User Talk: Cakelot1

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{User:Cakelot1/Bar}}
{{Archives
|image=Classeurs - filing cabinets, binders etc. - Public domain illustration from Larousse du XXème siècle 1932 (4).png
|image-size = 70px
}}

Regarding the project space link on Catgirl

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catgirl&diff=prev&oldid=1345669181 ↗ I admit I had a certain appreciation for the longstanding link to project space (Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan ↗) on Catgirl ↗, given it was one of the few places I'm aware of where such a link was tacitly (perhaps IAR ↗?) accepted for years - I've always wondered if eventually consensus would decide it had to go. But I like your edit. It seems kind of obvious in retrospect, but I hadn't been aware we had ''anything'' in mainspace about Wikipe-tan. Since it turns out she is discussed in Moe anthropomorphism#Computers ↗, where Wikipe-tan ↗ redirects, it is indeed for the best to link that.

And, of course, it ''is'' in line with orthodoxy for ''that'' section to have an "also redirects here" hatnote linking to the project space page, which it does. So your solution is probably the best of both worlds. <code>CharredShorthand.talk ; ↗</code> 01:59, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

":Othello World ↗" listed at Redirects for discussion ↗

30px ↗
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Othello_World&redirect=no Othello World] has been listed at redirects for discussion ↗ to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines ↗. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 11#Othello World}}''' until a consensus is reached.  ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ 00:47, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Unreferenced tags

I don't think {{tl|Unreferenced}} is appropriate with settlements than only give the localion, if content is later added such as population, notable residents or name origin then it can be re added, most settlement articles don't include references for the location when there are other sourced facts so I don't see a reason to tag if there aren't other facts that need sources. '''Crouch, Swale''' (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

:As WP:NGEO ↗ says {{tq|A feature cannot be notable, under either WP:GNG ↗ or any SNG, if the only significant coverage of the feature is in maps, though rare exceptions may apply ↗}} {{small|(and I can assure, having gone through some of the likely unrefrenced lists, you that this is not a rare situation)}}. So if it's notable (and I'm not disputing that) there will be coverage to add, and if not it shouldn't be here. The tag isn't about an accusation about the state of the article, it's a call to action and bring it to the attention of people trying to sort all unreffrenced articles out (WP:URA ↗'s progress means that's projected to happen about 1 year from now). If you prefer I could add a {{tl|one source}} instead (since your claiming that all the claims in the article are based on the information from the coordinates). Cakelot1 ☞️ ''talk'' 18:50, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
::I don't really think we need tags at all, as the template says "Consider not adding this template to very brief stubs, since anyone visiting the page can see, in a single glance, that it contains no citations.". I think this would apply, we should try not to add more tags than we need to. '''Crouch, Swale''' (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
:::As I say the point here isn't necessarily to signal to people that happen upon the article, but to add it to the system that signals that others should look for sources for this (as they are needed at some point in the future ↗). For example it gets added to Wikipedia:NEWCOMERTASKS ↗ and as I say it's the basis which many people at WP:URA ↗ use. I know I've personally sourced a bunch of unrefed GEO stubs found using Special:RandomInCategory/All articles lacking sources ↗. I'm happy to leave ''these'' 3 for now, but I wouldn't be surprised if over the next year others try to add unref tags (because it is by most metrics unrefed). Cakelot1 ☞️ ''talk'' 19:20, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
:::Hi, I work in the Unreferenced backlog project ↗. Unless there is a tag, it won't come in the list for me to work and add refs. So I guess it helps. Also, every article on Wiki must have a reference as per the guidelines/policies. Davidindia (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Adding an unref template to a stub article

Greetings. May I ask why you made this edit ↗? It is an extremely short stub article so having an unref template seems kinda redundant. Rockfang (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

:@Rockfang, As I said above (and backed up by Davidindia ↗) this puts it in the various sytems that flag unref articles to be fixed (WP:NEWCOMERTASKS ↗, and WP:URA ↗). In particular, WP:URA ↗ wants an accurate accounting of unref articles as at current our prediction is that we're going to references all articles (including un-tagged ones) in the next year. This article does in-fact need to be referenced at some stage ↗ and this is about getting it into those systems where people are working on doing so. Cakelot1 ☞️ ''talk'' 19:04, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
::And of course if you don't think this can be referenced then it should probably be merged to Anarusuk Island ↗, per WP:NATFEAT ↗. Cakelot1 ☞️ ''talk'' 19:07, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
:::I agree I don't think tagging such a short stub with only location info is helpful. '''Crouch, Swale''' (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
::::@Crouch, Swale, As I said above, I've been specifically avoiding tagging articles created by you (despite my disagreements). However in the cases of the above articles dealing with Promontories on Anarusuk Island ↗, there is no indication that these are in any way notable, so the hope is that this will flag it up to somebody who can find some refs so that it doesn't need to be merged into the parent article. If you don't like the tags your welcome to add ref(s) yourself, as nothing on any of the mapping services even confirms these Icelandic cape names exist. Cakelot1 ☞️ ''talk'' 19:52, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::As I understand from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles ↗, every article should have at least one reference and MUST be tagged with 'unref' template if there are no citations at all, even if it is a small stub. Request: One of the experienced editors may explain JTtheOG Cielquiparle DreamRimmer; Thanks and happy eiditing! Davidindia (talk) 11:11, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::Users may have different opinions, but I don't see any issue with tagging unreferenced articles. I find it helpful for tracking and fixing them during upcoming URA drives. – '''Dream'''Rimmer ■ 11:29, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::@Davidindia, I think I understand their point of view. If you think of these tags as primarily for the benefit of the reader--to alert them to issues with an article that they're about to read--then adding an unref tag to a one sentence stub (that may have multiple stub templates) is not particularly helpful (as obviously the reader can see that there's no refs). And that's not to mention that the majority of the other types of issue tags will likely sit there unresolved, for years, if not decades.
::::::On the other hand you and I, as well as most people involved in WP:URA ↗ see unref tags primarily as helping people to find unreferenced articles, with the goal of ''solving'' them all (hopefully as soon as next year). Cakelot1 ☞️ ''talk'' 11:50, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Noted! thanks a lot! Davidindia (talk) 12:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 74

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"> <div style = "font-size: 1.5em; margin: 0 100px"> right|175px ↗</div> <div style = "line-height: 1.2"> '''The Wikipedia Library''': ''Books & Bytes'' Issue 74, March–April 2026 </div> <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">

New partnership: Swissdox

User survey results

<big>'''Read the full newsletter ↗'''</big> </div> </div> Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ↗ on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 10:35, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to :User:Cakelot1 ↗ and is being posted here due to a redirect.)