User talk:PPEMES/Archives/2019/May

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Talk:Business casual

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Did you intend to modify User:Chicbyaccident's comments on that page or was that an accident? Toddst1 (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah. I see. You appear to have changed your userid.

More importantly, you should never modify your comments on any talk pages in any material way after they have been replied to. See WP:REDACTED Toddst1 (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks for the notification. PPEMES (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Infobox Christian denomination

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello!

Could you change Template:Infobox Christian denomination to include some new labels? That would be "Diocese(s)" (diocese(s) included in a metropolis/an archbishopric), "Archbishopric", "Metropolis" (metropolis/archbishopric in which the diocese is included), and "Main church"/"Church" (main church to which the diocese(s) belongs). Is that possible? Veverve (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Would you mind asking that on its talk page instead? PPEMES (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Western world template

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I have removed the template from a few articles......yes we have the horible pop culture guideline of WP:BIDI ....but in the case of main history and country articles we simply can't present the hundreds of templates that link to them....thus we are selective in choosing temps only directed related to the topic at hand. For example see all the temps that link to the WW2 page. Last thing we want to see in academic articles is the temp spam they have in pop culture articleshock like this fiasco here.--Moxy 🍁 00:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

While I agree that WP:BIDI doesn't always rigidly make sense, isn't many times the solution with disclosed list of templates a good option? Perhpas some of the location where I introduced the template it is not motivated. I would be happy to know which ones you removed it from, though, so that I may object on talk pages if and where I find relevant to do so? PPEMES (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

WW2 - WW1 - Rome all 3 don't cover the topic of the Western world and the template (one of hundreds that link to these pages) does not help in the understanding of these topics at large in my view. That said I'm surprised that we don't mention this in the rome article to begin with... there should be a paragraph on it.-Moxy 🍁 00:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC).

Thanks. I could agree with you about the World Wars. I do disagree in terms of Rome, though. I'll try to motivate it on its talk page. PPEMES (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the WP:BRD claim in this edit summary: that means that you are the one who should discuss after your bold addition of this template was reverted. Debresser (talk) 09:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

In any case, I now see that there was a picture with a link to Jerusalem. Nevertheless, I think, and in this I agree with the other editor who undid your addition of this template on the Jerusalem article, that this template is not related enough to have it on the article, especially with all the other templates that are already there. Debresser (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Alright. So, two discussions. As for article footer backlinking, oppositionen is recognised. As for illustrations in template, though, I have yet to see convincing arguments for something else than the preeexisting state. PPEMES (talk) 09:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Peter (apostle)

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Primary or not, concerted votes will now come in for Saint, because of counting Google Map results for buildings. :) In ictu oculi (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Alright. I just wanted to give it a try. A bit uncertain myself. PPEMES (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Monastery of the Flagellation (May 23)

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Not quite ready yet. We need some more historical data--when was it founded --what is the architectural history. -- what has been its historic role-- who have been the successive abbots-- what is the size of the community, now and in the past. What is its role in present-day Jerusalem? There's opportunity here for a good article.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Monastery of the Flagellation and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Monastery of the Flagellation, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, PPEMES! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Church of Saint James Intercisus (May 23)

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was:

This needs a more extensive article , not relying upon only a single reliable source.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Church of Saint James Intercisus and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Church of Saint James Intercisus, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DGG ( talk ) 21:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Frock motor

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)