User talk:Garuda3/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Autopatrolled

Hi NemesisAT, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed' and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned prolific creators of articles where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! – Joe (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Congrats! Seasider53 (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Joe Roe and @Seasider53, thank you! NemesisAT (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

High-speed

There are two Qianjiang railway stations in China. One is zh:潜江站 in Hubei Province, another is zh:黔江站 in Chongqing.下一站永丰南 (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

NemesisAT, do you have any idea who this is? It's also JamesBrierl. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies no idea I'm afraid. The Chinese railway articles have attracted quite a few similar looking accounts over the past couple of years. NemesisAT (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I blocked a whole series of em this time, and I did that a year or more ago as well. Nothing more I can do, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Stand-alone rail station articles

Your comments at the recent at the recent contentious AFD's seem very measured and guideline based, and I think you have expertise/experience in this area. How do you think the overall seperate-article-on-rail-stations question should end up? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @North8000, is this a question you are looking to pose to the wider community? Personally, I do think every railway station should have an article and I will fully admit I am biased as a railway enthusiast and "inclusionist". Here is my reasoning, the first point is very much guideline based while the other two are more my own opinion.

• I think it is highly likely that the construction, opening, and closing if applicable of a station would have been covered in the press but it is also likely that this information is offline, in another language, or both. Therefore I think it is likely that most stations would pass WP:GNG (though in some cases, only just, if we are strict about sources being independent (you could say no Chinese source is independent)).
• I do think separate articles are beneficial for navigation using the adjacent stations and Special:Nearby. I was mocked for saying this but I stand by it. These features, as well as the improved categorisation (readers using categories to navigate may not find station information if it is all on the line article rather than in individual station articles) improve the reader experience in my opinion. There is also the question of where to merge content for stations on multiple lines.
• The apparent precedent of keeping station articles (I think it is fair to say there is a precedent, though I admit using that as a reason to vote keep is circular logic) provides consistency. I think arguing over the notability of thousands of station articles would be a drain on volunteer resources.

Hope this makes sense. Thanks NemesisAT (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

What do you think in respect to the intent of GNG? If you take the prima facie reasoning from the guidelines, it would be that in depth coverage means that there can be content for the article beyond a few "list" type factoids. An unspoken intent might be to make Wikipedia be a bit selective. I have two motivations for asking. One is that with my NPP hat on I'd like to push for more clarity on what to do with these. I'm not really an inclusionist or an exclusionist but when I see a written or unwritten criteria that would green light millions of likely permastub articles I tend to oppose that. I googled it and it said that there about 7,000,000 train stations so this seems like one of those cases. Is there some type of criteria that would green light only about 100,000 train station articles? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The WP:SIGCOV requirement is incredibly vague (as I'm sure you'll know) so it depends on who you ask. One thing I can say is that for some Chinese stations, there is more coverage in Mandarin but I don't want to add more details in case I'm misreading it. This is often to do with art or architecture of the station. It could also be that additional information that is available is rather mundane like the facilities offered at the station (taxi rank, toilets, etc) or not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia (train times and costs). I'm not sure how we can make a criteria, apart from the availability of sources that verify the station exists. Only 50,000 or so have been created so far (based on article numbers in WP:STATIONS) so unless a group of editors come along and start churning them out, I can't see us going over 100,00 any time soon. NemesisAT (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
3		Nanping–Fuzhou railway (talk)	Add sources
2		Zhangping–Longchuan railway (talk)	Add sources
171		British Rail Class 153 (talk)	Add sources
10		Nanjing South railway station (talk)	Add sources
3		Ganzhou–Longyan railway (talk)	Add sources
57		British Rail Class 318 (talk)	Add sources
9		Forth and Clyde Canal Pathway (talk)	Cleanup
69		A12 road (England) (talk)	Cleanup
12		St Philip's Marsh depot (talk)	Cleanup
13		Troon railway station (talk)	Expand
324		InterCity 125 (talk)	Expand
149		Passenger rail franchising in Great Britain (talk)	Expand
34		A90 road (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
101		Double-stack rail transport (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
12		Kilkenny railway station (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
50		Paddington tube station (Bakerloo, Circle and District lines) (talk)	Merge
45		Utility cycling (talk)	Merge
4		Cinema Handicap (talk)	Merge
20		Guide bar (talk)	Wikify
21		Sutton Link (talk)	Wikify
35		Bicycle safety (talk)	Wikify
3		Yan Ping (artist) (talk)	Orphan
23		Net-C (talk)	Orphan
9		Carol Lee (talk)	Orphan
6		Zhaoqing railway station (talk)	Stub
4		Zhangzhou railway station (talk)	Stub
3		Yongji North railway station (talk)	Stub
15		Peter Loehr (talk)	Stub
70		Air Alsie (talk)	Stub
2		Linfen West railway station (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:McGinty’s Group

Hello, NemesisAT. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:McGinty’s Group, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Please review CSD G5

You contested my speedy on Line M101 (Beijing Subway) with the dismissive edit summary "contest speedy, at a glance the article appears to be sourced so what is the problem with it?" Well, I'll tell you exactly what's wrong with it. It was created by a sockpuppet in violation of a block. Allowing such articles to stand when they have no substantial edits by others is telling sockpuppets that block evasion is OK. Such articles should be promptly deleted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with deleting articles in this case unless there are problems with the actual contents. Their account has been blocked which sends a clear message that block evasion is not okay. Deleting articles will only waste future volunteer time as good faith editors recreate them, or remove information from Wikipedia forever. NemesisAT (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be dimissive. I have contested similar proposed deletions in the past without issue, and even been asked to check over and contest mass deletions (or restore articles converted to redirect? can't quite remember) in the past. NemesisAT (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever really used PRODs. I believe in most cases a deletion discussion is better. I know I can come across as deletionist, but I have at times contested PRODs that were clearly done without a BEFORE, such as [1]. Similarly, I try not to use CSD on articles I review as part of New Page Patrol unless I think it's clear-cut. Now that the speedy has been contested, the article will remain. I'm not inclined to AfD it, an entire line of a subway system is pretty obviously notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It just got deleted, actually. I didn't tag it again. But you'd be totally ok to recreate it. The subject is notable. The only reason it was deleted is because a sock wrote it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I have asked the deleting admin to restore it, no luck yet. NemesisAT (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Coastliner

I can make a few routes down Lancashire way, if you think they would be notable enough to survive the wielding swords about the place. I saw the draft titled Coastliner 36, and one of the ones I’d be creating is for a route number 24. Surely there would be some disambiguation necessary in regards to the title, or do we just wait until another Coastliner route 24 comes along and then dab accordingly? Seasider53 (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I've created quite a few bus route articles now and while some have had "notability" tags placed over them, I can't remember any being sent to AfD. There have been many more where I have found one or two sources but not enough sources or info to make an article on. There is already a Coastliner 700 article so I think a disambiguation page at Coastliner would be a good idea. NemesisAT (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

It seems the Coastliner routes I was looking at is a separate company. The logo is similar, but this one "operates bus services in Blackpool Fylde and Wyre Boroughs". Seasider53 (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

And there's a third Coastliner (a subsidiary of TransDev) that operates in Yorkshire, Greater Manchester and other parts of West Lancashire and has another very similar logo. Good times. Seasider53 (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Seasider53 thanks for creating that, that should help clear up some confusion. I'll probably leave the Coastliner 36 article for the time being but hopefully more sourcing will become available and I will publish it in the future. NemesisAT (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:10 Thornbury–Avonmouth

Hello, NemesisAT. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:10 Thornbury–Avonmouth, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Perth bus station

Found a great shot of the stretch of buildings that made way for the above. Obviously it all looks much better now, especially the heartbreakingly beautiful Queens Hotel. I'll try to incorporate the image in either the bus station article or one on the hotel. Seasider53 (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Seasider53 Wow, then and now photos are some of my favourites. Thanks for this. Does the hotel have an article yet? NemesisAT (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Negative. I can probably make one. It isn’t a very pleasing edifice, though, and I usually favour architecturally notable hotels. Seasider53 (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Seasider53 (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
13		Dundee–Aberdeen line (talk)	Add sources
16		Dyce railway station (talk)	Add sources
8		Chongqing–Lanzhou railway (talk)	Add sources
4		Fengtai–Shacheng railway (talk)	Add sources
9		Glasgow–Dundee line (talk)	Add sources
60		British Rail Class 320 (talk)	Add sources
2		Kaifeng North railway station (talk)	Cleanup
5		A991 road (talk)	Cleanup
45		North British Railway (talk)	Cleanup
48		Nanjing Metro (talk)	Expand
30		Pannal (talk)	Expand
124		Leeds railway station (talk)	Expand
23		Red Star Parcels (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
150		British Rail Class 90 (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
24		Human Accomplishment (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
83		Cepheid (company) (talk)	Merge
4		Madison Museum (talk)	Merge
16		Innobase (talk)	Merge
61		Transport Scotland (talk)	Wikify
985		Jet2.com (talk)	Wikify
14		Neighbourhoods of Allahabad (talk)	Wikify
7		Tulleys Farm (talk)	Orphan
2		Ellon Park and Ride (talk)	Orphan
8		Band AKA (talk)	Orphan
13		The Den and the Glen (talk)	Stub
8		Xi'an railway station (talk)	Stub
34		Mounth (talk)	Stub
2		Shijiazhuang–Taiyuan railway (talk)	Stub
3		Gaoyi West railway station (talk)	Stub
6		Pingyaogucheng railway station (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Crusader 26 and 27

Hello, NemesisAT. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Crusader 26 and 27, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Train stations and inherent notability

There was recently a broad community consensus that railway stations are not inherently notable, and we should not have a standalone article for every railway station. Continuing to argue that we should have a standalone article for every railway station is disruptive, per WP:IDHT. You don't have to agree with that consensus, but you do have to abide by it - or appeal the close to WP:AN, if you believe it was in error. BilledMammal (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I was not arguing that the station was inherently notable. I pointed out why I think it was beneficial to keep that article. NemesisAT (talk) 07:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

You were arguing that every railway station should have an article. That is a position that has been rejected by the broader community, and continuing to argue it in local discussions is disruptive. BilledMammal (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Villupuram–Pondicherry branch line

Have edited Villupuram–Pondicherry branch line. In this case, since it is short line, believe it's a good way to go to keep Wikipedia comprehensive. Would you be willing to check and/or expand with texts/refs, particularly with regard to electrification and and opening dates. Thanks.Djflem (talk) 10:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for putting the work in, it looks good. I don't have access to any additional references but I'll have a closer look over those that are included. I still think separate pages would be beneficial. The table works well in desktop but is fidly on mobile. I just hope folks don't start nominating stations on larger lines for deletion (I fear that RfC has opened the floodgates for that) as tables would become massive on longer lines and would be harder to read and edit than individual station articles.

I'm not planning to change my vote, I still think individual station articles are beneficial and personally don't care if my "success rate" at AfD lowers (I haven't checked it in ages).

Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Kendall AfG

I suggest you WP:AGF and strike-out the allegation of bad faith in your comments. It's perfectly reasonable to do the notability research on several articles before letting go with an AfD cascade. HeinzMaster has been around for almost 5 years and accumulated >33,000 edits. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I think subsequent comments have shown they were clearly acting in retaliation. I don't wish for any further consequences though, I just wanted to protect those articles from being deleted. NemesisAT (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Doubling up on my apology at wp:notability

I would like to double up on my apology that I just made at wp:notability#Proposed roadmap for the train station topic: "I would like to apologize to NemesisAT for my mis-statement above. I was confused between editors and mistaken. Their comments have been measured and expert, not working towards a particulate outcome." Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

No worries and thanks for the apology. Sorry for the slow reply, I've been away hillwalking and train riding for the past few days so have just been checking in when I have signal. To be honest I had probably posted a bit much and I reduced my engagement after that. I was a bit miffed that few editors engaged with my arguments for inclusion of all station articles and instead stuck to "nothing should be inherently notable" without saying why, or "the guidelines say this so we must do this". Not saying that's an accurate summary of the discussion but it seems to be a big component of it. Anyway I appreciate your position of looking for clarity from a NPP perspective - it can't be an easy job to do. The number of folks here who seemingly want to delete and merge at every oppurtunity is frustrating and frankly does often put me off contributing, but I don't see you as one of them as I also think your responses have been understanding and reasonable.

Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@NemesisAT: I think that an editor originally lit the fuse for the RFC by claiming "Inherently notable", a concept which doesn't exist in Wikipedia. "Presumed notable" is an SNG term and more common. Before the RFC my main involvement was just 2-3 articles I reviewed as NPP first when I attempted a merge and then later at AFD's, and things got a bit heated around that same editor. My motivation broadened a bit when running into some other invalid uses and claims from that same editor. Also, I generally have an interest in trying to make things work out. I floated the idea of creating an SNG for train stations (that is more selective than "all train stations") towards this end, and there was some opposition to it. If I thought it was a good way towards some resolution, I'd be happy to pursue that. I've not been close enough to the train station work and who is doing it to understand it well, bet it appears to me that, technicalities aside, the "main thing" is that the folks working on train stations might have been working on a basis of "our plan for covering train stations includes making an article for each train station" and that maybe the best solution is for the folks working on train stations to come up with an alternate plan that doesn't go that far. Like maybe the starting point being that every train station gets a section (to be individually linkable) or table row in an article on the physical line, and then when it gets GNG type sources and/or content beyond a photo "train schedule" type info then it also gets a separate article. And then use that for potential new articles, and gradually over the years, have the train station folks gracefully evolve coverage towards that plan for existing articles. That sort of leaves articles on physical rail lines central to a plan. Articles on other entities that contain train stations (e.g. "on paper" lines, cities, etc.) could then link to those. Any thoughts on this? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

bad NAC

I disagree with your close on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civic Sardinia. I'm not asking for you to revert as it doesn't matter. My concern is that the consensus to keep came with zero policy arguments. Nobody in that camp claimed the political party passes GNG. All of them assert that because it's a political party people vote for it should be kept. You might see your role as closing discussions as keep when all the !voters say keep but if you refuse to take into account their arguments you are merely going through the motions on behalf of inclusionists because you lack the bit to delete articles. Please re-consider what you're doing. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
2		Houma West railway station (talk)	Add sources
8		Sadjad University (talk)	Add sources
1		Jiexiu East railway station (talk)	Add sources
1		Hongdong West railway station (talk)	Add sources
2		Huozhou East railway station (talk)	Add sources
2		Handan–Changzhi railway (talk)	Add sources
42		Elevated plus maze (talk)	Cleanup
108		Yichang (talk)	Cleanup
39		M9 motorway (Scotland) (talk)	Cleanup
30		Transport in Edinburgh (talk)	Expand
16		Newmachar (talk)	Expand
22		First West Yorkshire (talk)	Expand
55		Castlefield (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
171		Finswimming (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
12		Tour puzzle (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
199		Park and ride (talk)	Merge
177		Matrix multiplication algorithm (talk)	Merge
137		Philadelphia Badlands (talk)	Merge
39		Lavie Tidhar (talk)	Wikify
118		Mary Robinette Kowal (talk)	Wikify
202		Dynamic pressure (talk)	Wikify
2		Babak Zarrin (talk)	Orphan
2		Theon Richardson (talk)	Orphan
6		Kayini Brooks-Belle (talk)	Orphan
4		Cammachmore (talk)	Stub
2		Wenxi West railway station (talk)	Stub
4		Baoji railway station (talk)	Stub
28		Elsick House (talk)	Stub
1		Xiangfen West railway station (talk)	Stub
2		Lingshi East railway station (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:10 Thornbury–Avonmouth

Hello, NemesisAT. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "10 Thornbury–Avonmouth".

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)