Jump to content

User talk:Neveselbert

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unexpected changes

[edit]

@Neveselbert I admire your abilities and your willingness to help in creating the article for Lord Liverpool Premiership article. Since which I hold in the highest of regard and respect for your advice. But following your recent changes to the main article about Lord Liverpool, which saw countless amounts of content removed just to include it in the premiership section isn’t how I envisioned you would made the improvements. And also, since I specifically didn’t understood what kind of changes you proposed (I was off due to some medication) therefore I think that I would need to revert the edit you made and ask another or several editors about this particular kind of process. Thank you. Altonydean (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Altonydean: thank you for your kind words. Regarding the recent edits, the content removed from the main article was already included verbatim in the premiership article, making it duplicative. According to WP:ANOTHER, this process is recommended to avoid redundancy. Now that the content has been restored, it ought to be significantly cut down in line with WP:SYNC to maintain proper synchronisation between the articles. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand @Neveselbert. But these days I’m taking a certain serious medication for an illness of mine and I won’t be able to edit as frequently anymore. But however, I do appreciate your efforts and your help is as always highly valued by me and as well as the wider Wikipedia community. I think, that since the new article for Lord Liverpool has the same information about his premiership, we should expand the content in the new article instead of cutting down the original content. Like, we can expand and write additional information about events and policies that happened and were implemented during his tenure as prime minister that is not mentioned in the original article. This is my opinion and we should have a wider discussion about this if we are to avoid future conflicts. Altonydean (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also @Neveselbert can you re-include more content on the original page? It severely lacks information on certain important topics and areas of history significance. At least include three paragraphs or more paragraphs about sections like on economic policy, liberal policy or dissent and repression perhaps? It also need more contextual information on the foreign policy section as well in the original article. As always good luck and keep going. Altonydean (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding more content to the parent article at this stage might lead to unnecessary duplication and confusion. Once the child article is more detailed, we can then summarise and include the most relevant information in the parent article. This way, we maintain clarity and coherence across both articles. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Altonydean: I understand, and I appreciate your continued efforts despite your current circumstances. I've removed the duplicative content from the main article and replaced each section with the most relevant paragraphs excerpted from the premiership article using {{Excerpt#Replacing summary section with excerpt of child article}}. This is a temporary solution until we can better summarise these topics in the main article without duplicating content. We can certainly discuss expanding the premiership article further, but for now, this ensures clarity and avoids redundancy. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok @Neveselbert but please do not mind me saying this, I think we need a bit more expansion on the original page. I mean like two paragraphs is not enough to summarise any of the important measures Lord Liverpool took in terms of economic or social policy initiatives. I think it needs three more detailed or in-depth information other than simple reductions. Foreign affairs are also important and needs more detail as of the current revision. But I always do support new ideas and proposals, but this seems a bit unprecedented due to the fact that I have previously stated that I would return to editing after my brief interval of rest so I can expand the new article on premiership. Again, I do wholeheartedly agree with many of your points and although at least consider my suggestion to expand a bit on the suggested article sections in the main Lord Liverpool article. Good luck and thanks for your reply. Altonydean (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).

Administrator changes

removed Pppery

Interface administrator changes

removed Pppery

Oversighter changes

removed Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
  • A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


The Signpost: 4 September 2024

[edit]

Ted Heath

[edit]

What will satisfy you as sufficient consensus? An Rfc? Emiya1980 (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Emiya1980: yes, I think that would be the right way to gauge a consensus. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]