Garfie489

Welcome!

Hello, Garfie489, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Gamebattles, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted (if it hasn't already).

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! PoinDexta1 | Talk to Me | 20:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Gamebattles

A tag has been placed on Gamebattles requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. PoinDexta1 | Talk to Me | 20:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

ANI Thread

Thanks for the support. My first time opening an ANI thread too, but my understanding is that anyone can contribute thoughts. Short, factual contributions presenting evidence of the behaviour are best. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

No problem, have added a comment in support - however i think you forgot to sign the report. Garfie489 (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Now fixed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I honestly think the only way to long term solve this issue is for an RfC to force leads to be split into distinct sections. Geographical, historical, and misc.

Geographical should introduce where the area is, its status as a location, and how many people live there.

Historical should introduce the history of the location, with historical county as appropriate.

Misc effectively why someone may want to know about the location. For example famous people, major landmarks, primary industry.

Effectively this is the guidelines we already have, just split up into a more structured format.

Inevitably this wouldnt be suitable for all locations, but a clear divide would at least keep all edits clear and relevant. Ilford for example [[1]] near enough already follows this layout and is one of the best leads in my local area. There is no real confusion over its status, but it still mentions all the culturally relevant information. Garfie489 (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Sensible as that sounds, if the guidelines enforced a new policy of setting leads out in a certain way, there would be a mammoth edit job in making everything conform, and plenty of secondary resistance from people at article pages who would start second guessing the change. The guideline is actually quite good as it stands. It really is just saying that an article about, say, Romford should say that it is in Greater London now but used to be in Essex. That is good information. Of course, it shouldn't be saying that if it is not in the main text as leads must summarise main text, and if it is not due in the main it is certainly undue in the lead. Also it is being applied to areas within towns. Coombe, Croydon had this text, and I removed it. The edit is compliant with the current guideline because Coombe is not a town, it is an area of Croydon co-extensive with a former estate, and largely park land. I removed it from Bullsmoor for similar reasons, a nonsense insertion in a tiny stub of an article about an area of Enfield, where the historic county was pretty much the least important thing you could say about it.

But these are not problems with the guidelines, they are problems with people attempting to game the guidelines. An RFC I would support would simply modify the guideline to make clear that HC should only be mentioned for a town where the information is shown to have due weight, and that the guideline is not attempting to enforce that structure on all pages.

Other things that are somewhat irritating, but maybe not worth fighting, are (1) that we really should just call ceremonial counties "counties" as per the legislation. They are sometimes referred to as ceremonial counties, sometimes as geographical counties, but really they are just counties. Administrative counties are different, and where the boundaries of the two do not match, then only in those cases should there be a need to refer to them as either geographical or ceremonial counties; and (2) that we do not actually need to wikilink to historic counties every time we speak about historical counties. It is really enough to say that Croydon is in Greater London and it used to be in Surrey. No need to even use the word county in that lead. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I think at the very least, the guidelines should have a clear priority list.

Theres no reason in my mind for a historic county to be listed alongside a ceremonial county - especially if we take the view that ceremonial counties are now just referred to as counties. It is important for a county to be in the first paragraph, but not so the historic county.

Whilst i agree it would be a lot of re editing, many of this is not critical and can happen over time. But prioritising certain information at least for the lead paragraph, and others for a follow up paragraph would at least make sense to keep potentially contradictory, confusing, or historic data separated. The purpose isnt to give everyone a massive job to do, but as and when issues arise it can allow for this issue to clearly and neatly be resolved in a way that doesnt lead to another decade of edit wars. Garfie489 (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if in light of recent developments, whether to revive the idea of an RFC. Given the political motivations, i doubt well intentioned editors are as motivated to keep Wiki clear and accurate as those whom seek to further their own agendas. Garfie489 (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

An RFC would bring in plenty of fresh voices, so it is one way to counter a small group pushing a particular POV, but my views on the need for an RFC and what it should say are largely unchanged. Any RFC must have a clear question that can be supported or opposed. An RFC that asks for more general opinions or offers a range of alternatives is likely to become bogged down. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)