Vigilantcosmicpenguin

Hello, Vigilantcosmicpenguin and a belated welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help one get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions, you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are interested in learning more about contributing, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Red Director (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Disambiguation link notification for June 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John C. Mather, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jane Rigby.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:This Year

Hello, Vigilantcosmicpenguin. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:This Year, 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) 20:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:This Year

Hello, Vigilantcosmicpenguin. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "This Year".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When 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!} 20:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Xkcd and the Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald

(I apologize. I let this message get really long. Tldr Should The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald even have an “In Popular Culture Section” to begin with?)

Vigilantcosmicpenguin, Thank you for your edits on The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald. Most of them were reasonable and significantly streamlined the article.

However, I have mixed feelings on the removal of Xkcd from the “In Popular Culture” section. For one, the reference not removed was rather obscure - when I search for the parody, there are few secondary sources on it. In fact, the album it is one does not have a page on the wiki. Additionally, I do not totally agree with your appraisal of Xkcd as obscure - there are many secondary sources on it, and Wikipedia itself has multiple articles covering it.

However, I somewhat agree with your removal of Xkcd on different grounds. Due to the vast subject matter of the web comic, its frequent direct mention of Wikipedia, and its shared computer-literate audience with many amateur Wikipedia editors (including myself), it can cause problems with article quality (see Wikipedia:Xkcd in popular culture for a more in-depth explanation of the problem and why I might agree with your removal).

At the same time, the article’s “In Popular Culture” section is very short. This leaves me with two possible conclusions for what would result in the best article.

The first would be to return the Xkcd mention. I feel that due to the short “In Popular Culture” section and the overall relatively brief length of the article, returning the reference would not hurt the article. If this were another article (of which plenty of examples are provided in that article I linked), I would say no, but in this case, the song itself is a part of popular culture and has few other examples, running little risk of an “In Popular Culture Section” getting too long and making the article convoluted.

The second, and perhaps more reasonable solution, is to wonder whether the article even needs an “In Popular Culture Section” in the first place. The other reference is very obscure, and from what I can tell, most other articles on major (a.k.a #1 charting or otherwise notable) singles (e.g Dancing Queen, Indiana Wants Me) even have this section or anything similar except for very good reasons; the closest I can find is the “Legacy” section in Never Gonna Give You Up, which itself is just a brief overview of Rickrolling that links to the dedicated article. As much as I love Xkcd personally and would love to have both references, I’m not sure there’s a reason for the article on “The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald” to have an “In Popular Culture” section at all.

Anyhow, thank you for your time. I apologize for this long-winded message. I just felt I should err on the side of etiquette and discuss this with you, as I didn’t feel it would be right for me to romp straight over your edits without a word.

Have a wonderful evening.

Respectfully, Dexcube Dexcube (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right that the song parody isn't notable. If I were you, I would go ahead and WP:BOLDly remove that from the article. When I was editing the article, I didn't check the source for that claim; I just saw The Washington Post (clearly reliable) and didn't bother looking any further. Now that I read the article, I see that it barely even mentions the song, so it's definitely not relevant to the article.

As for the XKCD comic, I think it was clearly not notable because there was no secondary source cited. It fails WP:IPCV—any "in popular culture" information should be verified by a source that establishes notability. (Which also applies to the song parody, in this case, because it was only mentioned in passing.)

And don't worry about the long message. I'm also prone to writing way too much sometimes. Though I would suggest discussing this on the article's talk page rather than mine, for future reference.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 02:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions and the helpful advice! I'll make sure to take them into consideration in the future. Dexcube (talk) 03:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)