User Talk: Morogris

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

Craig Holden (writer) notability tag

I am contesting the notability tag ↗ added to Craig Holden (writer) ↗. The subject meets WP:GNG ↗: his second novel received a standalone review in the The New York Times ↗ (Polk, March 31, 1996), The River Sorrow was reviewed in the Los Angeles Times ↗ (October 1994), Four Corners of Night was reviewed in The Globe and Mail ↗ (February 1999) and appeared on the USA Today ↗ bestseller list, and the novel won the 1999 Great Lakes Book Award ↗ in Fiction. That is well beyond the two independent reliable sources with significant coverage required by GNG. I have removed the tag.

<nowiki>I am also puzzled by the nomination, as the sources establishing notability, a standalone New York Times review, a major literary award, and a USA Today bestseller listing, were present in the article at the time of the tag. If you had a specific concern about a particular source's reliability or independence, I would welcome the clarification. — ~~~~</nowiki> Sparks19923 (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|Sparks19923}} Do those reviews cover the subject (Holden) in detail or just his novels? My concern with reviews like those is that they show the works are notable and could merit a Wikipedia article, but that doesn’t mean the author itself should have a standalone article. Holden would have to be covered in detail (early life, style of writing, career over the years and not just reviews of his work) by multiple independent sources for him to merit his own article. For example, we have a lot of articles of companies, but the threshold for their founders/CEOs are much higher since sources would need to cover them in depth (not just the company). Hope this makes sense. Curious on your thoughts (sorry for the choppy writing, I’m on my phone). Morogris (<big>'''✉'''</big> • '''✎''' ↗) 05:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
::@Morogris: Thanks for clarifying. Your comparison to companies and CEOs makes sense in a business context, but Wikipedia handles creative professionals differently.
::For authors, the relevant specific notability guideline is WP:CREATIVE ↗ (a subsection of WP:BIO ↗), which provides an alternative path to the General Notability Guideline.
::Specifically, Holden meets Criterion 3 and Criterion 4c of WP:AUTHOR ↗:
::Criterion 3: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews..."
::Criterion 4c: The person's work "has won significant critical attention."
::Holden's novels won the Great Lakes Book Award, appeared on the USA Today bestseller list, and were the primary subjects of standalone reviews in major publications (''The New York Times'', ''Los Angeles Times'', ''The Globe and Mail''). This satisfies the requirement for works that have received multiple independent reviews and significant critical attention.
::Under Wikipedia's established approach for biographies of creative professionals, widely reviewed and award-winning works confer notability on the author for a standalone article. The strict separation between creator and creation that you mentioned applies to WP:CORP ↗, not to WP:AUTHOR ↗.
::<nowiki>Let me know if you have any other concerns about the article's sourcing. — ~~~~</nowiki> Sparks19923 (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Thanks for this. I was not aware of the author guidelines and should have checked. Morogris (<big>'''✉'''</big> • '''✎''' ↗) 18:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

DYK for Toluca FC 6–0 Club América (2003)

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|image class=skin-invert
|text = On 15 June 2026 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''Toluca FC 6–0 Club América (2003) ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that Toluca FC ↗ scored what is widely regarded to be '''one of the best goals ↗''' in Liga MX ↗ history?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Toluca FC 6–0 Club América (2003) ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Toluca FC 6–0 Club América (2003) ↗), and the hook may be added to the statistics page ↗ after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it ↗.
}} —'''TechnoSquirrel69''' ('''sigh''') 15:55, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

DYK for Albercas El Vergel

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|image class=skin-invert
|text = On 19 June 2026 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''Albercas El Vergel ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that '''a Tijuana water park ↗''' features a slide that curves upward to launch riders airborne into a pool?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Albercas El Vergel ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Albercas El Vergel ↗), and the hook may be added to the statistics page ↗ after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it ↗.
}} Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

:)

<div style="display: flex; align-items: center; min-height: 100px; padding: 1em; border: solid 3px #2B547E; background-color: #E6E6FA;">left|60px| ↗ '''Wishing Morogris a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee ↗!'''   Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c ↗ · he/him ↗) 01:58, 19 June 2026 (UTC)</div>

:Wow! 15 years. Thank you so much. Morogris (<big>'''✉'''</big> • '''✎''' ↗) 02:06, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

DYK for Eduardo Clark

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|image class=skin-invert
|text = On 24 June 2026 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''Eduardo Clark ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that '''Eduardo Clark ↗''' discovered that several teachers registered on Mexico's national education payroll were collecting more than MXN$ ↗500,000 per month, with some listed at least ten times?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eduardo Clark ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Eduardo Clark ↗), and the hook may be added to the statistics page ↗ after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it ↗.
}} Cielquiparle (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

CD Guadalajara

You don't need to delete the entire honours section of the club. If hat information is in the club's history and also in the results and performance section of the articles for each of those national and international competitions, use some common sense. TlokehNawakeh (talk) 06:41, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|TlokehNawakeh}} We cannot expect readers to have to search and comb through the article to see if another section is properly sourced or not because it lacks sources there. The requirement outlined in WP:CITETYPE ↗ states that citations need to be close to the material it supports. What you're proposing is not. Morogris (<big>'''✉'''</big> • '''✎''' ↗) 06:45, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

In fact, I just checked and literally most (if not all) of the friendly championships are unsourced and not cited anywhere else, as well as most of the runner-up positions. Again, unsourced claims have no place on Wikipedia and hope that the example I shared for Toluca FC#Honours ↗ helps in having an idea of what this should look like when citing references in this section. Morogris (<big>'''✉'''</big> • '''✎''' ↗) 06:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

References in article about Deportivo Toluca F.C.

Hi Morogris! I hope you're doing well.

Sorry to bother you. I posted a discussion on your Spanish Wikipedia profile. It's about the Toluca FC (Deportivo Toluca Fútbol Club) article. I'm contacting you because I noticed no one is responding in the "Discussion" section of the Spanish article.

Anyway, here's my question: Hi Morogris. I hope you're doing well. As you may have noticed, I've added many references to the Deportivo Toluca Fútbol Club article over time. I've also been adding more references little by little, as I find them. But in September 2024, someone added a notice about the references, since the article had references but needed more. As of July 2026, the article has over 400 references, compared to approximately 50 to 60 when that notice was placed at the beginning. I believe it would be appropriate to remove that notice, since, as you can see in the article, it already has many references. I'm contacting you because I've noticed that there are no responses in the article's "Discussion" section. However, it does seem that other people besides myself are adding references or removing any vandalism that might occur in the article. I hope you're doing well! Thank you for reading, and sorry for the inconvenience. Best regards.

P.S.: I forgot to mention that I am Nihoniumaluminum in the Spanish version of the article. Nihoniumaluminum (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Deportivo Toluca F.C.

I was in agreement with you on the Pumas UNAM and Tigres UANL issue but changing the Toluca article without a discussion is another story. This is something that should have been discussed. GoPurple'nGold24 ↗ 07:28, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

:I brought it up briefly in the article's talk page not too long ago and simply defaulted to action. “Deportivo” is more of a formality and is not usually included in sources so it fails WP:COMMONNAME too. Even the team’s website uses only Toluca FC as well as other sources I shared. Morogris (<big>'''✉'''</big> • '''✎''' ↗) 07:33, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
::Yes but the Deportivo is used a lot as well. If you want to use the common name then it should just simply be "Toluca". On search terms "Deportivo Toluca" is more coomonly searched for than Toluca FC. If you want to go use the name on their website then Manchester United's article for example, should be called "ManUntd" or "Manchester United". GoPurple'nGold24 ↗ 01:16, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
:::{{ping|GoPurpleNGold24}} Most sources refer to FC Barcelona ↗ simply as "Barcelona" in standalone use, but the club article title could probably never be changed to "Barcelona" in standalone because the city already occupies that title; same issue we'd run into with Toluca. "Deportivo" is not used by most Mexican sources when describing the team in day-to-day language, which instead opt for "Toluca." Given the precedent already established with "Barcelona" → "FC Barcelona" and other teams (I'm thinking São Paulo FC ↗ is another good example), "Toluca FC" is cleaner and better respects how most sources actually describe the club. Morogris (<big>'''✉'''</big> • '''✎''' ↗) 01:23, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
:::What sources? If you search the term "Deportivo Toluca" there are many websites and sources that use that term or simply just "Toluca", "Toluca FC" even though it is used, it is not used as much as the other two. Even on the team's website and social media pages that have "Toluca FC" listed, the term "Deportivo Toluca" is also used. GoPurple'nGold24 ↗
::::{{ping|GoPurpleNGold24}} "Deportivo Toluca" ''does'' appear in searches, I'm not trying to suggest otherwise and I believe this may be the source of our disagreement. My point is that "Toluca" ''as a standalone'' name for the club, similar to how "Barcelona," "São Paulo," and "Valencia" are used, is WP:COMMONNAME when referring to the club, obviously the city too.
::::To illustrate: when Toluca won the recent championship, Mexican sources consistently used "Toluca" rather than "Deportivo" (which they excluded) in prose. This pattern also holds in older sources from 10 to 20 years ago, based on research conducted for the article.
::::'''Sources (from recent championship)''': Mediotiempo ↗, Récord ↗, Récord 2 ↗, SB Nation ↗, ESPN Deportes ↗, El Sol de Toluca ↗, Sports Illustrated ↗, Fox Deportes ↗
::::'''Sources (from +10 years ago)''': CONMEBOL ↗, TUDN ↗, Marca ↗, Diario de Juarez ↗
::::'''My conclusion''': "Deportivo Toluca" is used and you'll find that in searches because that is the club's official name, but "Toluca" as a standalone when referring to the club is more common in sourced coverage. Given that clubs such as Barcelona, São Paulo, and Valencia exist as both city/club and follow similar convention, removing "Deportivo" and adding the FC abbreviation to make the distinction seemed the appropriate approach. Let me know what you think. Morogris (<big>'''✉'''</big> • '''✎''' ↗) 15:14, 10 July 2026 (UTC)