If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Good afternoon Certes. Looking at your Discussion page, you seem a reasonable chap so here goes. You have insisted on including a link to Model (person) within the Model (disambiguation) page. That disambiguation page however contains only peripheral terms such as titles of songs, or completely unrelated terms such as MODEL - Movement for Democracy in Liberia.

In my view, the Model (person) link would sit more logically in the Model page, which already lists links to artist's model, fashion model, and role model and provides context. Take a look at the current version of the Model page, now changed following your remarks, and let me know what you think.

If you agree, then please delete in the Model (disambiguation) page the links for Model (person) and Model (logic). If you disagree, then do nothing and I will live with it.

Please mind that I am currently travelling and may not be able to answer immediately.86.151.98.28 (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The purpose of the disambiguation page is to guide the reader wanting information on one of the many topics called "model" to the most appropriate article. Many of them will be looking for Model (person), which averages 1,138 views per day, compared with 204 for the next most popular article Model theory and just 179 for Model itself.[1]. The person topic easily passes the inclusion criteria, and there's even an argument for promoting it to the top of the page as the topic most likely to be sought. Certes (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, agreed. However on the same basis, would you support removing the Model (logic) link from the disambiguation page? It has only 52 visits per day, and sits oddly with all the song titles etc., and is already linked on the Model page in appropriate context with abstract models.2A00:23C6:54D3:DA01:8474:DA53:3154:39B4 (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No minimum number of visits is needed. Articles on obscure topics such as Model, Masovian Voivodeship and MODEL get less than one visit per day but still qualify for an entry as long as their subject remains notable. The only argument I can see for removal is that Model (logic) is a subtopic of Model and is dealt with there. However, it has a separate article which contains a far more detailed treatment than is appropriate for the one-line summary in Model. It seems helpful to allow the reader to go straight to that page rather than having to find the link within a broader article. Certes (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Until a few months ago, the disambiguation article was organised as you are arguing now: a long list of links on diverse subjects containing the word "model", ranging from German field marshal Walter Model to MODEL - Movement for Democracy in Liberia to fashion models and mathematical modelling theories. However, more recently someone (not me) removed all the physical/abstract model-related links and put them into the current Model article, and added a chapter on General Model Theory to wrap it all together. Next, I think, someone sneaked the links for Model (logic) and Model (person) back into the disambiguation article. This confusing back-and-forth will never settle down until the criteria for inclusion are set out in the disambiguation header. Any ideas? I have one...86.151.98.28 (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes: let's see what the experts at WikiProject Disambiguation have to say. Certes (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You and I are the experts now. I am making a change to the disambiguation header, and removing Model (logic). See if you like that version. If not, revert. But think about it first. 86.151.98.28 (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have asked for a third opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. Certes (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good morning Certes. You have deleted the infamous World War II general Walter Model from the Model (disambiguation) page, and have commented that he belongs to the Model (surname) page. You are being inconsistent. Above, you have refused deleting the Model (person) and Model (logic) links in the Model (disambiguation) page, even though they already exist as links on the generel Model page. Can you please explain yourself? It is difficult to tidy up Wikipedia articles with such erratic decisions. Thank you. 109.146.228.171 (talk) 09:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia's normal practice is to list people sharing a name on a separate page, following the guideline Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Names. The essay Wikipedia:Name pages#Compared to disambiguation pages has further explanation. If you feel that those principles are wrong, let's discuss the matter more widely, perhaps at the disambiguation wikiproject. If you agree with the guidelines but feel that the general is an exceptional case, please explain why, ideally at Talk:Model (disambiguation) or the wikiproject. Either way, I hope we can find a consensus about what to include on the disambiguation page. Certes (talk) 11:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Road marker IN NH has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Road marker sandbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good morning Certes. I need your advice on deleting a superfluous Wikipedia article, to wit, Mind model. Please take a look at my argument on Talk:Mind model, and advise me whether a specific deletion template exists that I should be using to alert other editors to the deletion request. Furthermore I would value your opinion. 2A00:23C6:54D3:DA01:ACAD:F546:A9E3:D423 (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can nominate the page for deletion by following the AfD process. (Disambiguation pages are also nominated for deletion at AfD, even though they're not technically articles.) However, although the term is not widely used, the collection of links there does seem useful. As partial title matches, they're unsuitable for Model (disambiguation) but might perhaps be usefully merged into Model itself, with Mind model becoming a redirect to there. That might be a good alternative to deletion here. Certes (talk) 10:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I have followed the instructions and added a tag. As for your suggestion of moving the links to Model: I instead suggest splitting up the links to two other pages, because the Mind model page is confusing two distinct topics: Conceptual models (models of external reality, created by the mind) and Mental models (models of how the mind works, as proposed by psychologists). Let us see what others say. 86.167.104.11 (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have seen your changes and they seem fine to me. As an administrator, do you have a tool whereby you can efficiently replace, all over Wikipedia, any "Mind Model" links with "Model" links, given that "Mind Model" is a non-word? 86.167.104.11 (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not an administrator but there are no incoming links to Mind model from articles. (A hatnote on Mental model links there, via a redirect per WP:INTDAB.) Indeed, any significant incoming links would show the page to be used and useful and cause us to doubt its deletion. Certes (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have had my mind changed on Mind model and propose a consensus. Could you please go to the Mind model Talk page and comment? Thanks. 2A00:23C6:54D3:DA01:C9:F9D1:7093:274A (talk) 09:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No rest for the wicked. I now have the article Conceptual model (computer science) in my sights. The article itself states that Conceptual model (computer science) is a synonym for Domain model. That being so, Conceptual model (computer science) can be subsumed into Domain model, The Conceptual Model article has not been fixed for years despite a request tag dating from 2015, and it is consulted only 20 times a day compared to 200 times a day for Domain Model. What do you think? And is there a Merger Tag or some standard protocol to initiate the merging process? 86.191.32.215 (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes: there is relevant information at Wikipedia:Merging. Certes (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, thanks. 86.191.32.215 (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a Request Move discussion about William IV. Since you participated in the previous move discussion involving William IV, I thought you might want to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

please make a arrangement in a way to get details of all soda industry Pakistan EngineerNayabNaveed (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry but I have no knowledge about that topic and am unable to help. Certes (talk) 08:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can help you with its a second largest soda industry EngineerNayabNaveed (talk) 05:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you mean one of the chemicals called "soda" then WikiProject Chemicals may be able to help. If you would like an article about a food or drink then WikiProject Food and drink may be a good starting place. Certes (talk) 07:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey,

Long time, no see.

I've started a revamp of Wikipedia:Tools/Optimum tool set.

Please take a look and let me know if there are any essential techniques or must have tools that you think should be included.

Thank you.

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   06:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, that's a useful list. The main tools I use that aren't listed there are JWB and AutoEd. To find pages needing edits, I use ((Database report)) and Quarry (which is about to be replaced). Certes (talk) 09:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Database report looks cool. Now I have to learn SQL! Maybe perplexity can write it for me.

Quarry is about to be replaced. Good to know. Perfect timing for me to learn the new tool. Thank you!

If you think of any more, let me know.

Some quick questions:

Why do you use JWB when there's AWB?

AutoEd sounds like the general fixes and typo-fixes features built-in to AWB. What benefit do you find in using AutoEd instead?

I look forward to your replies. Thank you. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   08:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AWB is designed for Windows and doesn't work as well on my OS. It also means starting a separate application, but I find it more convenient to run JWB in the browser I use for Wikipedia. I leave several JWB tabs permanently open: one for bulk typos, one for adding short descriptions, etc. My main use of AutoEd is for fixing wikilinks. I have a Tampermonkey script which adds a wikilink to each entry on a report to open the article in edit mode and make the most common fix for that term, e.g. Model → Model (person)|Model. I need to check the results carefully before publishing because often I need to make a different fix or just discard the preview when the original was correct, but it saves a lot of time. I don't think AWB or JWB could do that so easily. Certes (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Impressive. By the way, where'd you get the data for the most common fix for each term?    — The Transhumanist   10:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just made up manually. Some have multiple options, for example Acre can intend either Acre, Israel or Acre (state). Certes (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Previous discussion : User talk:Maxim Masiutin/Archives/2023/November#Short descriptions from Wikidata

Sorry for removing the article description template, I was using the ((Template:Annotated link)) template and the description in Wikidata items started from a lowercase characters whereas the description template has to be started with an uppercase character. I also need lowercase character. Therefore, I thought wikidata would be one-for-all option to avoid duplication on information, but if you need the article description template, I will use the "desc_first_letter_case=lower" parameter for the ((Template:Annotated link)).

By the way, why do you need the article description template explicitly rather than taking the data from Wikidata item? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Maxim Masiutin: Two reasons. Firstly, the SD from Wikidata simply doesn't appear in some articles. It only appears if something like an infobox explicitly collects it from Wikidata, and we've generally decided not to do that. Secondly, we don't want descriptions in Wikipedia to update automatically whenever someone vandalises Wikidata. Certes (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, sorry for that, I didn't know. I apologize again! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome. We don't do a great job of documenting such practices, and I can't blame anyone for not knowing about them. Certes (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I read help on both Short description and Wikidata item description and it seems that I figure out the differences. I tried to explain them at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Short_descriptions#What_are_the_differences_betewen_a_Short_description_and_a_description_from_the_Wikidata_item? -- you opinion is welcome Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Maxim Masiutin: I think that's all true. One small point: it's right to say that the Wikidata item description is without initial articles (a, an, the), but so is the Wikipedia SD, so that's not a difference. Certes (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although not directly related to what you wrote, I think another point is worth mentioning. Unless a SD is set in the Wikipedia article, either explicitly through ((short description)) or via a template such as certain types of infobox, the article has no SD. The Wikidata item description used to be used automatically as a fallback, and it still is on some wikis, but English Wikipedia asked the WMF to remove that feature because of vandalism to rarely-visited Wikidata pages. To take a couple of examples: removing the ((short description)) from Grommet would leave it with no SD, because none of its templates set a SD. The Wikidata item description would not appear instead. Removing the ((short description)) from Urinary retention would leave it with a more generic SD of "Medical condition", provided as a backup by ((Infobox medical condition)), not the Wikidata item description. Certes (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you aware that according to the rules of Wikipedia:Short description, specifically WP:SDNOTDEF, a short description should be a very brief indication of the field covered by the article, it should not be a definition. The article's Short description on Urinary retention violates this rule (WP:SDNOTDEF) whereas the item descripion on Wikidata item correctly gives the a very brief indication of the field covered by the article. I will update the section I written according to your advice. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Medical condition" would be adequate. I think "Inability to completely empty the bladder" also passes WP:SDNOTDEF as an otherwise-suitable short description that also happens to work as a definition. I'd say that the latter is slightly better, as it confirms for the layman that the article is about a bladder condition rather than an alternative ailment somewhere else in the urinary tract that might have a similar effect. At 41 characters, it could be criticised as slightly too long but I think that's nitpicking: it conveys the meaning even if slightly truncated. If you ask at the WikiProject, editors with more experience of SDs might give a more informed opinion. Certes (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 2023 was the first time I had to go to school and then I was in the world 185.213.230.125 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations, I hope you enjoy school! Education is wonderful, and I'm proud that Wikipedia contributors are doing their bit to help. Certes (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Certes, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, GoingBatty (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages.

GoingBatty (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

Hello Certes: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 11:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20,674 people were killed and 54,536 people were injured. https://today.lorientlejour.com/article/1362124/israel-continues-bombardment-of-gaza-southern-lebanon-amid-muted-christmas-celebrations-day-80-of-hamas-israel-war.html 173.44.89.180 (talk) 15:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I won't be adding this information to any articles but, if you would like help, please leave a message on the relevant article's talk page. Certes (talk) 15:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Certes.

Could you help me with the article 'Gabriel Alemparte' (about which you made a small edit to my content)? There's a user —named Bedivere— who wants to delete the article for a supposed WP:NPOL when the politician in question has received important coverage from the media and also has held state–offices in my country, Chile.

Could you vote to keep it in the deletion discussion, please?

Thanks for your attention.

--Carigval.97 (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Carigval.97: Sorry, I don't know much about the subject; I only fixed a typo. Also please see WP:CANVASS. Happy editing, Certes (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changes the link from Mahagathbandhan (2019) to Mahagathbandhan (Uttar Pradesh; 2019) Yuthtuth22 (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yuthtuth22: Sorry, I don't know anything about Mahagathbandhan or where this link appears. If you're unable to change it yourself (perhaps it's in a protected article), please add an edit request to the article's talk page. Certes (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

thank you for the message, and I’m sorry for my errors. The link you gave, me, it helped me realize all of them were showing up there. Ill go fix them now. Also, I was hoping people can help with the edits too, but I should own up to it, although, I think the pages are weirdly setup,a nd probably should not have been setup that way. Nice meeting you by the way. Ebbedlila (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Gurugram Airstrip—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Trinidade (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, but I merely fixed a link and have no opinion on the merger. Certes (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings Certes, and a very happy, prosperous and productive New year to you and your loved ones. (I think it's a bit late but still possible to issue such wishes, it is still just 2024 after all :) Long time, no chat, I hope you're keeping well and out of trouble ....

I have an enquiry / favour to ask of you with regard to some template / module coding issues that are bamboozling me ATM. I've been working recently on upgrading the Scotland Portal by adding several important Articles & Biographies. They arrive on the Portal pages via ((Numbered subpages)) and ultimately ((Transclude lead excerpt)). Some of the articles have an unfeasibly short lead section, so the excerpts are (naturally) very short and don't do the topic any justice as an excerpt in the Portal. I could rewrite many lead sections to deal with the issue, but this would risk reversion or edit wars and allegations of being contrary to the WP:MOS. A good example is William Arrol where I moved some extraneous birth details and early education info from a "career" section into the lead but this was quickly shifted into it's own "early life" section by another editor.

Hard to argue against that.

The problem seems to me to be that the templates / modules do not appear to have any method to select a paragraph beyond any TOC via the paragraphs parameter. I can't find any discussion in the /doc pages for any of the templates or modules about a solution for this. Any ideas?

Your insights / comments / possible solutions would be greatly appreciated if you can spare the matter some of your time. Best wishes. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cactus.man: Thank you, and lang may yer lum reek. Yes, the portal templates extract just the lead. The lead is meant to summarise the article, so it might be better to copy text selectively from sections such as "career" into the lead rather than moving them leaving some information only in the lead. More generic alternatives such as ((Excerpt)), which was based on the portal code, are more flexible and can extract all or part of a named section or even the whole article. You might want to turn off references, which the portal templates remove by default but Excerpt leaves in. Certes (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Certes:, many thanks - good, sound advice as always. I've started dabbling with the ((Excerpt)) template which I think will deal with most of the excerpt length problems that have been troubling me for some time. Just need to follow the guidance on parameter usage for advanced formatting. My lum is now reeking nicely :) --Cactus.man ✍ 08:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of retired numbers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of retired numbers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Weeper (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you were kind enough to thank me for removing the red linked Portals and I see you are an experienced AWB user I am wondering if there is a way to amend category pages using it? For example I want to remove Portal World War I from Category:World War I auxiliary ships of Belgium but I can't see a way to get a list of category pages into AWB. Looking at the guide possibly All Pages would do it but that option does not appear on my AWB Lyndaship (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lyndaship: I usually use JWB which can search in chosen namespaces. I'd just search Category: for linksto:"Portal:World War I" and use that list. I'm sure AWB also has that feature. (Normally I'd do the Template: namespace first, because some categories might link via a template, but I don't think any do in this case.) Certes (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks I'll investigate JWB. I've spent a frustrating couple of hours on the search feature of AWB trying out various permutations without luck, found Special pages but can't get any Category results. There's a considerable number using a template on the Portals with red links category but that's something for a future look at Lyndaship (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think AWB or JWB can use Special:WhatLinksHere, but JWB (and almost certainly AWB) can do Cirrus search using the linksto: keyword. Certes (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. JWB works a treat Lyndaship (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, you recently deleted the mention of the author Sean Michael Wilson as an Edinburgh born authors, on the grounds that "limit to a selection of especially notable authors”. Surely he counts as that. He has written 40 books (published in 13 languages), is the first Scottish person to ever get an Manga award from the Japanese government, the only Scottish person to ever have several original books published by the Japanese publisher Kodansha (one of the biggest publishers in the world), one of his books was launched at a special event in the Houses of Parliament in London and has won several other awards. If that does not make him ‘notable’ then what would you count as such? Thanks. Topknot2 (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this comment refers to Edinburgh. Wilson may be notable, in that he has an article (though it's tagged as needing more citations). However, 259 writers from Edinburgh have articles and a list of them all would dominate an article which is not principally about authors. We should limit the list to authors who pass a threshold well beyond notability, just including a handful of the most important household names who are on everyone's bookshelf. For a more objective assessment, see page views. Wilson and Harden are an order of magnitude less viewed than the other writers. Based on this information, I've also just delisted Harden. Certes (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]