User talk:TompaDompa/Archive 4
 | This 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
List of terriost attacks
Hi mate wondering if you could add the ira attack in strabane last week to the list because i don’t know how to 178.167.224.151 (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
To be included, entries must be notable (have a stand-alone article) and described by a consensus of reliable sources as "terrorism".
If it can be demonstrated that the attack meets these inclusion criteria, it can be added. TompaDompa (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Mars in fiction
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mars 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Benji man -- Benji man (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Mars in fiction
The article Mars in fiction you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Mars in fiction for comments about the article, and Talk:Mars in fiction/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Benji man -- Benji man (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Jupiter in fiction
Sorry, what's wrong with my edit to Jupiter in fiction which you have reverted? Goudzovski (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- The sourcing, mainly. The content you added was unsourced, but this kind of material needs to meet the sourcing requirements laid out by MOS:POPCULT. You also changed the format of the section from prose to a bullet list. We don't want a TV Tropes-style list. TompaDompa (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Noldor
Hi TompaDompa, I think you can safely proceed with the GA. We're not in dispute about tenses - we can have them past or present as you like, but I don't think either of us mind a lot which it is - so I don't really see what we need to wait for. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Release
Yo, Tompa, Avatar 2 has made 881 million in ten days, search up "Avatar 2, box office". — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaydenCool (talk • contribs) 18:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- No, it hasn't. It hasn't made $881 million in ten days but in thirteen days since it opened on 14 December in several markets and the $881 million figure is as of 26 December. Your edit also said it had grossed that amount in the US and Canada alone, when that figure is in fact the worldwide gross. TompaDompa (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- Where are you getting your analysis? Further, you're free to expand on things you think aren't covered fully. You said including the $400 million threshold is "too much" and also you claim that the movie getting to $300 million isn't worthy of coverage. Something is really off in how you see the reporting of the figures. You can't or shouldn't "arbitrarily" decide that both $300 million and $400 million aren't noteworthy. Going on and saying other things is also erroneous.Infactinteresting (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- For the record, the initial comment in this section was about the article List of fastest-grossing films and this is about the article Top Gun: Maverick. Anyway, I started a new talk page section at Talk:Top Gun: Maverick. TompaDompa (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Where are you getting your analysis? Further, you're free to expand on things you think aren't covered fully. You said including the $400 million threshold is "too much" and also you claim that the movie getting to $300 million isn't worthy of coverage. Something is really off in how you see the reporting of the figures. You can't or shouldn't "arbitrarily" decide that both $300 million and $400 million aren't noteworthy. Going on and saying other things is also erroneous.Infactinteresting (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Mars in fiction
On 1 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mars in fiction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first fictional depiction of the moons of Mars predates their discovery by a century and a half? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mars in fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mars in fiction), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- I have no idea what criteria you are applying to exclude games while including juvenile fiction, but it seems to be your article, so I'll leave it to you.JQ (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- It's not "my" article (though yes, I did write it), and it's not about games vs. juvenile fiction. It's about sourcing. See e.g. MOS:POPCULT (
Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist.
) and WP:PROPORTION (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.
). Appropriate sourcing for the article Mars in fiction could for instance be the "Mars" entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction or the book Dying Planet: Mars in Science and the Imagination by Robert Markley—sources specifically about the topic of Mars in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 09:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- It's not "my" article (though yes, I did write it), and it's not about games vs. juvenile fiction. It's about sourcing. See e.g. MOS:POPCULT (
Paan Singh Tomar (film) GA review
@TompaDompa: as per your message on my talk page, I should propose a joint afford to uplift the movie's Wiki page to GA and then FA. Please join hands. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- I have closed the nomination as unsuccessful as the article has a far way to go before it meets WP:Good article standards. Film articles are not really my forte; you can try asking for help at WT:FILM. As a first step, I would suggest reading MOS:FILM. TompaDompa (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Rounding up
Mathematical rules always have figures being rounded up. Please stop preventing others from rounding up if a figure is closer to it than the one you're rounding down it to. The point is about it being closer. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- I know how rounding works, but it's not always appropriate to just round figures to the closest value. Context needs to be considered. For instance: Top Gun: Maverick has grossed $1,488,732,821. Rounding up and saying that it has grossed $1.5 billion is mathematically valid but completely inappropriate. Likewise, Usain Bolt is the world record holder for the 200-meter dash at 19.19 seconds. Rounding down and saying that he ran 200 meters in 19 seconds is mathematically valid, but similarly inappropriate. If a figure is rounded in a way that makes the accomplishment it measures more impressive like that, a qualifier needs to be added to maintain neutrality. That is, one would have to say that Top Gun: Maverick has grossed almost $1.5 billion and Usain Bolt ran 200 meters in just over 19 seconds (or similar phrasings). TompaDompa (talk) 07:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- If you don't consider it appropriate then please do not make others follow it. Yes it will be more accurate to say Top Gun: Maverick made $1.5 billion than 1.4 billion, because it's much higher than $1.4 billion. Usain's Bolt record of 19.19 seconds is closer to 19 seconds than 20 seconds. It's not inappropriate. The objective is to mention the closest figure. This seems to be a matter of your preference, please do not do that. And please don't tell people whether they can round numbers up again and revert them. Let's not create a pointless issue. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- No, those statements are not accurate. They are falsehoods. What you're suggesting by rounding with no regard for context is that WP:Neutrality should be suspended in the interest of giving a "closer figure". It's not a question of preference, it's a question of adhering to the truth. Top Gun: Maverick has not grossed $1.5 billion. To say that it has would be to lie. When did it reach $1.5 billion? Again, you can say that it has grossed "nearly $1.5 billion" or "almost $1.5 billion" or "just shy of $1.5 billion", but not plain "grossed $1.5 billion". TompaDompa (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- They are not falsehoods, also calling them accurate is a mistake too because it's approximate. WP:Neutrality isn't about rounding up figures and the common rule is to round to the closest figure, not always round down. You're saying it didn't reach $1.5 billion. But is it sitting at $1.4 billion? No it isn't. It doesn't have to actually accurately reach a number to be rounded to it, that is the mathematical rule [1]. Following that isn't a violation of neutrality. If you feel it is wrong to say $1.5 billion, then we can always say it made about or nearly $1.5 billion. You should not tell editors what to do based on your preferences, any such reverts are liable to be reverted in future. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- I know the mathematical rules for rounding, but as with everything else they should not be followed blindly but treated with WP:Common sense. Top Gun: Maverick hasn't grossed $1.5 billion, but it has actually grossed $1.4 billion (and an additional amount of money approaching but not quite reaching $0.1 billion).
we can always say it made about or nearly $1.5 billion
Yes, we can. That's what I said (one would have to say that Top Gun: Maverick has grossed almost $1.5 billion
). But we can't say that it has grossed $1.5 billion with no qualifier, because that's an untrue exaggeration. Exaggerating grosses by rounding them charitably is not neutral, nor would rounding a figure that is more impressive the lower it is (as in my Usain Bolt example above) down be. There are alternatives to inappropriately rounding figures in such ways—one of them is to give the full figure (appropriate for the Usain Bolt example), another is to use a qualifier (and sometimes it is better to say "over $1.4 billion" than "almost $1.5 billion"), a third is to consistently round "conservatively" (i.e. to a less impressive figure), and a fourth is to not mention the figure in the first place.accurate is a mistake too because it's approximate
That's not necessarily a contradiction. Something can be accurate without being precise. TompaDompa (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)- Yes we can say that because that's how rounding works and anyone who's familiar with basic mathematics knows what it means. It has esentially reached that number by virtue of being closer. For sure it hasn't reached it accurately or exactly, but we are never exact here. So the argument is moot. If you had $4,999 you won't say you have $4,000 if you were giving an approximate number without trying to be exact. You'd say $5,000. It's not exagerrating, it's actually being more accurate than giving a number far less than what it has made. And there's no rule prohibiting that. We are not being accurate here and qualifiers can be added in the lead where they will be easily visible to a reader. Regardless they're not necessary since we're approximate. The rule of thumb is to round up in such cases, we cannot start adding your or someone else's preferences. Figures will be kept rounded up. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
It has esentially reached that number by virtue of being closer.
No it hasn't. And that's the problem.If something costs $5,000 and I have $4,999, I can't afford it, and so it would be inaccurate to say that I have $5,000. Context matters. TompaDompa (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)- It has. The real issue here is you not accepting it and wanting others to follow your own rules than normal mathematical rules of rounding. Our figures are never supposed to be exact. So there is nothing wrong with it. Regardless please do not tell others what to do in future. A shopkeeper wouldn't mind you being short of $1. If you were short by $999, he would. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- I gave you a perfect example of a context in which the direction of rounding matters. In fact, I adapted your example. But let's go a step further. Suppose I have $4,500 and try to buy something that costs $5,000. By mathematical convention, $4,500 rounds to $5,000 rather than $4,000. Would it then be accurate to say that I have $5,000? No, of course not. TompaDompa (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- In actual there are different conventions for when the next number is simply 5. If you checked my link it says rounding down if there is no number next to 5. Because unlike say $4,999 it's not closer to either $5,000 or $4,000. In case where it is clear about which is closer, numbers get rounded up. We go by consistent rules, not what you want. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Conventions do vary, so let's go with $4,501, which under all conventions would round to $5,000. Would it be accurate to say I have $5,000 if I have $4,501 and try to buy something that costs $5,000? No, of course not. You have to consider the context when deciding how—and whether—to do rounding. TompaDompa (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- In this context you should say, $5,000. Because you're closer to that number. That would be the case no matter which rounding rule book you pick up. Or say 4.651. That would round to 4.7. It's as simple as that. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- No, obviously I shouldn't say I have $5,000 if I try to buy something costing $5,000 when I only have $4,501, because I can't afford it! You can't just ignore context like that. That's not to say that I should necessarily say that I have $4,000 (though it would strictly speaking be true—and it would be equally true to say that I have $3,000 or $538 since the amount of money I have is in excess of that amount). Sometimes, figures shouldn't be rounded. Sometimes, a negation is most appropriate ("I do not have $5,000"). Sometimes, a different level of precision should be used. Context matters. TompaDompa (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes you should. The whole context is being approximate and mentioning a number that is more accurate. Something that is $501 less isn't as close as something $499 more. Saying you have $4,000 when you don't isn't true, nor is the money you have is closer to it. Plus your whole argument is about not rounding up figures in any case which ignores any context and simply becomes a matter of preference. For example here [2] despite the gross (1.0298 billion) being far closer to the figure of $1.030 billion, you reverted it to $1.029 billion. Again plesse do not do this. This clearly isn't about any context. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Again, you're ignoring the context of not affording the item in question. If the seller says "I will sell this to you for $5,000. Do you have $5,000?" and I reply in the affirmative despite only having $4,501, I'm straight-up lying. "Being closer" doesn't enter into it—it's a red herring. On the other hand, if I have $4,501, I also have $4,000, $3,000, and $538, because those are all included in having $4,501. Having $3,000 is a prerequisite for having $4,501—it is a sufficient (but not necessary) condition thereof. I don't stop having $3,000 just because I have $4,501. Likewise, a movie that has grossed $1.0298 billion has also grossed $1.029 billion (or for that matter $900 million), but it has not (yet) grossed $1.030 billion. If I asked you which movies have grossed $1.5 billion, would you include Top Gun: Maverick because its gross rounds up to $1.5 billion? Of course you wouldn't. If I asked you how many movies have grossed $1 billion, would you include Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (gross: $995,339,117, which rounds up to $1 billion) in the tally? Of course you wouldn't. If I asked you how many movies have grossed $2 billion, would you exclude Avatar because its gross rounds up to $3 billion? Of course you wouldn't. If I asked you how many films have grossed $1 billion, would you exclude Star Wars: The Force Awakens because it has grossed over $2 billion? Of course you wouldn't. I'm sure you understand that in these contexts, "being closer" is completely irrelevant. TompaDompa (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- The context you keep trying to bring up is really irrelevant. Telling a shopkeeper that you have only $4,000 would make it much more difficult for you to get anything. Telling him you have $5,000 or near it would. It dod gross $1.030 billion essentially, as the accurate figure is $1.0298 billion. If you had $4,800 the shopkeeper would be much more inclined. In case of Star Wars: The Force Awakens, the article only says it has grossed $2 billion in the lead, not $1 billion because it far exceeded that gross with $2 billion. I would say it had made or reached $1 billion in past. I would not say it has reached $1 billion or that's what it made because that would confuse a normal person as to its actual gross. It is just your preference affecting your edits. In case of Avatar yes I would round it to $3 billion if rounding only up to one figure is allowed, that's how mathematics works. Same for Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, yes I would say it made $1 billion if only rounding up to one number is allowed. What you think is not how it's going to work. Nor you decide what is irrelevant or tell others users what to do. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
It dod gross $1.030 billion essentially
– "essentially" does a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. More accurately, it did not gross $1.030 billion but fell short of that amount.You're kind of avoiding the question(s), so let's go with a straightforward one. How many movies would you say have grossed $3 billion?I shouldn't have to explain to you that when it comes to money, which number is larger is more important than which number is closer. That is the context that you are missing. TompaDompa (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)- You're forgetting that we aren't accurate. Yes it already did gross $1.030 billion. And saying it isn't anything wrong. You know why? Because the figures on this website are always inaccurate, they are always approximate which readers know. That's why I used the word essentially. If someone asks me about Avatar I'll say it made 2.9 billion, or $3 billion, or a figure in-between them. Not $2 billion. And yes I say Avatar grossed $3 billion. I didn't avoid the question, I told you of the situations in which I would say those movies did. As simple as that.
- There's also a degree of inaccuracy. Saying a film with 2.922 billion made $3 billion is more inaccurate than saying a film with $1.0298 million made $1.030 billion. Similarly saying Jumanji made $1 billion is more correct than saying Avatar made $3 billion due to it being closer. That is the real context, and no user is going to stop rounding up because of your preferences. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- That didn't answer my question, so let's try a different one: How many films would you say have grossed $2 billion? Here is a list if you need one. TompaDompa (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- I actually did answer, please look at my previous comment. Since you keep claiming I'm avoiding I've made it simple and said Avatar grossed $3 billion. 2 movies grossed $3 billion. And 8 movies grossed $2 billion. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Also so you don't again start claiming I'm not answering, here's a more simple answer. 8 films grossed $2 billion. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, but surely you understand that based on that list, most people would say that zero films have grossed $3 billion and five have grossed $2 billion? TompaDompa (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- That is to say, most people have a different understanding of what it means to gross a certain amount of money than you do: Has Avatar grossed $1 billion? Yes. Has Avatar grossed $2 billion? Yes. Has Avatar grossed $3 billion? No. Your answers would instead be No, No, and Yes, respectively. TompaDompa (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Nope, they'll only say it when they're trying to be more accurate than one number or while using qualifiers. For example this article says Avatar made $3 billion [3]. That's the context. We try to be more accurate, but not completely accurate. Has Avatar grossed $3 billion? Yes it has. Now please don't tell others what they can't do, you're just going to get reverted. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, this list of films that have grossed $1 billion does not include films whose grosses round up to $1 billion, nor does it exclude films grossing $2 billion. Same thing with this one and this one. The standard interpretation of "grossing $1 billion" is grossing (exactly) $1 billion or more. Your fanatical approach to rounding that says that Avatar has not grossed $1 billion but has grossed $3 billion runs directly counter to actually informing our readers. By your logic, Avatar was the first film to gross $3 billion, but no films have grossed over $3 billion.Anyway, it seems unlikely that this discussion will get us any further, so perhaps we had better just leave it at that. TompaDompa (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- All those lists you cite are talking about those whose actual accurate gross exceeded $1 billion (thus the billion dollar or 2 billion dollar club). None of them are sources rounding up to only a single figure where they can only say $1 billion or $2 billion. Avengers: Endgame here (that too by The Guardian of all sources) is also said to gross $3 billion for example. People wouldn't say it and Avatar made $2 billion, when they can't round them to more than one figure. Thank you for your time. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
All those lists you cite are talking about those whose actual accurate gross exceeded $1 billion
Yes, that's what I'm saying. That's the standard interpretation of having grossed $1 billion. TompaDompa (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)- Nope. That's the interpretation when being accurate, not when you're restricted to rounding up to one digit like "$1 billion" instead of multiple digits like "$995 million". Something you keep avoiding. We aren't being accurate on this site. And here's a source saying Jumanji 2 grossed $1 billion [4]. Of course Wikipedia tends to be more expansive and never restricts rounding to just one digit. Your preferences shouldn't dictate anyone's actions. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Something you keep avoiding.
Yes, I keep avoiding rounding unnecessarily. Thats's a point I made way above (There are alternatives to inappropriately rounding figures in such ways—one of them is to give the full figure
andSometimes, a different level of precision should be used.
). As you say yourself,Of course Wikipedia tends to be more expansive and never restricts rounding to just one digit.
We have no reason to round figures in a way that misleads our readers, since we have other options.We aren't being accurate on this site.
We're supposed to be. Not necessarily precise all the time, but certainly accurate. TompaDompa (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Yes, I keep avoiding rounding unnecessarily.
No, you avoid it because you simply don't like it and want to follow your own rules. Yes we do have a reason, and that is MOS:ARTCON (consistency) as well as WP:NEUTRALITY. MOS:LARGENUM clearly states examples where you should round up instead of rounding down. 9,996 population is rounded to 10,000. $8,462,247.63 to $8.5 million. Please do not go against Wikipedia guidelines or decide your own definition of accuracy. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)- You rather conspicuously leave out the caveats given at MOS:LARGENUM about using full precision or qualifiers such as "about" if it would be more informative or if not doing so might mislead readers. Again, context matters. They give the example
The town was ineligible because its official census figure (9,996) fell short of the statutory minimum of ten thousand
as one where which number is larger is important in context. MOS:ARTCON has nothing to do with this; it's about WP:ENGVAR. TompaDompa (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- You rather conspicuously leave out the caveats given at MOS:LARGENUM about using full precision or qualifiers such as "about" if it would be more informative or if not doing so might mislead readers. Again, context matters. They give the example
- Nope. That's the interpretation when being accurate, not when you're restricted to rounding up to one digit like "$1 billion" instead of multiple digits like "$995 million". Something you keep avoiding. We aren't being accurate on this site. And here's a source saying Jumanji 2 grossed $1 billion [4]. Of course Wikipedia tends to be more expansive and never restricts rounding to just one digit. Your preferences shouldn't dictate anyone's actions. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- All those lists you cite are talking about those whose actual accurate gross exceeded $1 billion (thus the billion dollar or 2 billion dollar club). None of them are sources rounding up to only a single figure where they can only say $1 billion or $2 billion. Avengers: Endgame here (that too by The Guardian of all sources) is also said to gross $3 billion for example. People wouldn't say it and Avatar made $2 billion, when they can't round them to more than one figure. Thank you for your time. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, this list of films that have grossed $1 billion does not include films whose grosses round up to $1 billion, nor does it exclude films grossing $2 billion. Same thing with this one and this one. The standard interpretation of "grossing $1 billion" is grossing (exactly) $1 billion or more. Your fanatical approach to rounding that says that Avatar has not grossed $1 billion but has grossed $3 billion runs directly counter to actually informing our readers. By your logic, Avatar was the first film to gross $3 billion, but no films have grossed over $3 billion.Anyway, it seems unlikely that this discussion will get us any further, so perhaps we had better just leave it at that. TompaDompa (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Nope, they'll only say it when they're trying to be more accurate than one number or while using qualifiers. For example this article says Avatar made $3 billion [3]. That's the context. We try to be more accurate, but not completely accurate. Has Avatar grossed $3 billion? Yes it has. Now please don't tell others what they can't do, you're just going to get reverted. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- That didn't answer my question, so let's try a different one: How many films would you say have grossed $2 billion? Here is a list if you need one. TompaDompa (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- The context you keep trying to bring up is really irrelevant. Telling a shopkeeper that you have only $4,000 would make it much more difficult for you to get anything. Telling him you have $5,000 or near it would. It dod gross $1.030 billion essentially, as the accurate figure is $1.0298 billion. If you had $4,800 the shopkeeper would be much more inclined. In case of Star Wars: The Force Awakens, the article only says it has grossed $2 billion in the lead, not $1 billion because it far exceeded that gross with $2 billion. I would say it had made or reached $1 billion in past. I would not say it has reached $1 billion or that's what it made because that would confuse a normal person as to its actual gross. It is just your preference affecting your edits. In case of Avatar yes I would round it to $3 billion if rounding only up to one figure is allowed, that's how mathematics works. Same for Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, yes I would say it made $1 billion if only rounding up to one number is allowed. What you think is not how it's going to work. Nor you decide what is irrelevant or tell others users what to do. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Again, you're ignoring the context of not affording the item in question. If the seller says "I will sell this to you for $5,000. Do you have $5,000?" and I reply in the affirmative despite only having $4,501, I'm straight-up lying. "Being closer" doesn't enter into it—it's a red herring. On the other hand, if I have $4,501, I also have $4,000, $3,000, and $538, because those are all included in having $4,501. Having $3,000 is a prerequisite for having $4,501—it is a sufficient (but not necessary) condition thereof. I don't stop having $3,000 just because I have $4,501. Likewise, a movie that has grossed $1.0298 billion has also grossed $1.029 billion (or for that matter $900 million), but it has not (yet) grossed $1.030 billion. If I asked you which movies have grossed $1.5 billion, would you include Top Gun: Maverick because its gross rounds up to $1.5 billion? Of course you wouldn't. If I asked you how many movies have grossed $1 billion, would you include Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (gross: $995,339,117, which rounds up to $1 billion) in the tally? Of course you wouldn't. If I asked you how many movies have grossed $2 billion, would you exclude Avatar because its gross rounds up to $3 billion? Of course you wouldn't. If I asked you how many films have grossed $1 billion, would you exclude Star Wars: The Force Awakens because it has grossed over $2 billion? Of course you wouldn't. I'm sure you understand that in these contexts, "being closer" is completely irrelevant. TompaDompa (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes you should. The whole context is being approximate and mentioning a number that is more accurate. Something that is $501 less isn't as close as something $499 more. Saying you have $4,000 when you don't isn't true, nor is the money you have is closer to it. Plus your whole argument is about not rounding up figures in any case which ignores any context and simply becomes a matter of preference. For example here [2] despite the gross (1.0298 billion) being far closer to the figure of $1.030 billion, you reverted it to $1.029 billion. Again plesse do not do this. This clearly isn't about any context. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- No, obviously I shouldn't say I have $5,000 if I try to buy something costing $5,000 when I only have $4,501, because I can't afford it! You can't just ignore context like that. That's not to say that I should necessarily say that I have $4,000 (though it would strictly speaking be true—and it would be equally true to say that I have $3,000 or $538 since the amount of money I have is in excess of that amount). Sometimes, figures shouldn't be rounded. Sometimes, a negation is most appropriate ("I do not have $5,000"). Sometimes, a different level of precision should be used. Context matters. TompaDompa (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- In this context you should say, $5,000. Because you're closer to that number. That would be the case no matter which rounding rule book you pick up. Or say 4.651. That would round to 4.7. It's as simple as that. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Conventions do vary, so let's go with $4,501, which under all conventions would round to $5,000. Would it be accurate to say I have $5,000 if I have $4,501 and try to buy something that costs $5,000? No, of course not. You have to consider the context when deciding how—and whether—to do rounding. TompaDompa (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- In actual there are different conventions for when the next number is simply 5. If you checked my link it says rounding down if there is no number next to 5. Because unlike say $4,999 it's not closer to either $5,000 or $4,000. In case where it is clear about which is closer, numbers get rounded up. We go by consistent rules, not what you want. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- I gave you a perfect example of a context in which the direction of rounding matters. In fact, I adapted your example. But let's go a step further. Suppose I have $4,500 and try to buy something that costs $5,000. By mathematical convention, $4,500 rounds to $5,000 rather than $4,000. Would it then be accurate to say that I have $5,000? No, of course not. TompaDompa (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- It has. The real issue here is you not accepting it and wanting others to follow your own rules than normal mathematical rules of rounding. Our figures are never supposed to be exact. So there is nothing wrong with it. Regardless please do not tell others what to do in future. A shopkeeper wouldn't mind you being short of $1. If you were short by $999, he would. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes we can say that because that's how rounding works and anyone who's familiar with basic mathematics knows what it means. It has esentially reached that number by virtue of being closer. For sure it hasn't reached it accurately or exactly, but we are never exact here. So the argument is moot. If you had $4,999 you won't say you have $4,000 if you were giving an approximate number without trying to be exact. You'd say $5,000. It's not exagerrating, it's actually being more accurate than giving a number far less than what it has made. And there's no rule prohibiting that. We are not being accurate here and qualifiers can be added in the lead where they will be easily visible to a reader. Regardless they're not necessary since we're approximate. The rule of thumb is to round up in such cases, we cannot start adding your or someone else's preferences. Figures will be kept rounded up. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- I know the mathematical rules for rounding, but as with everything else they should not be followed blindly but treated with WP:Common sense. Top Gun: Maverick hasn't grossed $1.5 billion, but it has actually grossed $1.4 billion (and an additional amount of money approaching but not quite reaching $0.1 billion).
- They are not falsehoods, also calling them accurate is a mistake too because it's approximate. WP:Neutrality isn't about rounding up figures and the common rule is to round to the closest figure, not always round down. You're saying it didn't reach $1.5 billion. But is it sitting at $1.4 billion? No it isn't. It doesn't have to actually accurately reach a number to be rounded to it, that is the mathematical rule [1]. Following that isn't a violation of neutrality. If you feel it is wrong to say $1.5 billion, then we can always say it made about or nearly $1.5 billion. You should not tell editors what to do based on your preferences, any such reverts are liable to be reverted in future. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- No, those statements are not accurate. They are falsehoods. What you're suggesting by rounding with no regard for context is that WP:Neutrality should be suspended in the interest of giving a "closer figure". It's not a question of preference, it's a question of adhering to the truth. Top Gun: Maverick has not grossed $1.5 billion. To say that it has would be to lie. When did it reach $1.5 billion? Again, you can say that it has grossed "nearly $1.5 billion" or "almost $1.5 billion" or "just shy of $1.5 billion", but not plain "grossed $1.5 billion". TompaDompa (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- If you don't consider it appropriate then please do not make others follow it. Yes it will be more accurate to say Top Gun: Maverick made $1.5 billion than 1.4 billion, because it's much higher than $1.4 billion. Usain's Bolt record of 19.19 seconds is closer to 19 seconds than 20 seconds. It's not inappropriate. The objective is to mention the closest figure. This seems to be a matter of your preference, please do not do that. And please don't tell people whether they can round numbers up again and revert them. Let's not create a pointless issue. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
You're saying "leave out" as if I'm doing some sort of conspiracy, there's nothing stopping you from adding a caveat anywhere. Can you find me any part of which says rounding up is prohibited or you must only round up with caveats? Because I don't see any such thing. You say context matters, but all I see is you making your own context. MOS:ARTCON is about consistent language of articles. And people round up numbers when they're talking approximately, not downwards. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Also I re-read the guideline. What it says is "Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason." The informative part was about "unusual case in which the full-precision official figure is truly informative." In this case where you have to state the actual precise population isn't 10,000 due to it being ineligible for something. Regarding caveats, it's only in case a reader might be misled. None of the conditions are happening in case of these movies with such small figures. You're saying something what the policy doesn't say. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- What it says is that in that context, it matters that the figure is below 10,000 even though it would round up to 10,000. That's the same thing as me saying, for instance, that it matters that Top Gun: Maverick's gross is below $1.5 billion even though it would round up to $1.5 billion. You don't have to agree that it matters in the latter context (evidently you don't), but the point is that the context needs to be considered before deciding how to handle rounding. TompaDompa (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- No it doesn't say that at all, that's your own claim. What it says that when it matters regarding delivering some information to a reader. The example it lists is a precise figure of 9,996 to say it was ineligible because it didn't have a population of minimum 10,000. It's not similar to the example you claim. At best it makes some sense to avoid giving the impression that a film has crossed a particular milestone like $2 billion, billion dollar or $2 billion dollar clubs are defined by movies exceeding that goal. Thus it can mislead. But you're not demonstrating anything informative by changing $1.030 million to $1.029 million. This is the real context: "Where explicit uncertainty is unavailable (or is unimportant for the article's purposes), round to an appropriate number of significant digits; the precision presented should usually be conservative." Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Opposing increasing the rounding a figure by a $1 billion or $100 million? That's fine. Opposing changing the rounding by $1 million or even smaller? What will that get you or anyone? A reader can interpret large numbers as approximate and films are nearly always approximate. This argument is a waste of time. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Accidentally saw this and I hope you don’t mind me intervene.
- from a scientific standpoint, you round up to what an instrument can measure, i.e., instrument resolution. I knew the argument here is about rounding up, but a rule of thumb,
- (1) (how much digits to show) you cannot display a resolution beyond your measurement resolution, e.g., if you measured something to be between 1 and 2, you can’t say the answer is 1.5 unless your measurement resolution is that sensitive,
- (2)how many you can round/cut, you can typically round with the measurement precision (or standard deviation), if I measure 1,488,732,821 +/- 500,578 (depending on the various reports) then you can round until rounding does not convey a falsehoods, i.e. it can be 1,489,132,000 or 1,488,300,000 but noy 1.5 billion
- I see common sense is mentioned alot, but if you don’t want to bother yourself with no. 1 and 2 and not wanting to average different reports and dig deep to find how the number came about; you should not round numbers unless you know that number is not reliable (citation needed) or bond to increase (or decrease) then you can round up and down. In this case the movie 1.5 billion is acceptable and Usain Bolt world record shouldn’t be round
- see: https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/numbers/
- i think User:Roman Reigns Fanboy is right in this context/one FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you FuzzyMagma. Besides we should go by the context. I'm not supporting increasing the rounding of the number by something like $100 million, but only $1 million or less. Nor I'm saying a movie that hasn't really crossed a milestone has to be mentioned to have crossed it on Wikipedia, as we are not bound to be ultra-approximate. In case of a movie that has already grossed over $1 billion, I don't see how there's an issue with change from $1.029 billion to $1.030 billion though. The change is negiligible and doesn't convey any falsehoods. It's not like we're saying the movie reached $1.1 billion or 2 billion or something. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Your feedback on Archie Mafeje
Thanks alot for your feedback on Archie Mafeje. I will go through it and amend accordingly. I will try to use the peer review process before jumping to GA to avoid wasting people time. Again, thanks and much appreciated FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Do Not Delete Time History Periods
Ss3ded 2A00:23C4:772C:1B01:2C08:7D34:BEE3:B5E9 (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Is this about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of time periods? TompaDompa (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Time viewer
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Time viewer 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Saturn in fiction
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Saturn 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Maplestrip -- Maplestrip (talk) 13:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Time viewer
The article Time viewer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Time viewer for comments about the article, and Talk:Time viewer/GA2 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Given the amount of unsourced/self-published text that you've located in the Variants section, should this article go to WP:GAR? Or perhaps it could just be radically pruned in a week or two if no-one comes up with some better sources? MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Definitely the former. I was thinking the same thing. TompaDompa (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- OK. I need to nip out now – would you like to do it? MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Done. See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Dyson sphere/1. TompaDompa (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- OK. I need to nip out now – would you like to do it? MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
Good Article Barnstar |
| For your recent GA reviews, especially Tolkien and your magnum opus fungi in art, which currently stands at over 7,012 words long. Your attention to detail and knowledge of the relevant policies is admirable. Keep up the great work! ツLunaEatsTuna (💬)— 22:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC) |
Your GA nomination of Saturn in fiction
The article Saturn in fiction you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Saturn in fiction for comments about the article, and Talk:Saturn in fiction/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Maplestrip -- Maplestrip (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia
The article Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia 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:Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia and Talk:Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia
The article Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia for comments about the article, and Talk:Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Fungi in art page GA nomination - update on progresses
Hello, TompaDompa. I greatly appreciate your dedication on assessing the page. It's a lot of work, and I see how this is helping improving the page. I will follow point by point, and try to ping you as you are already familiar with the page. Again, thank you! CorradoNai (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
DYK for Saturn in fiction
On 24 February 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Saturn in fiction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the visual appeal of its rings (pictured) has made Saturn popular in fiction? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Saturn in fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Saturn in fiction), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
DYK for Time viewer
On 1 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Time viewer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that science fiction authors who want to avoid the paradoxes associated with time travel may instead write about time viewers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Time viewer. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Time viewer), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
You've got mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Aquster (talk) 06:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's probably better to bring this up at the relevant talk page, so anyone can see and reply to it. Or even just WP:Be bold. TompaDompa (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
DYK for Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia
On 11 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Brian Stableford blamed the cancellation of the follow-up to his 2006 book Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia on the availability of information online? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
BorgQueen (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Uranus in fiction
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Uranus 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Uranus in fiction
The article Uranus in fiction you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Uranus in fiction for comments about the article, and Talk:Uranus in fiction/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Sun in fiction
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sun 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Sun in fiction
The article Sun in fiction you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sun in fiction for comments about the article, and Talk:Sun in fiction/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
| Just looking at your talk page above, this seems well deserved :)
I hope I'll be able to return to the topic area in the near future and help you out a bit! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
Sun in fiction DYK
Please see Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3. What do you think about the new hook? BorgQueen (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- @BorgQueen: I suppose it works, though I was really hoping to have the Barabbas picture on the main page. Any particular reason not to use that one? I checked over at WP:Media copyright questions to make sure the public domain rationale was valid (see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2023/April#Is this public domain rationale valid?). TompaDompa (talk) 04:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Because the hook is supposed to feature Sun in fiction, not the film Barrabas. It gives too much of the spotlight to the latter. Far more people would read the film article than your bolded one. BorgQueen (talk) 08:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Neptune in fiction
The article Neptune in fiction you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Neptune in fiction for comments about the article, and Talk:Neptune in fiction/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim O'Doherty -- Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Some stroopwafels for you!
|
You are, I think, the person who brought the "...in fiction" articles for every planet in this system, and the Sun, to GA. Thank you for your dedication. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 02:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC) |
- @Heavy Water: That's very kind, though not entirely accurate. I was only involved with the very earliest stages of making sure Earth in science fiction was not deleted at WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination) by starting the rewrite, and when it comes to Venus in fiction I reviewed it at Talk:Venus in fiction/GA1 but wasn't the nominator. Both of those articles were successfully nominated for WP:Good article status by Piotrus. TompaDompa (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, OK. Well, several of them at any rate. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 16:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
DYK for Sun in fiction
On 7 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sun in fiction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1961 film Barabbas portrayed a solar eclipse (pictured) by shooting during a real one? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sun in fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Sun in fiction), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be attempting a GT of the main celestial bodies of the Solar System as portrayed in fiction. If you are, I think that is a very interesting idea. Either way, keep up the good work! QuicoleJR (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- BTW, if you are trying to complete the set, you would need to work on Pluto in fiction. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed I am. I plan to work on Pluto in fiction, Fictional planets of the Solar System, and for good measure also Asteroids in fiction and Comets in fiction before creating a Solar System in fiction overview article so this can become a WP:Good topic eventually. TompaDompa (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
DYK for Uranus in fiction
On 5 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Uranus in fiction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in early depictions of Uranus in fiction, the planet was portrayed as solid (example pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Uranus in fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Uranus in fiction), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
BorgQueen (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
|
|
Hook update | |
| Your hook reached 8,882 views (740.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2023 – nice work! |
Bruxton (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
DYK for Neptune in fiction
On 12 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Neptune in fiction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that English-speaking elephants can be okay on Neptune in fiction, but a solid surface is not? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Neptune in fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Neptune in fiction), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
BorgQueen (talk) 00:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
George Griffith Bibliography
The article looks much better thanks to you, but I wonder about the need to have every one of his books cited. Could we just do a blanket attribution somehow rather than using the same cites on every line? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think we need to cite every book individually, yes. One option would be to turn it into a table instead of a bullet list and have a column for references. TompaDompa (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- What would that look like? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- It might look something like Leiji Matsumoto#Selected works, which uses Template:Reference column heading. TompaDompa (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Either way is fine. My concern is that having the same three footnotes on almost every line looks like citation overkill. I can't recall having seen a biblio done that way, although I'm sure there are.
- I also mentioned another footnote issue on the talk page, but I'll bring it up here too. A couple of the footnotes have quotes in them, but the same footnote gets used 20-some times and the quote only applies to one of those cites. Do we really need the quotes? Could they be attached to a separate footnote rather than the cite? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- It's not necessary to use multiple citations for each individual work, if that's your concern. But it is necessary to cite each work individually. I don't see the quotes as being a problem, but they can be removed if you want. TompaDompa (talk) 11:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- It might look something like Leiji Matsumoto#Selected works, which uses Template:Reference column heading. TompaDompa (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- What would that look like? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
A Barnstar for You!
|
The Science Fiction Barnstar | |
| I know you're still working on it, but you've already earned this. Thanks for doing such a great job overhauling George Griffith. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC) |
Don't know how to ping you
Aah I am such a bad Wikipedia editor. Doing it here instead. Sorry to mess up your talk page. I wen't through all (I think) your comment on the Fungi in art page and I nominated the page for peer review. Anyways, thanks for all the work you have put into this. Cheers CorradoNai (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| The Old Cosmonaut and the Construction Worker Dream of Mars is very good. Well done! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC) |
Your GA nomination of Bellona's Husband: A Romance
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bellona's Husband: A Romance 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Jack4576 -- Jack4576 (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Bellona's Husband: A Romance
The article Bellona's Husband: A Romance you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bellona's Husband: A Romance for comments about the article, and Talk:Bellona's Husband: A Romance/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Jack4576 -- Jack4576 (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
DYK for Bellona's Husband: A Romance
On 7 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bellona's Husband: A Romance, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1887 novel Bellona's Husband: A Romance by William James Roe "may be the earliest example of the time in reverse tale presented in full-fledged narrative form"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bellona's Husband: A Romance. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Bellona's Husband: A Romance), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Precious
planets in fiction
Thank you for quality articles such as Bellona's Husband: A Romance, for the series from Moon in fiction to planets and sun and more, for quality reviewing, for a user name I will remember, for FAC ambition (Mars in fiction), "That's a great find and a very interesting read (to me, at least)", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
You are recipient no. 2857 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
DYK for A Honeymoon in Space
On 8 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article A Honeymoon in Space, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that George Griffith's 1901 novel A Honeymoon in Space contains what may be the first space suits in fiction (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/A Honeymoon in Space. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, A Honeymoon in Space), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Started, DYKed, enjoy :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi -- just stopping by to say how impressed I have been with your diligence at the FAC for Mars in fiction. I thought when you took it on that it would be very tough to get it through FAC -- selecting exactly what to put in, and imposing readable coherence on an article that must always be threatening to degenerate into lists, must have been a nightmare. You've done an extraordinary job, and the result is a marvellous bit of reference material -- exactly what the encyclopedia needs. I also happened to notice that you'd failed Boots theory, and took a look at the review page out of curiosity, and was impressed again, this time at the way you zeroed in on exactly what was weak in the article. I wish all nominators and reviewers were able to meet the high standards you're setting. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you Mike Christie, that's very kind. I highly respect your opinion on these matters, so your approval means a lot to me. TompaDompa (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Are we goint to try with Venus again? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Absolutely. I was thinking we'd co-nominate it once Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mars in fiction/archive1 is closed (hopefully promoted obviously, but either way really). There might be a few things to take care of first (WP:Overciting was mentioned in the Mars in fiction FAC, for instance), so I was planning to take a final look at the article to address what I can before nominating it. TompaDompa (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- For the record, I learned there was a recent Venus-themed anthology in Poland too ([5]), but this one does not appear to be available as an epub yet (and I am not sure it has any content of interest to us, outside of us being able to mention it's existence if it's due). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Absolutely. I was thinking we'd co-nominate it once Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mars in fiction/archive1 is closed (hopefully promoted obviously, but either way really). There might be a few things to take care of first (WP:Overciting was mentioned in the Mars in fiction FAC, for instance), so I was planning to take a final look at the article to address what I can before nominating it. TompaDompa (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of A Honeymoon in Space
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A Honeymoon in Space 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of ArcticSeeress -- ArcticSeeress (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of A Honeymoon in Space
The article A Honeymoon in Space 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:A Honeymoon in Space and Talk:A Honeymoon in Space/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ArcticSeeress -- ArcticSeeress (talk) 03:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of A Honeymoon in Space
The article A Honeymoon in Space you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:A Honeymoon in Space for comments about the article, and Talk:A Honeymoon in Space/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of ArcticSeeress -- ArcticSeeress (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Mars in fiction scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 31 August 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 31, 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Promotion of Mars in fiction
Triple Crown
Wrinkle the duck review
Thanks for the review. There's a lot of pencil-whipping that goes on at DYK. It's nice when a reviewer digs a little deeper and finds problems that need fixing. RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Bellona's Husband: A Romance
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bellona's Husband: A Romance 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Vaticidalprophet -- Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Pluto in fiction
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pluto 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
July 2023
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - opening IP failed to notify you, thanks, Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- For future reference, it was filed by a WP:SOCK and closed without further ado (ANI, block log). TompaDompa (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Abdullahi dan Fodio GA assessment
Hi. Youve recently indicated uncited paragraphs on the Abdullahi dan Fodio page. I’ve made citations for these paragraphs. Are there any other parts of the article that needs further improvements? BlueSahelian (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- @BlueSahelian: That looks like it should take care of the issues I spotted at a glance, although it is worth noting that I did not evaluate the full set of WP:Good article criteria. Feel free to renominate the article to get a fresh set of eyes on it. TompaDompa (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Ah alright, ill do that. Thanks for assessment. BlueSahelian (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Bellona's Husband: A Romance
The article Bellona's Husband: A Romance you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bellona's Husband: A Romance for comments about the article, and Talk:Bellona's Husband: A Romance/GA2 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Vaticidalprophet -- Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Pluto in fiction
The article Pluto in fiction you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pluto in fiction for comments about the article, and Talk:Pluto in fiction/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
| Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive |  |
August 2023 Backlog Drive:
| |
| Other ways to participate: | |
| You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. | |
DYK for Pluto in fiction
On 31 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pluto in fiction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that fictional life on Pluto has included mist creatures and crystals? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pluto in fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Pluto in fiction), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Request input on duck
I just reported Vasai1509 at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hugo Refachinho. Given that you seem to be an expert on this socker, I am asking for your input at the investigation. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Out of office
Hi, just to let you know I'm around tomorrow, then out of office for some days. Will be able to fix small and simple things intermittently; anything complex will have to wait. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, this is a vandalism
Bro, see this article Castillo San Felipe del Morro, Spanish Empire, Battle of Colhuacatonco, this user:Pepallis is contantly making vandalism in this page, also reverting my additions, I suggest take a look on him.--Arequipa belleza (talk) 05:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Arequipa belleza: I would suggest bringing this up on the respective talk pages (perhaps in particular Talk:Spanish Empire) where more people are likely to see it. TompaDompa (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Venus in fiction, sword and planet, and planetary romance
I haven't had time to make comments, but I started reading and noticed you mentioned both planetary romance and sword and planet, so I wanted to let you know I've just proposed here that the latter should redirect to the former, in case you have an opinion on it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable—Gardner Dozois does indeed describe it as
Planetary Romance, also called Sword and Planet
in the foreword to Old Venus. I can't really take credit for finding that or adding it to the Venus in fiction article however—Piotrus discovered the source and added the relevant part with this edit before I started editing the article. TompaDompa (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years
The article Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years 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:Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years and Talk:Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of A Plunge into Space
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A Plunge into Space 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years
The article Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years for comments about the article, and Talk:Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", 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 at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 07:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Solar System in fiction
How is the Good Topic going? QuicoleJR (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Pretty good. Since last we spoke about this back in May, I have brought Pluto in fiction to WP:Good article status and Mars in fiction to WP:Featured article status, with Venus in fiction currently at WP:FAC (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Venus in fiction/archive2). I have mostly paused my work on additional articles in the series for the time being to work on a few articles that are linked from Mars in fiction ahead of its appearance on the WP:Main page as WP:Today's Featured Article on 31 August: Bellona's Husband: A Romance, A Honeymoon in Space, Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years, Imagining Mars: A Literary History, A Plunge into Space, and George Griffith (there might be additional ones I'm forgetting). I plan to resume work on the Solar System in fiction articles relatively soon, barring unforeseen circumstances. TompaDompa (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Blocking.
Good morning, I wanted to tell you that I have received an IP or account blocking due to vandalism without doing anything wrong, you tell me that the information that I have put in Spanish Empire is false, I tell you that I have obtained the information from a reliable source and I have calculated it myself in this case. Thank you and I hope you help me. WikiPat23 (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- I can't help you with blocking questions, I'm afraid. Looking at your account's block log, it is empty. If your IP address is blocked, it may be that it is part of a range of IP addresses that is blocked for one reason or another (see WP:RANGEBLOCK).On the question of the Spanish Empire: calculating the area yourself is WP:Original research, which is not allowed. TompaDompa (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of A Plunge into Space
The article A Plunge into Space you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:A Plunge into Space for comments about the article, and Talk:A Plunge into Space/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", 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 at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 07:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Imagining Mars: A Literary History
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Imagining Mars: A Literary History 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Frzzl -- Frzzl (talk) 10:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Promotion of Venus in fiction