text:
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2015 February 4

= February 4 =

A puzzling statement
Hi there. I need a portion of this fortran90 code but there are simple subroutines there where the comments puzzle me. Here are a few examples:

subroutine design_00_001_3d ( x ) DESIGN_00_001_3D returns a 0-design of 1 point in 3D. subroutine design_04_014_3d ( x ) DESIGN_04_014_3D returns a 4-design of 14 points in 3D.

and so on. The package itself is called: sphere_design_rule. What kind of 0-design or 4-design of 14 points is it, etc.? There are many similar routines in there. I understand the only operation there is to reshuffle some arrays. Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Have you looked at the description on the associated HTML page? We have a spherical design article which might be relevant. A search for "Hardin (and) Sloane" may also yield some related material. (I didn't know what a snub cube was until today.)  I'll admit that the concepts are beyond my skill set, but it appears that each function returns a set of vertices that provide sphere approximations of increasing complexity and accuracy. Kind of like a circle could be approximated by regular polygons. You might be able to get a better answer from the math desk. --  Tom N  talk/contrib 03:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Roughly speaking, this program represents a giant look-up table embodied as Fortran-90 code. It does not compute any of these coordinates - it simply returns constant pre-computed values.  These constants may be useful for certain calculations that can be geometrically interpreted as the evaluation of polynomial integrals on a sphere.  If you don't need those constants ... then don't use them!  The author found those constants useful for some geometry and applied mathematical work.  He seems to be interested in automated tesselations and has written on that subject, among many other topics.  Some people do that sort of thing recreationally - heck, on the flight home from my last vacation, I reimplemented the Voronoi algorithm for no reason!  And so it seems that this user has done even more complicated math, for fun and profit, and made his code available to all of us.  Nimur (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you guys. I did not read the introduction at the page Tom N. provided link to, I simply skipped that which I consider a fault, however I went down the file and found a number of routines that do integration and they use these routines that are called T-Design. With all the comments, which I appreciate, it is getting a bit more clear but still I wonder why those sets of numbers which are probably zeroes of some polynomials for Gaussian integration are reshuffled. The source book is out of print now and it is impossible to read it unless one goes to a university library. Anyhow, I will keep thinking about it. Thanks. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

How often does Microsoft release a new computer program
Just Wondering. Venustar84 (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, new versions of products or entirely new products are mostly released with a new version of Windows. The newest one will be released some time in the near future, the last one in 2012, then 2009, 2007, 2005, 2001, 2000, etc., so we can assume an average time of ~3-4 years.  Konveyor   Belt   17:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's far more frequent than that. Microsoft is also a game publisher, and many of those games are released on PC. Since any application is a "computer program", than the release software far more frequently than 3-4 years.  Probably monthly if not weekly.  See List_of_Microsoft_software_applications for a brief overview.  Venustar84, was there a more specific meaning of Computer program that you meant? Mingmingla (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Microsoft software applications is what I'm talking about. Venustar84 (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 * The above answers are assuming that you don't think of updates to previously released programs as "new". Dismas |(talk) 11:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Linking Word 2013 documents in Excel 2013 workbooks
If I want to make a list of items in an Excel workbook that each have their own Word document is there a way for me to place a clickable link within an Excel workbook? I'm not talking about an offline website—which I do not want—but rather just being able to open the Word document with the click of a button from the Excel workbook. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15 Shevat 5775 20:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Insert → Hyperlink → Browse to the desired file → OK. Remember, if you move any of those files, then the link is broken. --  Gadget850talk 21:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, cool. Does it work within OneDrive though? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15 Shevat 5775 22:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If it is set as a drive visible in File Explorer. --  Gadget850talk 23:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

 * It's definitely visible, but Excel doesn't seem to want to do it. It works just fine linking a Word entry to Excel, but not the other way around.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15 Shevat 5775 23:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


text:
User:Hanai92/be bold

'''Wikipedia is a crowdsourced database that can be useful for certain topics. Being bold is important on Wikipedia, as long as you sight your sources.'''

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Hanai92/be bold


text:
Molecular evolution/Intermediate filament proteins

Welcome to the Wikiversity learning project for exploration of the molecular evolution of intermediate filament proteins.

The intermediate filament proteins are a major family of cytoskeletal proteins. Most eukaryotic organisms have genes that code for intermediate filament proteins. As more genomes are sequenced, an increasing complete understanding of the evolution of protein families becomes possible. Are intermediate filament proteins related to any proteins of prokayotic organisms? At what points during the evolution of eukaryotes did the various subtypes of intermediate filament proteins arise? What new biological functions and specializations were facilitated by the evolution of the members of this multigene family?

Start here
Explore the Conserved Domain Database online resources from the National Library of Medicine.

A Conserved Domain relatedness tree exploring tool is available for Windows.

Your turn
Add what you learn to this page.

Keratins
Keratin 18 is one of the major keratin proteins of human epithelial cells. There are two major families of keratins, type I and type II. Keratin 18 is type I and often forms intermediate filaments by combining with a type II partner, keratin 8. Keratin filaments containing keratins 8 and 18 are found in the earliest epithelial cells of mammalian embryos. The functional role of early embryo keratin 8 has been investigated in transgenic mice lacking keratin 8. Mice lacking keratin 8 have disrupted placental barrier function.

Lamins
Lamins are intermediate filament family proteins found in the nuclei of metazoans. It has been suggested that during mitosis lamin B forms a matrix for assembly of microtubules.


text:
User:Sankakumara

samsung galaxy grand primie plus smg532f ☆☆☆☆☆ Ram=1.5 Gb Rom=  8 Gb Camara+front=5megapixel Camara+back=8megapixel Android version= 6.0.1 mashmellow Baseband version= G532fxxxu1AQG5 Network type= 4g Lte 3g 2g gsm wifi ok now i ve tech smg532f easy user manul tips and tricks

title: User:Sankakumara


text:
mormorare

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to murmur, to whisper
 * 2)  to mutter, to grumble
 * 3)  to talk

title: mormorare


text:
Wiktionary talk:Translations/If present, what foreign word articles should contain

 * from Wiktionary talk:Translations Rod (A. Smith) 21:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

--Richardb 05:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC) I was told it is policy to give translations only for non-English words, not proper definitions as English words get them, and to give English translations only for non-English words. I would like to know if that's true (Paul G and SemperBlotto claim so), and if it is, for what reasons this decision was made. I can't understand these rules, strongly oppose them, and want to see them discarded as soon as possible. Ncik 04 May 05
 * The truth is, that, until very recently, there were no writen or publicised policies/ standars / conventions etc at all, of any type, in Wiktionary. Only a few people who believed they had great insight and just knew what the policy should be! Please support the fledgling Policy Development process.--Richardb 05:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I think that requires a degree of discretion. If the word doesn't translate exactly to an English word, give it a rough definition and then link to similar English words (I've seen that in a Translations section a number of times). If there is more than one sense, but each sense corresponds to an English word, then link to those instead of a definition. I'm not one to give advice on this, really, but in some ways I see it as common sense. I think the rationale behind the decision is that all foreign words should be linked to at least one English word somewhere, and writing a definition for a word that is exactly the same as one for an English word is just unnecessary, and the English word should be favoured. Am I completely wrong here? --Wytukaze 19:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with User:Wytukaze, User:Paul G and User:SemperBlotto. In general foreign words should provide wikified translation(s) rather than a full definition. I also agree that there should be a measure of lattitude for words that do not translate easily or have no ready English equivalent. I would guess that this is pretty much the consensus opinion on the topic. Kevin Rector 20:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

 *  Wow. I don't know when this decision got made, but it's clearly in opposition to everything I've done since joining the Wiktionary.  If the word is a clear cognate, it makes sense to link it to the English equivalent without adding much more, but for the bulk of most languages, we are providing an extremely limited service if we only link to translations of the word rather than providing full definitions.  Or, to put it another way, it's extremely rare that words have a ready English equivalent, even for English's closest linguistic cousins (e.g., German), and the ones that seem similar to English words especially merit attention to the differences, since the possibility of confusion is so much greater.
 * I would like to see this discussion escalated to a policy decision asap, since if it falls against my favor, then we should probably remove a good portion of my contributions.

 * The relevant history seems to be at Multilingual coordination. --Connel MacKenzie 23:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

 * In the Ultimate Wikionay ALL words will be welcome, never mind if they have a translation to any other language or not. There will be ample room to provide an English/any other language definitions of the word, but it will not require a translation to ANY language. GerardM 00:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

 *  Connel, I'm not seeing this relevant history. All I see is a list of Wiktionaries, some discussion of interwiki coordination, and some discussion of language namespaces (which I wish we were using.  I don't see the value in our current level-2 header arrangement).

 * Jun-Dai, I was responding to Ncik's question as to whether it is true or not (that foreign word should be entered only as translations: answer is yes) and the history surrounding it being in that page's history, the discussion in it's discussion page, etc. On that page, is the sentence "Each language has its own Wiktionary project, which includes translations to and from that language, and descriptions in that language" followed by a grammatically incorrect explanation (that next sentence's grammar perhaps the victim of edit wars over this point of debate?)  So, according to that sentence, we shouldn't have foreign word entries at all!  A little further down however, it describes the interwiki links (which require identical spelling of article titles, to cross wikis) therefore the reason why we do need entries for the foreign spelling of words.  --Connel MacKenzie 02:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

 *  Yeah, I did notice that pair of sentences. My interpretation of it, however, is greatly different from yours (despite my reading it several times).  It seems clear to me that the two sentences mandate that we have foreign word entries: frei-tr->free and free-tr->frei both belong in the English Wiktionary it says (as well as the German one).  This means that we need frei and free here, each pointing to the other.  What the two sentences do not make clear is that we need provide simple translations.  More importantly, the term translation is used somewhat ambiguously--even casually--and I get the strong impression that it does not stand in the way of providing a detailed explanation of the term frei in English, which could not happen without mention of the English word free by means of translation.
 * I would like to see whose sentences rewritten for clarity,. What I see the Wiktionary as, with regard to foreign words, is a source for seeing simple translations of English words into foreign languages (via translation tables, or better yet, translation subpages), and even more importantly a source for seeing explanations of foreign words in English--translations, yes, but also definitions, explanations, examples, and comments on usage.  Whether this is the vision that everyone else here has or not, one thing is clear to me: if we mold the Wiktionary as a resource of this kind, we have the potential to provide a valuable resource that simply cannot be found elsewhere.  If we limit ourselves to simple translations, then we are nothing more than a free, but fairly limited version of a poor-quality foreign-language dictionary (the good ones provide small definitions and example usages).  What the hell are we here for?  Let's provide as much usable information on each foreign term as we can, in concise, hierarchical, and digestible formats, so that someone looking up a foreign term will have as clear an idea of its usage as any non-human resource can provide.
 * As I wrote at User talk:Jérôme, Wiktionary isn't excused the need for definitions, usage notes, quotations, pronunciations, etymologies, synonyms, antonyms, homophones, inflections, references, derived and related words, and whatnot simply because a word isn't English. Uncle G 14:44, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Here some reasons Paul G posted on my talk page about why the current policy should be kept to which I would like to respond as follows:
 * (1) It is stated on the main page that this is the English Wiktionary and definitions of foreign words are not given here.
 * Where???? You do mean the Main page, don't you?
 * (2) This is long-established policy.
 * I don't see a problem with abolishing long established polcies.
 * (3) Other Wiktionaries give meanings but in their own languages. The English Wiktionary tells you that rouge is French for "red" (among other things) but you can only determine this from the French dictionary if you understand French.
 * I don't understand what you are trying to tell me with these two sentences.
 * (4) Giving non-English translations of non-English words opens up the way to a slew of inconsistency and inaccuracy. For example, red might list translations for French, Italian and Spanish, while rouge lists translations for English and German, and perhaps gets Italian wrong. This Italian translation is then copied to the German page, which also lists Polish and Russian.
 * Who has been suggesting non-English translations of non-English words? —Muke Tever 01:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Having wrong translations is not a problem that only affects non-English entries.
 * How am I to know that to get the Russian translation I have to go to the German page?
 * You don't know. But that way at least there is a chance you stumble over the Russian translation which otherwise wouldn't be anywhere at all.
 * Further, when a new translation is added, it must be added to (potentially) dozens of other pages.
 * Replace "must" with "should" and I agree.
 * When the Italian translation is discovered to be wrong, dozens of pages have to be checked. This is the single biggest reason for not giving translations other than English ones in non-English entries.
 * Copying and pasting translations (and other stuff) between different languages should be avoided if the person doing so doesn't know the languages he is copying to to a certain degree. This problem also exists within a language: E.g. when a user adds a wrong definition for a word and then, in analogy, gives similarly flawed definitions on the pages of morphologically derived words. So it's not that a new problem would be created if we changed the policy. We should simply discourage users to modify/create information involving a language they don't understand.
 * (5) By the same token, if definitions are included instead of translations, and a definition is added or amended on an English page, it will need to be added or updated on dozens of other pages too. More scope for inconsistency and inaccuracy, and the whole project becomes a nightmare to maintain.
 * I don't see the problem here (I have the suspicion I don't quite understand what you want to say). Since we don't link words to the meaning(s) (i.e. definitions) they have in that particular context but always to the whole page, changes there (i.e. on the page of the English word) wouldn't invalidate a link elsewhere.
 * One of Wiktionary's primary goals must be accuracy and consistency, and the current policy helps work towards this.
 * The current rules prevent accuracy since they only allow translations where proper definitions are needed.
 * Apart from that, I agree with Jun-Dai's, well articulated arguments. Ncik 05 May 2005

 * IMHO both a translation (if there is one) and a short definition should be given. (I'm doing this on la: when I can.) Especially since most words have more than one sense, and they don't always map equally: If all you do is say that Latin panis translates to 'bread', it doesn't tell you whether that can mean 'bread' in the sense of food generally (it can) or in the sense of 'money' (it can't).  Look in any substantial bilingual dictionary: in many, many entries you are given the translation, and some disambiguating term, e.g. my en-ru dictionary has: under examination: "(inspection) осмотр; (exam) экзамен; (law) допрос" —and since Wiki Is Not Paper why can't we do better than that?—Muke Tever 01:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I wonder if this debate is an example of people talking past each other? I'm not sure. Anyway, I think we have to get past the idea of a tranlation being a single link to a single word. When the translation is ambiguous of course there needs to be the latitude to describe as accurately as possible what the word means in English (I don't think anyone is disputing this). So the entry for panis should note that it means bread in the sense of food, not in the sense of money. If the word bread is ambiguous to me then I can go look it up by following the link provided. However, there is no reason for panis to say "Baked dough made from cereals" when it can say "bread; as in food".
 * Well what I meant was that panis is both "bread" as in "baked dough made from cereals" and metaphorically "food" generally, just like "bread" (e.g. "our daily bread" = "panis noster cotidianus"). To take a harder example, English rod is basically Latin virgula -- but definining virgula as "rod" doesn't tell us anything about what kinds of rods "virgula" is used to refer to... (lightning rods?  shepherd's rod? rods and cones in the eyes? Aaron's rod? membrum virile?) or whether 'virgula' has the same sense of a rod being used for disciplinary purposes (As in English "spare the rod, spoil the child").
 * Take a word with a metric buttload of English senses, like "set", then a word that translates as "set" in another language: a lot of the senses may transfer over, but likely a lot won't, and a lot will have different pragmatic uses, connotations, or whatnot... —Muke Tever 22:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * There's conflation of translation tables (WT:ELE) and definitions (WT:ELE) in this discussion. An entry for a non-English word should certainly fully explain the meaning(s) of the word, in its definitions section, and not be restricted to a one-word definition, for the reasons given by Muke.  This is what paper dictionaries do.  An (abbreviated!) example from Collins French-English Anglais-Français (1969):"falloir v imp — to be necessary, must, need, take, require; vr s'en — to be lacking, be far from; il lui faut un voiture he needs a car; il m'a fallu une heure pour la faire [... and so on...]"Wiktionary should certainly do no less than they.  Whether articles for non-English words should have translation tables is a different thing, and the two issues should not be conflated. Uncle G 14:44, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

 There definitely agrees to be a degree of people talking past one another here. That said, I think the real debate is whether non-English entries should have as full an entry as normal English entries. I get the sense that some here (Wytukaze, Kevin Rector) feel they should be kept as short as possible, while others--including Ncik, myself, and Uncle G feel that foreign words should have as full a definition as an English word, excepting the existence of a translation table. I'm not sure where Connel and Muke stand in this debate. The main argument for not having a translation table on non-English entries (I don't think anyone's arguing this point, but I'll say it anyways) is that the English Wiktionary is not in the business of providing German->French translations--Everything we do should either be coming from English or coming into English.

One thing Connel has made quite clear is that our policy pages are extremely unclear and inconsistent on this topic. I suggest that those of us that are inclined to do so start proposing changes to the policy pages so that we can clean them up. They are, after all, left over from much older phases of the Wiktionary when it was much less clear what the Wiktionary was going to be, so much of it should be pretty easily cleaned up, as we have pretty much decided as a consensus to at least include non-English entries, translation tables on English entries to non-English entries, etc. While we are doing this, maybe we can come to some agreement on how non-English pages should word. I've defined some policy for Japanese entries, in specific, and it would be nice if we could do the same for other languages. More than this, however, we just need more entries added - the odds of any common Japanese word being in the Wiktionary are probably less that 1 in 100. For English it's more like 2 in 3 (I'm making these numbers up, by the way).

 * If I made that clear, it was not my intent! :-)  I would like to thank Uncle G for clearing up my misconception on this topic - I was very much mired in that confusion.  I was under the impression that foreign terms' definitions were to be kept bare minimum, just as the standing convention, without understanding why.  With Uncle G's explanation (light bulb ==> on), I now get it.  Even Ncik's inflamatory opening statement now no longer seems inflamatory, only a matter of misinformation (to him) and confusion.  But still, I think a terribly verbose foreign definition is not a good idea - it should be only enough to link to an English word's particular meaning.  (That said, I'm not likely to slash-and-burn a foreign language definition...knock yourself out if ya wanna.)  Jun-Dai, did you just volunteer to rewrite that infamous paragraph (posted here for discussion first) in WT:ELE Multilingual coordination ?  :-)  --Connel MacKenzie 07:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

 * My two cents:-
 * things that should be included in a non-English word - Language, Part of speech, Pronunciation, Etymology (if different from an identically spelled English word of the same meaning), Translation (or brief description if no such English concept), Plurals and Conjugations etc, Related or Derived terms in the same language
 * things that should not be included - Translation tables, Definitions copied from (or of similar length) to the English equivalent

SemperBlotto 07:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Translation (or brief description if no such English concept). . .
 * This is the part that really confuses me. Very few foreign words "accurately" translate into English.  There's rarely an equivalent English word to compare the meaning to.  Even a fairly close word to English, like the Japanese デパート (pronounced "depāto"), which roughly means "department store" (the word from which it was borrowed), has enough of a different meaning in Japanese to merit an explanation of its own.  If, for example, you link the German frei to English free and leave it at that, you are doing a disservice to the reader to ignore the fact that the German word can mean things that you cannot appropriately translate to free in English (frei nach Goethe, for instance, refers to a passage that was borrowed from Goethe).  Additionally, there are bound to be numerous circumstances where you might use free in English, but frei would not be appropriate in German.  Rather than being the exceptions, these cases are the rule; the exceptions--being those cases where the word pretty much maps to an English word, or a couple of English words--are going to be very few in number, if indeed they exist at all.
 * Ultimately, I'm not sure what a "translation" entails, but if it is at all different from simply providing a full definition of the term in English, then I'm against it.

 * I often add a gloss to translations, so panis would read "bread (baked dough)" to make it clear that it applies to this meaning only. I think this is sufficient.

 * To reply to Ncik's reply to my comments on his page, which I have just seen here:

 * (1) It is stated on the main page that this is the English Wiktionary and definitions of foreign words are not given here.
 * Where???? You do mean the Main page, don't you?
 * Yes; I'm referring to this paragraph: "This is the English Wiktionary: it aims to describe all words of all languages, with definitions and descriptions in English only. For example, see frei (a German word). In order to find a German definition of that word, you would visit the equivalent page in the German Wiktionary (http://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/frei)." I agree that this does not reflect my point.
 * (2) This is long-established policy.
 * I don't see a problem with abolishing long established polcies.
 * True, "we've always done it this way" is not, in itself, a reason for keeping a policy.
 * (3) Other Wiktionaries give meanings but in their own languages. The English Wiktionary tells you that rouge is French for "red" (among other things) but you can only determine this from the French dictionary if you understand French.
 * I don't understand what you are trying to tell me with these two sentences.
 * If you want to know what "rouge" means and look it up in the French Wiktionary, you will get a definition written in French, which will make sense only if you understand French. The English Wiktionary tells you, in English, that it means "red".
 * (4) Giving non-English translations of non-English words opens up the way to a slew of inconsistency and inaccuracy. For example, red might list translations for French, Italian and Spanish, while rouge lists translations for English and German, and perhaps gets Italian wrong. This Italian translation is then copied to the German page, which also lists Polish and Russian.
 * Who has been suggesting non-English translations of non-English words? —Muke Tever 01:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * There are many pages here with non-English entries that translate the entry into multiple languages rather than just giving the English translation. The Esperanto page "vorto" was one such example (which has since been reduced to the English translations only - see the page history for the earlier version).
 * Having wrong translations is not a problem that only affects non-English entries.
 * How am I to know that to get the Russian translation I have to go to the German page?
 * You don't know. But that way at least there is a chance you stumble over the Russian translation which otherwise wouldn't be anywhere at all.
 * So it's better to have the translations all in the one place where people will think to look for them, namely the English entry.
 * Further, when a new translation is added, it must be added to (potentially) dozens of other pages.
 * Replace "must" with "should" and I agree.
 * When the Italian translation is discovered to be wrong, dozens of pages have to be checked. This is the single biggest reason for not giving translations other than English ones in non-English entries.
 * Copying and pasting translations (and other stuff) between different languages should be avoided if the person doing so doesn't know the languages he is copying to to a certain degree. This problem also exists within a language: E.g. when a user adds a wrong definition for a word and then, in analogy, gives similarly flawed definitions on the pages of morphologically derived words. So it's not that a new problem would be created if we changed the policy. We should simply discourage users to modify/create information involving a language they don't understand.
 * I disagree. I think people would go around copying and pasting if we were to change the policy, and then we would end up with an unworkable mess.
 * (5) By the same token, if definitions are included instead of translations, and a definition is added or amended on an English page, it will need to be added or updated on dozens of other pages too. More scope for inconsistency and inaccuracy, and the whole project becomes a nightmare to maintain.
 * I don't see the problem here (I have the suspicion I don't quite understand what you want to say). Since we don't link words to the meaning(s) (i.e. definitions) they have in that particular context but always to the whole page, changes there (i.e. on the page of the English word) wouldn't invalidate a link elsewhere.
 * The problem is twofold: unnecessary duplication of effort; and scope for inconsistency.
 * One of Wiktionary's primary goals must be accuracy and consistency, and the current policy helps work towards this.
 * The current rules prevent accuracy since they only allow translations where proper definitions are needed.
 * So include a gloss, as I mention above ("panis - bread (baked dough)"). This resolves this problem.
 * Apart from that, I agree with Jun-Dai's, well articulated arguments. Ncik 05 May 2005

 * I also support Ncik in agreeing with Jun-Dai's arguments :-) Sergio.ballestrero 09:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


text:
User:Checkered shirt stewart

My name is Stewart McDermott and I am a student at Stirling University. I study film and media with the intention of using my degree to gain a job as a producer. I work part time in a hotel and spend my free time socializing, drinking and playing instruments.

title: User:Checkered shirt stewart


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trasa Północna in Zielona Góra

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Trasa Północna in Zielona Góra

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

it is unclear why this road would be notable at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.   Oxon Alex    - talk  14:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   Oxon Alex    - talk  14:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Delete. No Polish Wikipedia article is a red flag (it is more inclusive about roads than English). Notabilty (roads) is not satisfied, as is GNG in general. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The street is important for the city as part of the National road 32 (Poland). The Polish Wikipedia describes only one street in Zielona Góra, which means that local editors aren't interested in streets. The content cannot be moved, so it will be deleted and it will be reinstated some day. Zielona Góra is a city (140,297 inhabitants) and one of two sites of the regional government. Xx236 (talk) 10:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Any content related to it being a part of National road 32 (Poland) can be mentioned at that article, which appears to already be the case. Not a useful redirect. -- Kinu t/c 18:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


text:
Penang Islamic Museum

The Penang Islamic Museum (Muzium Islam Pulau Pinang) is a museum about Islam in George Town, Penang, Malaysia.

History
The museum is housed in a restored villa originally built in 1860 that was once the residence of a powerful Acehnese pepper merchant. Later it was used as a recycling depot for Penang's Indian Chettiar community. Restoration work was carried out in 1996 and it was awarded the Best Project award in 1999.

Architecture
The museum building features mid 19th century Straits style.

Exhibitions
The museum exhibits the role and contributions of Malay leaders in the growth and spread of Islam in Penang and Malaysia. It also houses the details on key 19th and early 20th century public figures and their influence in Penang. Another collection is the 19th century furniture and a life-sized diorama of a dock scene, which depicts a maritime-oriented hajj.

title: Penang Islamic Museum


text:
Talk:Naagin (2015 TV series)/Archive 1

Sloppy parentheticals
The article's starting to get laden with sloppy parentheticals. Note this edit by IP <IP_ADDRESS>. People who are unfamiliar with the series are not going to have any idea what most of this content means. Note:
 * Madhura Naik as Mayuri (Icchadari Morni)(Peahen) (2016)

What does Icchadari Morni mean? Is that a name? So then what's Mayuri? Another name? Why is there a name next to a name? What does a peahen have to do with anything? Is this some sort of supernatural form that the character takes? All of this stuff should be explained in clear prose. I have no idea why Indian television article contributors are so afraid to write a complete sentence. It's bizarre. Rather than explain in a sentence, it's better to wedge three parentheticals next to one another? Doesn't make any sense. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Haven't seen the show, but as far as I can understand, Mayuri is the name of her character and "Icchadari Morni" is its description in Hindi which translates to peahen. -  Managerarc  ™ talk  01:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

 * I appreciate the reply! I'm still confused. I know you don't know the series, but it's unclear why they're calling her a peahen. There's got to be a way to explain this so it makes sense like:
 * "Madhury Naik as Mayuri - Mayuri is blah blah blah, the daughter of blah, who occasionally takes the form of icchadari morni, (English: peahen)"
 * Or something similar. Part of the problem is that we're capitalizing Icchadari Morni, which takes on the shape of a name to a non-Hindi-speaker like myself. I must have like a dozen different articles like this on my watchlist that are completely incomprehensible. Shakti — Astitva Ke Ehsaas Ki is another example. "Durshaktina as Churail/Kinner" Is this an actor playing two roles? Are we talking about a transgender ghost? So frickin' confusing. The contributors are writing these articles with no regard for whether anyone who isn't Indian and familiar with the series can understand them. It's like reading a children's television show article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Well it's a fantasy series, so it might be true that the character changes its shape from time to time. Regarding the other one, I don't know who Durshaktina is. Never heard or read about any actress by this name ad can't find any source for it either. "Churail" or Churel means witch and "Kinner" means transgender I think. They are definitely not character names.
 * Yes, I do agree with you regarding the state of articles related to Indian television. They are the most difficult to keep track of because something is being changed every few minutes. Plot summaries are written like novels, no one bothers to add sources, lots of original research, poorly written content. It's far worse than the film articles.-  Managerarc  ™ talk  12:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Of the dozen or more similar articles on my list, it's almost like there's a systematic effort to have the articles conform with some unseen template. I can't tell you how many times I've removed the "Former cast" section from these articles, (per WP:TVPLOT we care about Main and Recurring, and former cast should intuitively be either in Main or Recurring so we have a better sense of their importance in the series) but random editors keep putting them back in. Argh... And there aren't many editors from WikiProject Television who care about Indian TV articles. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:TVPLOT and FAQ/Copyright
In this edit I removed the plot section. It had been flagged for major chopping for four months. Per WP:TVPLOT, plot summaries shouldn't exceed 500 words. The version I chopped was 2877 words in length. Far too long. Additionally, per FAQ/Copyright, excessively detailed summaries of plots present potential copyright violation concerns, as they can be considered "derivative works". If someone wants to take another stab at it, go right ahead, but you shouldn't exceed 500 words and you should stay focused on the major points in the series, not episode-by-episode details. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Naagin (season 2)
There's no clear justification for a standalone article for this series. Most TV series don't have unique articles for each season unless there is sufficient content about the production, cultural impact, list of episodes, etc. to warrant that. The main Naagin (2015 TV series) article has some of that stuff, but the ratings content wasn't maintained, the plot summary is a giant mess, etc. More effort should be made to clean up the main article before splitting into a second season. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Looking at the season article I can't see any justification either. There's not even an episode list. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Different seasons no need to merge. Moreover I am removing the merge template from the page. See 24 (TV series) and 24 (season 2)  Varun FEB2003    12:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * By what logic do you think that you have consensus to end the merge discussion? What MOS:TV guidelines govern your position about the suitability of the S2 article? You are comparing the second season of 24, an article that has content about the season's plot, along with a comprehensive list of episodes with summaries, and list of awards, with an article that's little more than an unsourced cast list. By what stretch of the imagination is this article ready to exist as a stand-alone? There's not even an article for season 1 like there is for 24 (season 1). The way this usually goes is:
 * Main article on the series is created, i.e. 24 (TV series) or Naagin (Indian TV series)
 * Episode table is created and fleshed out at the main article. This remains at the main article until a second season begins. Meanwhile, we're collecting production information and any other data we can.
 * Once a second season has begun, the S1 episode table is moved to a unique article along with the production and other real-world information we've collected, i.e. SpongeBob SquarePants (season 1)
 * The season 2 article is created with a list of episodes, we start fleshing out the casting/production information, etc.
 * Your unilateral change seems to take none of this into consideration. The S2 Naagin article is premature at the very least. It's also problematic that you unilaterally moved the article from Naagin (season 2) to Naagin 2 (Indian TV series). Did you even bother asking anyone at WikiProject Television what our normal article naming conventions are for this sort of thing? Naagin 2 sounds like a film sequel. Why did you move Naagin (2015 TV series) to Naagin (Indian TV series)? This is just poor decision-making all around. You need to restore the merge templates at the very least.  do you have any input on this? Now it seems we have to figure out what the main and sub articles should be titled... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You are all free to revert me if you feel I was wrong. P.S This article is about season 1 and that one about season 2  Varun FEB2003    17:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So the burden is ours to fix your mistakes? I'm still not clear on how you decided that two other opinions on the matter should be disregarded in favor of your own opinion. I don't see an acknowledgment about that in your response. As for your post-script, this article is about the television series in general as it should be. It's only "about season 1" because only one season has aired. All multiple season articles start with a single main article about the first season, then expand as content warrants. made a questionable call when he created Naagin 2 (Indian TV series) (or whatever it was titled at the time) so prematurely. A season 1 article should have been created first, provided that sufficient content existed, but since we don't even have a list of episodes, even a S1 article would be premature. It would just be a cast list. If either of you plan to dabble in television articles, you both need to familiarize yourselves with MOS:TV and mainstream non-Indian television articles. The headaches that are caused in Indian entertainment articles are astounding, and most of it comes from either a lack of awareness of or an apathy toward established television guidelines at Wikipedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ rollbacked  Varun FEB2003    17:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Support: I don't see any need for two standalone piece on a single topic. If and when more sources emerge to support enough contents that could possibly make navigating through article difficult, we can do a split. Anup   [Talk]  14:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Hi! I think that this article should be titled as "Naagin (Indian TV Series)" including the needed content from Naagin (season 2), while I suggest that the Season 2 page should be changed as "Episode List of Naagin (Indian TV Series)" (it could extend too much if the series turns into TV soap opera). I also agree that the Plot section of the page must be updated, from the story told in Episode of 8 October 2016. Also Ratings section should be summarized due to too much repetations. Thanks! M.Billoo2000 (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need the extra disambiguation of "Indian" in the title. There's only one TV series titled Naagin as far as our disambiguation page is concerned. Frankly, I think the article would be best titled plainly as Naagin (TV series). We don't tend to add the year unless there's a reason, like to distinguish from other TV shows called Naagin. For example 24 (TV series) has no year, but Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series), and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) do, because there are three TV series with this title. Note also the lack of "American" in the article titles. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

How character lists work...
This seems to be an issue, so let me explain how character lists should work per WikiProject Television norms. (First, see WP:TVCAST, then see List of Millennium characters, a featured list.)

 * Character lists should contain the name of the actor, and the names of roles they play, along with brief descriptions of who the character is.
 * We typically break up cast into Main and Recurring cast subsections.
 * "Main" is determined by the series' onscreen "starring" credits. If that's not available, then by some official source. "Recurring" is for characters that appear more than once. We shouldn't care about one-off characters. Wikipedia is not IMDb, so we are not required to list every person who appeared more than once, either.
 * Guest stars are typically indicated in episode lists.
 * "Former cast" is not a valid subsection, because it is not consistent with community consensus, and because it doesn't tell us whether the cast member was part of the Main or Recurring casts. Just because someone leaves a series, does not mean that their role gets buried in a discard pile.
 * Per WP:TVCAST, new additions to the cast (whether they are in Main or Recurring) should be added to the bottom of the list. So if Karanvir Bohra joined in S2, he would be added to the bottom of the Main cast list, even if he plays a major role. That's just how WikiProject Television prefers things. We don't reorder cast based on perceived importance. This would constitute original research.
 * Having individual cast lists for S1 and S2 is only going to result in duplicate content for no good reason. Cast is presumed to continue as the series progresses, unless we indicate otherwise.
 * Ex: "Arjun Bijlani as Ritik Singh (Yuvraj) / Sangram Singh - Bijlani left the series after S1."

 * We should avoid using slashes per WP:SLASH, because slashes create confusion. Are these people twins? Are they two unique characters? Is one name a nickname for the other? If a character is playing dual roles, that should be explained in prose, with as much detail as needed to communicate to someone who has never seen the series.
 * Ex: "John Doe in a dual role as Sam and Dave. Dave is a personality imagined by Sam, who suffers from brain trauma. Dave takes the form of a naagin who constantly tempts Sam into doing evil. Sam is constantly trying to avoid listening to Dave, but by the end of S1, Sam's resistance wears down and he starts letting Dave manipulate him to do evil."

 * Character tables, like the one found at List of Millennium characters should be used to supplement cast/character information. It should not be used to replace the cast list.
 * Once a character list at this article becomes sufficiently full of information (information about the character, casting, real-world info) then it can be branched off into a unique article. But we are far too early for that now.

Here is an example of what Naagin (TV series) should look like at this stage: The Grinder (TV series) Editors should realize that the goal for any article is to make it to Good article or Featured article status. If you continue to delete information and use sloppy parentheticals to indicate facts about a character, or to format the article in a way that is not consistent with MOS:TV you're only bringing the article backwards. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2016
Plz add kinshuk mahajan to star list 2405:204:520D:628F:0:0:2AB2:48A0 (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — MRD2014 ( Merry Christmas! ) 22:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

English, Maths
Actor Ritik khatik (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Was there a point to this comment, or were you just testing the talk page for functionality? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2017
<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Rudra falls in love with Shivangi.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Cast section
The cast section (like various other sections in this problematic article) is a mess. See WP:TVCAST for guidance. Listing the cast by season just creates a wall of repetitive content. Do we need Mouni Roy's name three times in that section? Most television articles are interested in a general list of characters organized by their introduction. List of Millennium characters uses a table to summarize noteworthy cast's appearances across seasons, but -- and more importantly, there is a prose section that provides brief summaries of the characters along with real-world content about casting, etc. It's shocking that the people interested in this series have zero awareness that we're building an encyclopedia here, not a crappy version of the show's website. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

In these edits, I cleaned up the cast list by converting the unnecessary season subsections into parentheticals. I don't particularly care for the parentheticals, but I don't presently have a better idea for how to present this content. I removed the large cleanup template, as most of the issues have been resolved. I removed the refimprove template because a cast section doesn't really need references, as the primary source (the show itself) is used as a source for cast. The items in need of sourcing were claims of certain actors returning for S3, which will not premiere until November. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Class assessment: 6/17/17 UTC
Hi! I just assigned classes to the WikiProject templates on this page, assigning Start and C classes to the WikiProject India and WikiProject Television templates, respectively. Here is why I did that:
 * For the WikiProject India assessment (WP:IN1): The article seems to satisfy all C-class requirements, except that C-class articles "should be free from major grammatical errors", which this article contains. However, the article seems to satisfy all of the Start-class criteria. Therefore, I assumed that the article qualifies for Start-class. Once all major grammatical errors have been fixed, this page should probably be promoted to C-class in the WikiProject India template.
 * For the WikiProject Television assessment (WP:TV/A): The article seems to satisfy all B-class requirements, except that B-class articles have to be "reasonably well-written", "[contain] no major grammatical errors", and "[flow] sensibly", and the article fails all of these criteria. However, the article seems to satisfy all of the C-class criteria. Therefore, I assumed that the article qualifies for C-class. Once the prose is fixed appropriately, this page should probably be promoted to B-class in the WikiProject Television template.

If anyone has any questions, please let me know.

Thanks!

Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 05:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Are Shesha and Ruchika the same person?
As the main editor who adds plot details to this article, I thought that you might know the answer to this question. Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 01:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, Noah Kastin. Shesha and Ruchika are the same. But Rocky's family only know her as Ruchika. So, I wrote Ruchika. Always writing Shesha does not make sense. So, always talk with me before you set clarifies in the page. Regarding this, I thank you for asking such doubts and making me write perfectly. Pranay Star (talk) 05:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The above comment was moved from User talk:Noah Kastin by Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) at 06:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC). This was done in an effort to keep the discussion centralized.
 * Thanks for the reply, ! Knowing this, I think it would make sense to change all occurrences of "Ruchika" to "Shesha" so that the reader knows who is being talked about. If it is important that Rocky's family knows her as Ruchika, perhaps it should say something in her first Season 2 appearance along these lines:
 * Shesha (known to Rocky's family as Ruchika)
 * Also, I'm not quite sure what you meant by "set clarifies". If you could let me know, I would greatly appreciate that!
 * Thanks!
 * Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 07:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Merge Naga Kanyaka into this article?
Hi! I noticed that Naga Kanyaka, an article about a dubbed version of this article's subject, contains a large overlap with this article (as its subject is the same). Therefore, I would like to merge Naga Kanyaka into this article.

If anyone has any suggestions on whether or not Naga Kanyaka should be merged into this article, please let me know. Otherwise, I will merge Naga Kanyaka into this article.

Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 02:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

 * Merge - It's unclear what community guidelines was following when they created an article on a *DUB* of an existing series. Makes no sense to me. Looks like basic unnecessary content forking, especially since the entirety of Naga Kanyaka could be included as a mere paragraph at Naagin (TV series). Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I have now merged Naga Kanyaka into this article, though I have not yet cleaned up the section that Naga Kanyaka was merged into. Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 22:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have now cleaned up after the merge (in this edit). Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 22:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Named footnotes: 6/23/17 UTC
Hi, ! Thank you for editing Wikipedia!

I noticed that, in this edit, you added a named footnote. While what you did would work if the footnote was defined (i.e. with content included) at a previous point in the article, the reference was not defined at an earlier point. Therefore, the footnote does not work properly.

If you intended to cite a source, you can add the source after the text   with  . This will then define the footnote, making it clear what you are citing.

For more details on named footnotes, see WP:REFNAME.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks!

Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 23:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I just removed the undefined citation (in this edit). Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 03:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Confusing edit summary: 6/27/17 UTC
Hi, ! Thank you for all of your work on this article!

I was confused by something that you said in the edit summary of your most recent edit (this edit). The thing that confused me was the following line of text:
 * anyone don't make a clean up

I'm not sure if this is a request for no one to clean up the article. If so, I am requesting permission to edit the article, because it still needs to be copy edited and possibly shortened.

Thanks again for all your great work!

Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 20:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If I receive no response, I will assume that it is fine for me to edit the article. Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 22:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Noah Kastin. I requested everyone who edit the article to not make much clean up. It results in the incomplete plot of the TV series, so anyone who reads it does not know reasons for why a situation had occured or what happened to him/her to do a particular thing. I think you understand, I am giving you permission to clean up but do not edit it much. Leave these sentences and don't edit "At the end of the season, Rocky stabs Shivangi for an unknown reason yet to be revealed and Ritik look alike comes and tells Rocky that Shivangi should die for a reason."
 * Because, it is the sentence which depicts the story of the last episode of Naagin season 2.
 * Once again, thank you.
 * Pranay Star (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The above comment was moved from User talk:Noah Kastin by Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) at 04:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC). This was done in an effort to keep the discussion centralized.
 * Thanks for the update, ! Also thanks for giving me the go-ahead to copy edit the article.
 * I would like to remove some parts of the article which are somewhat irrelevant to the season as a whole (such as "A is revived, only to be killed shortly by B" or "B is killed by C, only to be shortly resurrected by D"). I would like to do this to make identification of important plot points clearer, as well as making the overall word count shorter (per WP:TVPLOT, the season section should be no more than 500 words; however, it is currently 682 words). Would you mind if I compressed the article as suggested? If no answer is given, I will assume that I can do that.
 * By the way, how much of the sentence that you asked me not to touch is relevant, besides "Later, Rocky inexplicably stabs Shivangi"?
 * Thanks again for the update!
 * Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 05:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, Noah Kastin. Edit as much as you want but make it look relevant. Thanking u, Pranay Star. Pranay Star (talk) 1:04 am, Today (UTC−4)
 * The above comment was moved from User talk:Noah Kastin by Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) at 05:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC). This was done in an effort to keep the discussion centralized.
 * I have now massively compressed the season, bringing it down to 392 words (coincidentally the same number of words as season 1). This should now be fairly concise, highlighting important plot points and complying with the Manual of Style (which it should continue to do even once the "clarification needed" tag is removed). Please let me know if I deleted any really important plot points (which I probably did). Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 05:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry Noah Kastin, you have made it too small after Shivangi's marriage plot. It is irrelevant and I think you must watch naagin series and then understand it and write. Because, you left important sentences i.e. Rocky too became a nag and Shivangi killing all murderers in a way and Rudra's death. I am not telling about episodic plot but to make the plot perfect and suit it. I am now editing it properly and after that, you check it again and ask me if you have any doubts. Pranay Star(talk) 1:54 am, Today (UTC−4)
 * The above comment was moved from User talk:Noah Kastin by Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) at 17:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC). This was done in an effort to keep the discussion centralized.
 * Thank you for your changes to the page, ! In answer to why I removed the sentences that you mentioned:
 * I did not intentionally remove Rocky turning into a Naag and helping Shivangi kill Ritik's murderers. Thank you for restoring those; they seem to be fairly important.
 * As to why I removed the sentence about Rudra dying: I removed that because Rudra seemed to be fairly unimportant to the season plot. The three mentions of him currently are 1) he allies with Shivangi; 2) he is used as a framing device by Shesha; and 3) he dies. As far as I am concerned, him allying with Shivangi is not very important if he doesn't contribute much to the overall season plot, and neither is him dying (again, if he doesn't contribute much to the overall season plot); this is why I removed both of those events from the summary. Then, once he was only in the summary once, I figured he did not need to be called be name (hence the change of "Rudra" to "another person").
 * By the way, the same reasoning for Rudra applies to why I removed all mention of Avantika from the plot summary. By the time I removed Avantika from the plot, all she did was 1) get summoned; 2) kill Rudra; and 3) get killed. By that point, the only part of that that really helped the plot was that she killed Rudra, and that didn't have to be her; all that was necessary was that Rudra was killed (as long as Rudra was an important enough character to warrant inclusion). This logic also applies to countless other characters who I removed (including Tanya and Jadunath, just to name a couple).
 * Please let me know if this makes sense. If so, I will once again remove mention of Rudra and Tanya. (If I receive no response, I will remove mentions.) Please also let me know if you have any other questions or opinions.
 * Thanks again for your contributions!
 * Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 17:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have now altered the article (in this edit) as I had said that I would. Please let me know if you have any comments on this. Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 07:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Confusing edit: 6/29/17 UTC
Hi, ! Thank you for your amazing contributions to this article!

In your most recent edit to this page (this edit), two things confused me:
 * 1) You re-added mention of Rudra to the article, seemingly with no explanation. If you can explain why you did this, I would greatly appreciate that!
 * 2) Your edit summary exceeds the maximum character limit, making it difficult to understand what you are trying to communicate, due to the fact that some of your edit summary does not appear. If you can explain what you were trying to say in your edit summary, I would greatly appreciate that, too!

Thank you again for your contributions!

Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 23:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Class assessment: 7/2/17 UTC
Hi! I just reassessed the classes for the WikiProject templates on this page, upgrading the WikiProject India template from Start to B, and leaving the WikiProject Television template at C. Here is why I did those things: If anyone has any questions, please let me know.
 * For the WikiProject India assessment (WP:IN1): The article seems to satisfy all B-class requirements.
 * For the WikiProject Television assessment (WP:TV/A): The article seems to satisfy all B-class requirements, except that B-class articles have to be "suitably referenced, with inline citations", as well as "[having] reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged [has to be] cited". The article fails these criteria, as it has some uncited statements. However, the article seems to satisfy all of the C-class criteria. Therefore, I assumed that the article qualifies for C-class. Once all statements are cited appropriately, this page should probably be promoted to B-class in the WikiProject Television template.

Thanks!

Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 09:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

 * - I don't agree with rating of B. 3 of the important sections - Season 1, Season 2 and the cast have pretty much no references. Hence, it should be given a rating of C.

 * VasuVR ( talk,  contribs ) 13:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input! Also thank you for letting me know that there are some uncited sections; I have now tagged them appropriately.
 * About the B rating for WikiProject India: The B rating for WikiProject India does not say that the article needs to be fully cited. What it does say about citations is that "At minimum, [the article] should also have some references to reliable sources". It then goes on to say, "Nonetheless, [the article] has some gaps or missing elements or references, needs editing for language usage or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR)". Since the only problem that I noticed with the article is that it does not have enough references, I assumed that it passed for B-class in its WikiProject India rating.
 * On the other hand, the WikiProject Television B rating says that the article must adhere to the six B-Class criteria, one of which says that the article must be "suitably referenced, with inline citations". This is why I rated the article C-class for its WikiProject Television rating. However, the WikiProject India Assessment guideline does not say that the article must adhere to the six B-Class criteria to be rated B-class.
 * If WikiProject India articles must, in fact, adhere to the six B-Class criteria, I will reduce the rating for it on this article to C. Also, if this is required, the guideline page should probably be changed to express this.
 * Please let me know if you have any questions.
 * Thanks!
 * Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 01:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Citations needed: 7/9/17 UTC
Hi! I noticed that the article has many uncited facts in it. As may be noticed, I am in the process of trying to cite more facts, but I need some help doing so. I particularly need help in three areas: If anyone can help me with any of these issues or in any other way help the article become completely cited, that would be tremendously appreciated.
 * 1) I am not familiar enough with policy to know quite what needs citations and what doesn't. In particular, I don't know whether the plot section needs citations or not.
 * 2) I can't read in any language other than English, so I can't use information from non-English reliable sources.
 * 3) I am not sure what facts are likely to be unable to be cited and should thus be removed.

As the main contributors to this article, I thought that I should let you know. Your help in particular should help this article get better.

Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 03:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, Noah Kastin. I understood what you are asking about. As you have read the articles of how to write a tv series article, you must be knowing about the citations in that article. You will know the need of citations in that article. If needed citations for plot, then you send a message for me whether to cite or uncite plot. If it needs citation, then I can add from the news articles like Bollywoodlife. And International broadcast and adaptation, I can't get you citations as news doesn't mention about a series dubbed in malayalam or it is rerunning in other channel. I think you have understood. Discuss with me for any other articles too.
 * I have been busy since yesterday so I have no time to edit Wikipedia articles these days. Pranay Star (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The above comment was moved from User talk:Noah Kastin by Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) at Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋). This was done in an effort to keep the discussion centralized.
 * Thanks for the offer to get plot citations!
 * In answer to whether the plot section needs citations: I just did a bit of research, and discovered what seems to me to say that plot summaries do not need citations, but that citations are helpful. See MOS:PLOT and MOS:FAIR USE for more details.
 * If you have any questions, please let me know.
 * Thanks!
 * Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 04:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've just done about as much as I can do pertaining to cleaning up sources already in the article (in the article's current state).
 * By the way, this source—which is only used in the article to cite the fact that Naagin airs on SCTV, dubbed into Indonesian—might also be useful for citing various parts of the plot summary (if this Google Translate window is anything to go by).
 * Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 05:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your efforts. My preference is to only act here in a gnome/admin capacity. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Noted. I will try to respect your preferences. Thanks for stopping by! Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 07:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

New sources found: 7/12/17 UTC
Hi! I just found several sources which may or may not be useful for the article. Here they are, with brief notes describing basically what they include:

 * : Reception and S1 end month.
 * : Criticism.
 * : Speculation on reception. Note that this source is already used in the article.
 * : Actress’s feelings on the show. Note that the following citation has the same content, only (in my opinion) not written as well:
 * : Reception and popularity.
 * : Reception and popularity.
 * : Popularity, S1 end month, part of S2 lead cast, and replacement by Kavach...Kaali Shaktiyon Se. Note that this source might also be useful in the Kavach article.
 * : Production and part of S2 lead cast.
 * : Production and reception.
 * : Production and speculation on S3 cast.
 * : Production and reception.
 * : Popularity, start date, and directing-related.
 * : So long that I can’t briefly describe it.
 * : Reception, part of each S1 and S2 lead cast, S1 end date.
 * : Popularity, S1 and S2 lead cast, Pakistan ban details.
 * : Pakistan ban details.
 * : Possibly useful, but I can’t figure out for what.
 * ,, , , , and : Popularity.

If anyone has any opinions on how useful these sources are or what they could potentially be used for, please let me know (possibly underneath the individual citations for comments on individual sources, or as a general comment down here for comments concerning several sources). I may add more about the individual sources and/or add them to the article as I discern their usefulness or lack thereof.

Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 04:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Class assessment: 7/11/17 UTC
Hi, ! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia!

I am somewhat perplexed by your recent class assessment of this article, where you demoted it from B and C classes to Start and Start classes (in this edit). What confuses me is that the only explanation given (in the edit summary) was that the article has "numerous issues" and is "under no circumstances B-class". However, I'm not sure what issues you're talking about. If you could let me know, I would greatly appreciate that!

Thanks!

Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 22:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * B-class is one of the highest assessment levels we have on Wikipedia – it is just short of Good article-class, and a significant subset of B-class articles would likely be approved for Good article-status. This article comes nowhere near qualifying for B-class – the overall article has a Refimprove tag, and in addition nearly every section of the article has separate 'cleanup' tags as well, and there are numerous citation needed tags. In short, this is an article with a lot of problems, and would fail to pass all 6 levels of B-class assessment (right now, I'm not sure it would pass any of those 6 assessments). It is nowhere near 'B-class', and with its many issues I think even giving this article even a 'C-class' assessment status is a stretch... 'Start-class' sounds right for a semi-longish article that is insufficiently sourced (but not completely lacking in sourcing). Pinging who has already put a lot of time into this article... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * After reading WikiProject India/Assessment and WikiProject Television/Assessment more closely, several times, and after checking over the article again, my point of view is much closer to yours. I agree that it should not be rated B-class on the WikiProject India scale and definitely not on the WikiProject Televison scale. I also agree that Start-class probably fits for its WikiProject Television rating, though I think the article might almost be at the point where it could get a C rating for WikiProject Televison. However, for WikiProject India, where the requirements seem to be significantly less strict than for WikiProject Television, I think that the article is much closer to getting a C rating, and might actually be at the point where it should have one. Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 00:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In general, different WP's shouldn't rate the same article with different assessment classes. I'd like to hear from on his thoughts on 'Start-class' vs. 'C-class' before proceeding. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know about the rule with the same article having multiple classes not being allowed. That clears up a lot of issues.
 * I'd also like to hear from, and will definitely wait for him before proceeding as well.
 * Right now, I'm trying to improve the article's quality by finding good, reliable sources that the article doesn't already contain. Please let me know if this causes any problems for the article's quality assessment.
 * Thanks!
 * Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 01:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My personal view is that if can eliminate most to all of the citation needed tags and replace them with appropriate sourcing, the article would likely graduate to 'C-class' at that point. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Complex edit: 7/15/17 UTC
Hi, ! Thank you for adding a useful citation to this article. Also, thank you for removing two sentences, each of which shouldn't be in the article until they can be cited; one due to WP:CRYSTAL (the one concerning season 3), and one due to WP:PEA (the one concerning awards).

I just reverted your edits to the second paragraph of the lede of this article. The changes that I made—along with reasoning for them—are listed below:
 * 1) I put back the uncited start and end dates for season 1, for two reasons: 1) I think that the start and end dates for the season are fairly important; and 2) available sources probably exist, stating what the start and end dates were.
 * 2) I removed the reference citing Sudha Chandran being one of the main characters in season 1 and returned the "citation needed" tag. This was done because the reference did not state that Chandran was a main cast member for season 1, only that she was in season 1.
 * 3) I re-added the uncited sentence about Kavach replacing the first season of Naagin. This was done because I am fairly sure that sources exist supporting this fact.
 * 4) I fixed up minor grammatical, punctuation, and capitalization errors.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Thank you again for your useful contributions earlier today!

Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 16:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Xà Nữ Báo Thù: Vietnamese speakers requested
Hi! Currently, there is a sentence in this article concerning a dub of this article's subject into Vietnamese, entitled Xà Nữ Báo Thù. This sentence, unfortunately, is completely uncited. However, I cannot read Vietnamese, and Google Translate produces nonsensical results (e.g. "Bite still how to bear suffering"). If anyone can read Vietnamese and can help me find sources for Xà Nữ Báo Thù (or conclusively find a lack thereof), I would greatly appreciate that! Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 19:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, the Reference desk (or more specifically Reference desk/Language) might be a good place to start if you're trying to get direct assistance. Or perhaps WikiProject Vietnam? Regards and thanks for your efforts, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice! I will look into those options. Thanks again! Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 00:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have now put in a help request at WT:VIETNAM. The help request is located at WT:VIETNAM. Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 01:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

CN spans
Hi all (and perhaps, specifically), do we really need the citation requests for the cast/roles that have already aired? Typically we use the primary source (the TV show itself) for uncontroversial content like cast, or plot. I'm not sure the flagging is necessary. I'll take on faith that Kinshuk Mahajan plays a male serpent, for instance. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point; I will remove the majority of the citation requests. However, I would like to see some form of citation for who is a "main character", as this is the source of some debate (i.e. editors moving characters into and out of the main characters section). Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 00:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is going to be tricky for non-Hindi speakers to verify, especially because I think Indian TV and films may not do credits the way the Western world does credits. The things I'd be most wary of is the random moving of cast up or down, (which you seem to be attuned to) since that tends to look like we're adhering to someone's personal interpretation of who is important and who is not. Although, I think that sometimes ignorant editors will move people from main cast to other sections depending on whether or not that actor/character has been downgraded. This is problematic, because as I'm sure you can understand, if someone is a main cast member, but later takes a back seat in the series, they shouldn't be swept under the rug. Anyhow, a much bigger problem across Indian TV articles. TL;DR: I don't oppose your requests for clarification on main characters. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For recurring characters, would TV Guide be useful just to prove that they exist (and sometimes their names)? Here's a sample TV Guide entry on Naagin characters (note that this may only cover one season, unclear which): Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 14:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have also discovered some citations (currently used in the article) which state that various characters are main characters. Having found no other reliable sources that state that characters are main characters, I am inclined to believe that the only characters who are main characters are the ones that the sources that I found specify. Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 17:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Character roles: 7/16/17 UTC
Hi! I'm not quite sure what notation should be used for characters who are sometimes main characters (and so appear in the main characters section), but are sometimes recurring characters. This seems to be the case with Aashka Goradia (recurring in season 1, main in season 2) and Arjun Bijlani (main in season 1, (possibly) recurring in season 2).

I have tried to find an appropriate guideline, but have failed to do so. I have also failed to find a comparable article with a characters section to base this one on. If someone can let me know what notation to use, I would greatly appreciate that!

Thanks!

Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 17:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you help me figure out what to do about this? Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 00:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Prose is my usual go-to. Depending on how much information we have, something like "Goradia was a recurring character until season 2 when she took over the lead after __'s departure" or whatever the case may be. Obviously we calibrate depending on what sort of content exists. And yeah, I'd probably move her to Main if she's Main, but not move her back if her character takes a lesser role in the future, since it's important for us to know that she was part of the main cast at some point. The Indian marketing sockpuppets seem to hate prose, preferring instead to use Wikipedia to detail whomever is fresh on the screen at this moment, but that's not how we operate. We should absolutely have real-world information in our cast section, per WP:TVCAST. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I just made an edit in an attempt to solve this problem. Please let me know if this achieved the desired goal. Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 18:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Good work, my only note is that "relegated" makes it sound like a demotion, as opposed to just how the storyline evolved. In the interest of neutrality, maybe something along the lines of "Bijlani's role was reduced to a recurring role" or something. I can't think of the best phrasing at present. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the problem with the word "relegated". I can't think of a better word at the moment either, so I've tagged the sentence with Template:POV statement until I can think of a better word. Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 02:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Content Reversion: 7/20/17 UTC
Hi, ! Thank you for all of your great work on Wikipedia!

I have reverted two of your edits to this page (this one and this one), for the following reasons: Your edit did also add some useful citations, so I have re-added those in this edit.
 * They removed material which probably could be cited, but which I have not found citations for yet.
 * They removed helpful explanatory comments.
 * They removed existing useful citations.
 * They added citations which do not adequately cite the facts that they seem to be citing.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Thanks!

Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 20:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Content Reversion: 7/21/17 UTC
Hi, ! Thank you for editing Wikipedia!

I have reverted five of your edits to this page (in this edit), for the following reasons:
 * 1) They added content concerning a future release with no sources supporting the content that you added. This is explicitly prohibited by WP:CRYSTAL.
 * 2) They disrupted the general shape of the cast list. In this article, the general cast list format has been: one actor, one entry. If it is announced that the actor will appear in the next season, the parenthetical statement next to their name (such as "(Seasons X—Y)") can have that "Y" number incremented by one to show that the actor will appear in the next season. For example, "Arjun Bijlani (Seasons 1—2)" can be changed to "Arjun Bijlani (Seasons 1—3)", if it has been announced that he will appear in season 3. (Note, however, that this must be cited; see point 1.) However, it should not be written as:
 * Arjun Bijlani (Seasons 1—2)
 * Arjun Bijlani (Season 3)

If you can find reliable sources showing that Arjun Bijlani and/or Adaa Khan is going to have a main role in season 3 (Mouni Roy's appearance in season 3 is already sourced, so no additional citations are needed to cite that fact), feel free to change "(Seasons 1—2)" next to the actor's name to "(Seasons 1—3)" and add a citation next to the parenthetical statement. Alternatively, you can drop links to reliable sources on the talk page here, and I will add them to the article for you.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Thanks!

Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 21:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Arjun Bijlani
re: this and this, can you please explain why you're removing Bijlani's appearances in S2? According to the prose in the cast list, he was at least in the first episode. Is that not accurate? Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Naagin (2015 TV series)/Archive 1


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Lethwei/Assessment

Welcome to the assessment department of the Lethwei WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Lethweiarticles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work, and are also expected to play a role in the WP:1.0 program,

The assessment is done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the Lethweiproject project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Martial arts articles by quality, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Assessment instructions
An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the Lethweiproject project banner on its talk page:

The following values may be used:

 * FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class Lethwei articles; should only be used for articles that are currently listed as featured articles)
 * FL (adds articles to Category:FL-Class Lethwei articles; should only be used for articles that are currently listed as featured lists)
 * A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Lethwei articles; should only be used for articles that have made considerable progress upon the GA version, an article that is undergoing FA review would be A-class)
 * GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class Lethwei articles; should only be used for articles that are currently listed as good articles)
 * B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Lethwei articles)
 * C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Lethwei articles)
 * Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Lethwei articles)
 * Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Lethwei articles)
 * List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Lethwei articles; should only be used for articles that are stand-alone lists)
 * Template (adds articles to Category:Template-Class Lethwei articles; should be used for all martial arts-related templates - and specifically for infoboxes and navboxes)
 * Disambig (adds articles to Category:Disambig-Class Lethwei articles; should be used for disambiguation pages)
 * Redirect (adds articles to Category:Redirect-Class Lethwei articles; should be used for redirect pages)
 * NA ( adds pages to Category:NA-Class Lethwei articles; should be used for non-article pages which are not lists, templates, or disambiguation pages)

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Lethwei articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

Requests for assessment
To request assessment of an article, add the WikiProject Lethwei banner to the article's talk page. The article will then appear in the Category:Unassessed Lethwei articles above, and will be assessed in due course.


text:
pedra

Etymology
, from.

Noun

 * 1) stone
 * 2)  stone, calculus
 * 3) hailstone
 * 1) hailstone

Etymology
, from, from. Compare 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1)  stone, rock

Etymology
, from, from. Compare 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) stone
 * 2) stone, rock
 * 3) hailstone
 * 4)  deposit, calculus, stone
 * 5)  tartar
 * 1)  deposit, calculus, stone
 * 2)  tartar
 * 1)  tartar

Etymology
From. Cognate with 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) stone

Etymology
From, from.

Noun

 * 1) stone

Etymology
, from.

Noun

 * 1) rock, stone
 * Como hũa moller q̇ iogaua os dados en pulla lançou hũa pedra aa omagen de ſ[ant]a mari[a] por q̇ perdera ⁊ parou un angeo de pedra que y eſtava a mão ⁊ reçibiu o colpe.
 * How a woman who was playing dice in Apulia threw a stone at the statue of Holy Mary because she had lost, and an angel of stone which was there reached out its hand and received the blow.
 * 1)  penis
 * 1)  penis

Etymology
, from, from. Cognate with 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) stone (as a material)
 * 2) stone, rock
 * 3) hailstone
 * 4)  deposit, calculus, stone
 * 5)  tartar
 * 6)  crack cocaine
 * 1)  tartar
 * 2)  crack cocaine

Etymology
From, from.

Noun

 * 1) stone

title: pedra


text:
Category talk:2020s coups d'état and coup attempts

Opposed speedy move request

 * Category:2020s coups d'état and coup attempts to Category:2020s coups d'état – C2C: As per naming convention of Category:Coups d'état and Category:Coups d'état by decade Gjs238 (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Category:2010s coups d'état and coup attempts to Category:2010s coups d'état – C2C: As per naming convention of Category:Coups d'état and Category:Coups d'état by decade Gjs238 (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Category:2000s coups d'état and coup attempts to Category:2000s coups d'état – C2C: As per naming convention of Category:Coups d'état and Category:Coups d'état by decade Gjs238 (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Category:1990s coups d'état and coup attempts to Category:1990s coups d'état – C2C: As per naming convention of Category:Coups d'état and Category:Coups d'état by decade Gjs238 (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Category:1980s coups d'état and coup attempts to Category:1980s coups d'état – C2C: As per naming convention of Category:Coups d'état and Category:Coups d'état by decade Gjs238 (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Category:1970s coups d'état and coup attempts to Category:1970s coups d'état – C2C: As per naming convention of Category:Coups d'état and Category:Coups d'état by decade Gjs238 (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Category:1960s coups d'état and coup attempts to Category:1960s coups d'état – C2C: As per naming convention of Category:Coups d'état and Category:Coups d'état by decade Gjs238 (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Category:1950s coups d'état and coup attempts to Category:1950s coups d'état – C2C: As per naming convention of Category:Coups d'état and Category:Coups d'état by decade Gjs238 (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Category:1940s coups d'état and coup attempts to Category:1940s coups d'état – C2C: As per naming convention of Category:Coups d'état and Category:Coups d'état by decade Gjs238 (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Category:1930s coups d'état and coup attempts to Category:1930s coups d'état – C2C: As per naming convention of Category:Coups d'état and Category:Coups d'état by decade Gjs238 (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Category:1920s coups d'état and coup attempts to Category:1920s coups d'état – C2C: As per naming convention of Category:Coups d'état and Category:Coups d'état by decade Gjs238 (talk) 10:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Category:1910s coups d'état and coup attempts to Category:1910s coups d'état – C2C: As per naming convention of Category:Coups d'état and Category:Coups d'état by decade Gjs238 (talk) 10:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Category:1900s coups d'état and coup attempts to Category:1900s coups d'état – C2C: As per naming convention of Category:Coups d'état and Category:Coups d'état by decade Gjs238 (talk) 10:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Category:1890s coups d'état and coup attempts to Category:1890s coups d'état – C2C: As per naming convention of Category:Coups d'état and Category:Coups d'état by decade Gjs238 (talk) 10:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Category:1880s coups d'état and coup attempts to Category:1880s coups d'état – C2C: As per naming convention of Category:Coups d'état and Category:Coups d'état by decade Gjs238 (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Category:1870s coups d'état and coup attempts to Category:1870s coups d'état – C2C: As per naming convention of Category:Coups d'état and Category:Coups d'état by decade Gjs238 (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Category:1860s coups d'état and coup attempts to Category:1860s coups d'état – C2C: As per naming convention of Category:Coups d'état and Category:Coups d'état by decade Gjs238 (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Category:1850s coups d'état and coup attempts to Category:1850s coups d'état – C2C: As per naming convention of Category:Coups d'état and Category:Coups d'état by decade Gjs238 (talk) 10:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Category:1840s coups d'état and coup attempts to Category:1840s coups d'état – C2C: As per naming convention of Category:Coups d'état and Category:Coups d'état by decade Gjs238 (talk) 10:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Category:1830s coups d'état and coup attempts to Category:1830s coups d'état – C2C: As per naming convention of Category:Coups d'état and Category:Coups d'état by decade Gjs238 (talk) 10:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Category:1820s coups d'état and coup attempts to Category:1820s coups d'état – C2C: As per naming convention of Category:Coups d'état and Category:Coups d'état by decade Gjs238 (talk) 10:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Category:1810s coups d'état and coup attempts to Category:1810s coups d'état – C2C: As per naming convention of Category:Coups d'état and Category:Coups d'état by decade Gjs238 (talk) 10:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Category:1800s coups d'état and coup attempts to Category:1800s coups d'état – C2C: As per naming convention of Category:Coups d'état and Category:Coups d'état by decade Gjs238 (talk) 10:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose speedy Many of these categories also contain coup attemps, and reducing the scope of the category IMO shouldn't be done speedily. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose speedy per Armbrust. NLeeuw (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support speedy The term coup d'état does not exclude failed coups. Charles Essie (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That is the point exactly:
 * Assassinations and Failed assassination attempts are categorized separately. There is no category named "Assassinations and assassination attempts."
 * Crimes and Attempted crimes are categorized separately. There is no category named "Crimes and criminal attempts."
 * Lynching and Lynching attempts are categorized separately. There is no category named "Lynching and lynching attempts."
 * Terrorist incidents and Failed terrorist attempts are categorized separately. There is no category named "Terrorist incidents and terrorist attempts."
 * Gjs238 (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am afraid this needs to go to full CfD. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I can live with that. Charles Essie (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you think? Charles Essie (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


text:
User:Km567

My name is Kyongtae Min. I live in Ithaca, New York, and I am a fourth year undergraduate student attending Cornell University. I am majoring in Computer Science and currently looking for a full time software development job.

title: User:Km567


text:
galaxie

Etymology
, from, from.

Noun

 * 1) galaxy collection of stars

Etymology
From, borrowed from , from , from.

Noun

 * 1) galaxy

Etymology
From, borrowed from , from , from.

Noun

 * 1)  galaxy

Etymology
, from, from , from , from.

Noun

 * 1) galaxy

title: galaxie


text:
User:ErikaEckermann/sandbox

Article Evaluation:

Evaluation of article [Coping (psychology)]:

-When discussing the different types of coping (appraisal-focused, emotion-focused, problem-focused, occupation-focused), paragraphs explaining each time were not evenly distributed regarding length or depth (i.e. problem-focused paragraph was much smaller compared to others).

-The article appears neutral; however, long section exists on Karen Honey's contributions to psychoanalytic theories related to coping. Sections are much shorter and less inclusive for other contributors to psychoanalytic theory (possible underrepresentation or overrepresentation).

-Links work when checked. References appear reliable.

-There may be additional historical psychoanalytic theories which are relevant to the broad topic of coping in psychology. Historical psychoanalytic theories section is not evenly spaced with information distribution; could use more expanding upon for names mentioned and add more names/contributions.

-On the Talk page of the article, there are conversations regarding its objectiveness as well as reported advice-giving. A few suggestions include re-vamping and re-writing the article. Editors suggest a potential merging with coping theories by Lazarus and Folkman.

-The article does not have a good rating based on its overall assessment. There are negative ratings for the way in which the article is written, citation issues, and overall assessment. Positive ratings include neutrality and broad topic coverage.

-The article is associated with WikiProjects Physiology and Psychology.

-Related to class: The article addresses a broad topic, such as coping, which class has covered in discussing Lazarus and Folkman or various other theories. We have briefly discussed emotion-focused versus problem-focused coping in class.

Add to an article:

Added 2 sentences to [Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy] Final Article Sources and General Outline (To be completed with partner) [Culture of Violence Theory]
 * 1) According to a 2017 meta analysis, mindfulness-based interventions support the decrease in depressive and anxious symptoms in addition to overall level of patient stress.
 * 2) Results of a 2017 meta-analysis highlight the importance of home practice and its relation to conducive outcomes for mindfulness-based interventions.

Objectives:

-Create a page for Culture of Violence Theory

-Describe the theory as related to cultural values in the United States

-Discuss how Culture of Violence Theory relates to domestic violence

-Address how Culture of Violence Theory impacts trauma responses

Final Outline [Culture of Violence Theory]
Summary of Culture of Violence Theory History/Development of the theory.
 * Definition & History
 * Quick definition and allusion to rape myths, victim blaming, and how it perpetuates violence in relationships.
 * Quick summary about how culture of violence impacts individuals' trauma response.

Relation to Cultural Values in the United States Trauma Responses & Cultural Violence
 * Violence in pop culture and media
 * Public justification of violence
 * Violence in relationships

Begin Drafting Article (Due 10/18/17) [Culture of Violence Theory]

-Lead Section Rough Draft

The Culture of Violence Theory addresses the pervasiveness of specific violent patterns within in a societal dimension. The concept of violence being ingrained in our society and culture has been around for many years. Originally called, "Structural Violence," in the mid-20th century, as research grew the notion that a culture can sanction violent acts developed into what we know as Culture of Violence Theory today. Examples of our culture legitimizing violence can be seen in rape myths and victim blaming. Rape myths lead to misconstrued notions of blame; it is common for the responsibility associated with the rape to be placed on the victim rather than the offender.

Furthermore, the Culture of Violence Theory potentially accounts for inter-generational theories of violence and domestic violence. Childhood exposure to violence in the household may later lead to similar patterns in marital relations. Similarly, early experience with domestic violence is likely to increase an individual's potential for development of clinical symptoms. Additionally, presence of a preexisting mental disorder may heighten the chances of becoming involved in an abusive relationship.

There are many factors which contribute to the persistence of violence among individuals and on a societal level; gender is one relevant factor to understanding the Culture of Violence Theory. In the United States, a majority of reported rapes involve female victims. However, there is a growing body of evidence to support the notion that women can perpetuate relational cycles of violence.

While our culture of violence has an impact on people as a whole, for individuals who have experienced trauma in their lives the impact can be much larger.

title: User:ErikaEckermann/sandbox


text:
User:Markc

My name is Mark an i am an undergraduate at The University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle UK. I am reading Modern Languages (German and spanish).

Academic Interests

 * General German and Spanish Language
 * German and English linguistics
 * English language change and evolving dialect forms
 * Latin American politics and history
 * European history - war periods
 * Philosophy of religion (particularly the traditional arguments for God, the problem of evil and the traditionl theodicies, the philosophy of Richard Swinburne and Peter Vardy)
 * Christian Ethics
 * Biblical exegesis and hermeneutics
 * Religious Language

I am willing to help anyone in any way that i can in terms of learning / research of the above academic interests - just drop me a line.

title: User:Markc