On 1 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hyperspace, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the concept of hyperspace, primarily known through its use in science fiction, originated from and is still occasionally used in scholarly works? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hyperspace. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hyperspace), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I do not understand your removal. Sources are plenty even in wikipedia, I just don't know how to add citations. Instead of removing the entries edit and add the citations. Bulgarian Empires deserve a place in the list even more than some kingdoms listed there (never been Empires). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZArchivo (talk • contribs) 01:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

This really belongs at Talk:List of largest empires, not here. At any rate, all entries need WP:Reliable sources cited. The same source needs to be cited for the area and the year. TompaDompa (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Genies in popular culture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Brass Bottle. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

For future reference, it was intentional. At any rate, I changed the link to The Brass Bottle (disambiguation) per WP:Intentional disambiguation. TompaDompa (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Even if you don't want any userpage, can I implore you to at least redirect it to the talk page? Reason being, when I ping you and see red, I waste time double checking I remembered your username correctly... TIA. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I got used to seeing my username in red in the edit histories of pages and kind of like it (makes it easier to spot), so I don't think I will. TompaDompa (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I provided an explanation as why the page should be moved. The "Abenobashi Terminal Building" is the predecessor of the current "Abeno Harukas". So the page should be renamed to Abeno Harukas. The Japanese page says: "The Abenobashi Terminal Building (Abenobashi Terminal Building) is a commercial complex that once existed in Abenosuji 1-chome, Abeno-ku, Osaka City , Osaka Prefecture. It is the predecessor of the current Abeno Harukas." There is a separate Japanese page for Abeno Harukas ja:あべのハルカス. However, it's better to combine it by renaming this page to Abeno Harukas. -Artanisen (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I gather that this is in reference to Talk:Abenobashi Terminal Building#Requested move 24 October 2021, which I started as part of a cleanup of Template:Disputed title in response to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 October 26#Template:Cleanup title. I didn't have any opinion on whether the page should be moved back then, and I still don't (and I'm not the person one would need to convince anyway). Artanisen, I suggest that you start a new WP:RM at Talk:Abenobashi Terminal Building and make your case there if you still think it should be moved, considering that the last discussion was closed without action more-or-less for lack of participation. TompaDompa (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

10PH and me wrote something you will likely find amusing, feel free to c/e or add more examples: User:TenPoundHammer/Wikipedia is not TV Tropes _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mercury in fiction you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The article Mercury in fiction you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mercury in fiction for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The article Mercury in fiction you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Mercury in fiction for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

It did not fail! apparently a bot issue. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources that are generally permissible for use in Wikipedia articles do not suddenly become impermissible with respect to articles in disfavored subjects. If you think a better source is needed for a proposition in an article, tag it as needing a better source. If that tag is removed, do not restore it. Rather, begin a discussion on the talk page with respect to that source, and seek to gain consensus that a different source is needed. BD2412 T 19:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I take it this is about Mount Rushmore in popular culture. The issue is not that the sources is unusable. The issue is—as you well know because Piotrus and I both pointed it out to you during the AfD—one of WP:MINORASPECTS, WP:COATRACK, and WP:OFFTOPIC. The foundation for a Mount Rushmore in popular culture needs to be sources on, well, Mount Rushmore in popular culture. You can't just assemble a bunch of sources on disparate topics that mention Mount Rushmore; that does not produce a proper encyclopedic article on the topic, it produces a TV Tropes article. The guideline MOS:POPCULT is explicit on this: Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist. Rather, all such references should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary or tertiary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article. This source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item. Likewise, the essay WP:CARGO notes that Simply amassing raw data, and hoping that an encyclopaedia article will magically arise from it, doesn't work. [...] Collecting raw data does not produce an analysis. The raw data can be examples, that demonstrate the analysis. (There are some elephant jokes in elephant joke, for example.) But simply amassing huge piles of them doesn't make an analysis. What makes an analysis is finding the works of experts in the field who have done analyses of the raw data, and then condensing and summarizing their published analyses into the article. (Collecting raw data and then producing our own novel analyses of those data is, of course, original research that is forbidden here.)

The version of the article at the time the AfD was closed was, not to put too fine a point on it, really bad. It had a terrible over-reliance on verbatim quotes (sometimes unattributed, sometimes attributed to "a source" or similar phrasing). It had a bunch of unsourced content. It had a bunch of content that turned out to fail verification. It quoted sources out of context. It had quite a problem with straying off-topic with the North by Northwest section especially (also, why two pictures for that section?). It unnecessarily duplicated the scope of Mount Rushmore#Legacy and commemoration. And of course, it included a bunch of examples without much regard as to the sourcing and WP:PROPORTION issues mentioned above, seemingly indeed included simply because they exist contrary to MOS:POPCULT. It all looks decidedly amateurish and is rather an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Indeed, the AfD close explicitly said keep but continue cleanup. If you have specific ideas about how these massive issues might be addressed, feel free to either make those suggestions on the talk page or implement them yourself. Otherwise, this just comes off as an indiscriminate knee-jerk revert of the necessary cleanup I had undertaken. TompaDompa (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Nevertheless, your drive by tagging and removal of sourced content are bordering on bad faith. Verbatim quotes are, of course, permissible in Wikipedia articles—if you look at our GA and FA articles, they contain numerous examples of these in greater measure than in this article. I really don't know why you think this your conduct towards this article is permissible when no one else in Wikipedia is behaving like this. I would suggest that you focus on finding sources and building the article. Improve, rather than trying to destroy. BD2412 T 21:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not really drive-by tagging when I tag issues that I have previously identified and addressed before you reverted me wholesale, now is it? I could equally well say that you seem to be acting in bad faith by needlessly impeding the necessary cleanup, and in doing so restoring misrepresentations of sources, quote mining, original research, and so on. But I don't think you did it out of malice—I think you did it because you saw that the article was suddenly way shorter and figured that I had been excessive in my cleanup. I did in fact locate sources, read the sources, assess due weight in WP:PROPORTION to the weight given by those sources, and rewrite the article based on that. This version may be brief, but it is free of the massive issues I pointed out above. That's not destroying, that's improving. I might suggest that it would be better to expand my version than to clean up your version all over again. TompaDompa (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest that you brush up on the permissibility of the use of quotes in articles, since your view of that topic seems to be alien to the view taken by the Wikipedia community. Beyond that, you have added a tag asserting things like grammar and spelling errors, which I would be very keen for you to point out. If you disagree with Wikipedia policy on permitting quotations, start an RfC to prohibit them, but start with the GA and FA articles that have more quotations than this one. The same thing with sources you disagree with.

This article has survived AfD with a "keep" outcome. It is here forever, now. It will not be deleted from Wikipedia, merged into another article, redirected, moved back to draft space, or otherwise removed from its status as an article for as long as Wikipedia exists. No amount of tags thrown on the page will change that fact. BD2412 T 21:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Stop implying I said things I never said, you're better than that. I know we use verbatim quotes occasionally, but an over-reliance on them makes for poorly written articles. We can improve articles by summarizing the sources in our own words rather than using verbatim quotes for that which can be paraphrased instead. Likewise, the issue here wasn't that Mount Rushmore's remoteness was unsourced, but that by saying Despite its remoteness, Mount Rushmore features as a monumental setting in a number of films we're implying that this is unexpected in light of its remoteness, and that WP:ANALYSIS needs to come from the sources. "Despite X, Y" is textbook WP:Synthesis if it doesn't come from the sources. As for the sources, we have MOS:POPCULT, the current phrasing of which was indeed the result of a very lengthy community-wide discussion. I'm not sure why you feel the need to say that the article will not be deleted from Wikipedia, merged into another article, redirected, moved back to draft space, or otherwise removed from its status as an article for as long as Wikipedia exists as if I wanted it deleted. If that were what I wanted, I wouldn't have spent so much time cleaning it up in accordance with the AfD close ("keep but continue cleanup"). What I want is to improve the quality. That can be done by adding good content, removing bad content, or rewriting bad content to turn it into good content. I have done all three. TompaDompa (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

As I was pinged. First, I think this discussion should be copied to the talk page of the article. Second, I mostly agree with TD that there is a lot of OR in the article. The topic is notable, but there is still a lot of OR, trivia and so on. I merged some off topic content and removed some triva, but I think more pruning is needed. Frankly, as I said before, what's rescuable here are just a few sentences. Given the keep verdict, fine, we can just have a stand-alone stub intead of merging it back, shrug. In theory, it can be expanded, we just have to be vigilant to ensure it will not start accumilating TVtropic fancruft of "the Mountain appeared in media x". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Come on you guys, some of us really like popular culture pages and so do the readers (per daily views). What you call tropes, and yes, your viewpoint doesn't like them, others call quality well presented fun material. People often work on these for years. Mount Rushmore in pc is also special because it's about an artwork, a sculpture, a rare and well viewed topic for such a list. Please consider lightening up and stop taking WP guidelines as gospel-down-to-the-period as hammers to go in and harm well-loved and long-worked on pages. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Thought of you often while doing styling edits on a few of an amazing Wikipedia collection of lists, pages just about unknown (seems most have low single-digit daily views). I found them recently and am impressed by the number of entries, their detail, and especially the extraordinary sourcing (your bugaboo), all by the same editor. Here are a couple: List of fictional astronauts (futuristic exploration of Moon) and List of fictional astronauts (Project Apollo era), and plenty more (12) where those came from. Had to share them with you in case you haven't seen them. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

On 21 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mercury in fiction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that many fictional depictions of Mercury feature the now-disproven belief that it always points the same side towards the Sun (actual orbital resonance pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mercury in fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mercury in fiction), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 8,479 views (706.6 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello @TompaDompa:, I put a lot of effort in trying to get this page Abenobashi Terminal Building to be renamed to Abeno Harukas. See this previous discussion. You closed the previous move and said to WP:RM at Talk:Abenobashi Terminal Building. The building "Abenobashi Terminal Building" was rebuilt and renamed as "Abeno Harukas". The information on the wiki page is incorrect. Also see here for information and on the Japanese Wikipedia page ja:阿部野橋ターミナルビル and this Japanese website . As you can see with the previous effort, it takes many months for people to respond to this request. So re-opening a move request restarts the whole process which could take many months with little to zero responses from other users. It can be argued that a new page could be created called "Abeno Harukas", but I think it's better to rename Abenobashi Terminal Building, because it was officially renamed to Abeno Harukas. I'd appreciate it if you can please help. -Artanisen (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I didn't close the previous WP:RM for the record, Havelock Jones did. Anyway, it seems you added the WP:RM template to the article (Abenobashi Terminal Building) rather than to the talk page (Talk:Abenobashi Terminal Building) by mistake. I fixed this for you. All there is to do now is to wait for others to weigh in on the discussion. TompaDompa (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I think nobody or barely anyone will bother to discuss it though. Is there a way to speed up this process? -Artanisen (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I suppose you could publicize the WP:RM at the relevant WP:WikiProjects—Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skyscrapers—to perhaps get input more quickly. Otherwise, not really. The discussion will just have to run its course. TompaDompa (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Artanisen:Like TompaDompa, I have no particular interest in this subject, but I'm afraid I have to disagree that you've put a "lot of effort" into this. In order for your RM to go through, you need to include a sufficient explanation so that a casual reader can understand what has happened. As it stands the RM is confusing:

• You say that the Abenobashi Terminal Building is the predecessor of the current Abeno Harukas, but that leaves it unclear as to whether they're the same building or whether a new building has been constructed on the old site. If the latter, the new building would seem to be a different subject, which, if it is notable, should have its own article (as seems to be the case on Japanese Wikipedia). You say that it's "better" to combine the two subjects, but you don't explain why.
• You say that the information "on the wiki page" (presumably meaning in the article) is "incorrect", but you don't say what's wrong with it.
• You provide some sources, which is good, but only one of these is in English. Since most editors of English Wikipedia don't read Japanese, it would be helpful to provide a translation of the (relevant parts of the) Japanese sources. You also don't indicate what we are to take from these sources.
• The only English language source you've provided says "Abeno Harukas" at the top, but consistently uses the name "Osaka Harukas" in the body, so its unclear which is the correct name.
• In the new RM, you haven't addressed the point I made in closing the previous RM. The second sentence of the present lede states, "It consists of the New Annex (新館) (main tenants: Osaka Abenobashi Station, Kintetsu Department Store Main Store Abeno Harukas Wing Building), Eastern Annex (東館) (Miyako City Osaka Tennoji), and a 300 m (984 ft) tall skyscraper Abeno Harukas (あべのハルカス)." While this is a bit confusing, it is clear that the site consists of three elements (the New Annex, the Eastern Annex and the Abeno Harukas). If that's right, it's difficult to see how "Abeno Harukas" could be the correct name for the whole site. Maybe the lede is wrong—I've no idea, but you would make a stronger RM if you included at least some explanation of the position.

Havelock Jones (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Please stop adding bullets to my comments. That is annoying and not appropriate. If I wanted them bulleted I know how to do it, and not bulleting them is not a big syntax sin. SpinningSpark 15:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Very well. The reason I did is that sticking to all bullets in a bulleted discussion is considered best practice per WP:INDENTMIX. TompaDompa (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

In maths numbers are always supposed to be rounded to the nearest digit when talking in approximate terms. So rounding up is allowed. Please don't add your own mathematical rules to the website. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I know how rounding works. The point is that rounding up can be inappropriate, despite being mathematically correct, in some contexts. In the context of film grosses, it is. As an illustrative example, saying that a film whose actual gross is $999,999,999 has grossed $1 billion (or $1.0 billion, or $1.00 billion, or $1.000 billion...), is mathematically valid yet categorically untrue; if somebody were then to ask "when did it reach $1 billion?", there would be no good answer because it of course hasn't reached $1 billion. TompaDompa (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It's only inappropriate if you actually mean it has reached that number. That is if you mean it "reached $1 billion" and you mean it as an accurate number, not approximate. Saying it joined the $1 billion club implies exactly that it actually grossed $1 billion.

And the sources exist for a reason to confirm the exact gross. Rounding up has been used for a long time, if you think it's inappropriate take it up with admins.

If a person can't differ between approximate and accurate numbers, or simply use easy-to-access box office sources, it's their fault not ours. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

If you really feel it's that important you can always say nearly or over. No one's stopping you. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to List of highest-grossing Japanese live-action films. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. Panda619 (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Merging List of highest-grossing anime films and List of highest-grossing Japanese live-action films into a single List of highest-grossing Japanese films was suggested on both talk pages back in March. The suggestion was unopposed and implemented. No objections to the merge were raised until you unilaterally reverted both redirects just now. Frankly, I find that rather disruptive seeing as you did so without any preceding discussion and in the process created two WP:CONTENTFORKs. TompaDompa (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me with The Avengers Infinity war accolades page. Im still trying to learn how to make new pages.Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! Shiraj chandra (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding But what I said was that this does not appear to be something that sources on the topic give significant weight to. Since you admit that it is "an underreported mainstream view", that means that it is in fact a WP:MINORASPECT and must not be included per WP:NPOV, just now I came across a TASS article (yeah, it's ironic) saying that even NASA had at one point used the technical requirement to argue that Yuri Gagarin should be considered as "parachutist" instead of a cosmonaut.

With that alone, I feel that the exclusion of the caveat from the pages alone would become a case of NPOV violation in terms of space and balance, especially the information suppression. However, I think maybe we can use an explanatory note instead so that it can fulfill NPOV while preserving due weight.204.15.72.92 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

If sources on the general topic—i.e. the history of the Space Race for timeline of the Space Race and the history of space exploration for timeline of space exploration—do not mention this, then we must not do so either or we are violating WP:NPOV. See the section WP:MINORASPECTS: An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Furthermore, the source that you claimed demonstrated that this is an underreported mainstream view instead of "fringe theory" in actuality says The conclusion of the delegates was to rework the parameters of human spaceflight to recognize that the great technological accomplishment of spaceflight was the launch, orbiting and safe return of the human, not the manner in which he or she landed. Gagarin and Titov's records remained on the FAI books. and as is true with any sports organization, the FAI reserved the right to reexamine and reinterpret its rules in light of new knowledge and circumstances. Yuri Gagarin remains indisputably the first person in space and the concept that the first cosmonauts had to land inside their spacecraft is a faded artifact of the transition from aviation to spaceflight. Per that very source, the assertion that Shepard's was the first "proper" spaceflight is indeed a WP:FRINGE view that must not be included. TompaDompa (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I was in the process of trying to relegate the passage into a Template:NoteTag when the "edit conflict" happened.204.15.72.92 (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The issue has now been taken up at NPOV board for discussion.204.15.72.92 (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard § NPOV issues in some sections at Space Race. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Is important, and useful. If a column doesn't sort correctly it has not been setup yet and needs to be setup. Example. There are other similar templates and solutions for other types of data. -- GreenC 21:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

It is (or at least can be) important/useful for some types of data, but not all. It's rarely important/useful for text, and it's never crucial for the column the table is sorted by by default. TompaDompa (talk) 09:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi TompaDompa, thankyou for the thanks! Do you have an opinion on whether the first Human spaceflight discussion should be closed? Ilenart626 (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Rats, you beat me in making a reply on the notice board. I was just about to post the following:

204.15.72.92 I have been reading through your walls of green text and I believe I have found a solution - we should delete all references Alan Shepard's spaceflight. You have previously stated that Shepard was the First human space mission that landed with pilot still in spacecraft and thus the first complete human spaceflight by then FAI definitions.. However note that he never "landed", he "splashed down in water". Note that "landed" contains the word "land" and I found this reference that notes land and water are separate and their are plenty of sources that highlight Shepard made a big splash. What do you think? See if we can get consensus?

:) Ilenart626 (talk)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Roqui15 (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

For future reference, the filer was blocked (see also block log). TompaDompa (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

		The Science Fiction Barnstar
		I, Piotrus, award you with The Science Fiction Barnstar, for your significant contributions to this topic area on Wikipedia. Per aspera ad astra.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Letterhack. 103.7.36.127 (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What I did was add a link to the Wikipedia article Brave New Words to a reference that cited that very source. Did you misread the diff? TompaDompa (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

On 28 August 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Venus in fiction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that as the reality of Venus's harsh surface conditions became known from the mid-20th century, the early tropes of adventures in Venusian tropics gave way to more realistic stories? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Venus in fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Venus in fiction), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jupiter in fiction you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The article Jupiter in fiction you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jupiter in fiction for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Jupiter in fiction at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Lightburst (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

On 6 September 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jupiter in fiction, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that fictional depictions of Jupiter have portrayed human habitation on the planet and its moons both by altering the environment to suit humans and altering humans to be suited to the environment? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jupiter in fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jupiter in fiction), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

On 6 September 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jupiter in fiction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that fictional depictions of Jupiter have portrayed human habitation on the planet and its moons both by altering the environment to suit humans and altering humans to be suited to the environment? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jupiter in fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jupiter in fiction), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 6,646 views (553.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of September 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

While I am aware that you have closed the GA review at United Nations in popular culture, I would like to ask for an extension of 7 days in light of the fact that you allowed Venus in popular culture to undergo GAR for almost 8 months.

I want to also ask that you issue a correction regarding what you wrote in your closing summary, namely "I've brought up a couple of examples above, such as the Emmy for The Poppy Is Also a Flower and The role of the UN in the Rwandan genocide and Bosnian genocide, where the UN sent blue helmets but failed to prevent the violence [...]. I would expect sources to be used in this way somewhere where original thought is allowed or even encouraged." You seem to have missed that the sentence you were quoting as inappropriate had been updated with 3 different sources, and you similarly did not allow a second correction to be made to the Emmy for The Poppy Is Also a Flower, since you issued your desired correction immediately followed by the closure - a minor correction which was already almost entirely addressed.

While I do not disagree with the integrity of your review, and while I do appreciate the work you put in the review and the possibility of opening a new GAR, I cannot but notice the differential treatment in terms of flexibility, which is perhaps best explained by the fact that you have had more interest in working on articles similar to Venus in popular culture (your rewriting of Mars in fiction comes to mind), or perhaps by the negative association to you expressed by a deletionist WP:TNT !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Nations in popular culture (2nd nomination). I would therefore be very appreciative if you could grant me a few extra days to complete my side of the review and properly address the second round of corrections you initiated. Best, Pilaz (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to reopen the review—I don't even know if that's possible after it's been removed from the list of active reviews—but I do encourage you to nominate the article anew once the core issues with source use and the article's construction have been dealt with. I'll be happy to review it again if you do, and hopefully it will be possible to close that nomination as successful and list the article as a WP:Good article then.

WP:Good article nominations are not generally reviewed over a period of time spanning months before being closed as either successful or unsuccessful. The main reason I decided to carry on with Talk:Venus in fiction/GA1 for six-and-a-half months (from late January to early August) was that I from the very start saw a clear path for improving the article to meet the requirements. Being familiar with the sources from working on similar articles myself certainly helped there.
On the other hand, I don't see a clear path for improving United Nations in popular culture that would make it meet the requirements to be listed as a WP:Good article. Like I said, This is not trivially fixable, because it is not merely a question of individual sentences being problematic. The extent and nature of the more fundamental issues are such that it would probably be easiest to rewrite large portions of the article from scratch using a different set of sources. I don't want to discourage you from trying to improve the article to bring it up to GA standards, but I don't think that should be done within the scope of the GAN process. If you want to try a different venue, you could open a WP:Peer review to solicit feedback and suggestions for improving the article. If you choose to do so, you may ping me and I'll weigh in as time permits.
I also have to say that I'm not sure if I would do a months-long review again, as opposed to closing the nomination as unsuccessful at an early stage and encouraging renomination at a later point (like I did in this case). That's mostly because I don't want to risk getting stuck in a WP:FIXLOOP that would lead to a lot of frustration for both the nominator and me.
I'm not sure what you mean by the negative association to you expressed by a deletionist WP:TNT !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Nations in popular culture (2nd nomination), but I assure you that that discussion did not influence my review or my decision to close it one way or the other.

As for the Emmy for The Poppy Is Also a Flower and the role of the UN in the Rwandan and Bosnian genocides, those were examples of sources being used to verify facts without proper consideration for context or relevance, not examples of unsourced material. I made additional comments explaining the details a bit further on 18 October: The sources may verify the factual basis here, but why is it mentioned at all at this article (as opposed to only covering it at the article United Nations television film series)? The sources are not on the topic of how the UN has been represented in popular culture, so why go into this detail about the critical reception, Emmy-winning, and theatrical release in Europe of this particular depiction? It seems rather tangential to the overarching topic, and I find it dubiously WP:PROPORTIONATE. and The sources that have been added ([1][2][3]) are speaking in a real-world context. Using these sources for this purpose in the context of this article is not appropriate, and it comes across as trying to make a point. As WP:No original research says, "References must be cited in context and on topic.", respectively.

All the best, TompaDompa (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)