Wiki Article
User talk:Explicit
Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net
|
Unknown article and deleted article
[edit]There was an article from years ago that was deleted after an AFD about a list hero groups such as the Rebel Alliance in the Star Wars (film) and the Rebellion in She-Ra: Princess of Power. I can't remember the name of it. Do you know what it was called and if so can you let me see the deleted version of it. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Davidgoodheart: Unfortunately, I don't know which article you're referring to. ✗plicit 10:37, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
- There's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional rebellions, though at least the last revision of that page doesn't mention She-Ra. —Cryptic 04:46, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
- Can I please see the List of fictional rebellions article and Jessica Bangkok. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- There's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional rebellions, though at least the last revision of that page doesn't mention She-Ra. —Cryptic 04:46, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Deletion review for Shaho Tayeb
[edit]Kurdistan24web has asked for a deletion review of Shaho Tayeb. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 13:56, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Re: Assistance with moving Draft:Pietro Deiro Presents the Accordion Orchestra to main page
[edit]Ciao Explicit - It is an honor to learn of your interest in musicians and the historical albums which they create in order to preserve their musical legacy for the benefit of future generations future generations. My most recent draft submission Draft:Pietro Deiro Presents the Accordion Orchestra appears to be suitable for transfer to the main page. It is well referenced, documented and Wikified. It also links to several internationally recognized musicians and recording artists from the Golden Age of Radio in the United States including; John Serry Sr., Carmen Carrozza, Pietro Deiro and Angelo Di Pippo. I would be greatly honored if you could take a look at the draft whenever you have some free time. Many thanks in advance and enjoy the music. With respect ~2026-32112-5 (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2026 (UTC)NHPL
Another undeletion for redirection request
[edit]Hi, as per my previous request, can you please undelete Barry Ward (Australian rules footballer) so that it can be redirected to List of Geelong Football Club players#1960s. This should be the default action for articles that were created under the old WP:NSPORTS rules that don't comply with the correct WP:GNG rules. Also pinging the PROD nominator User:Aneirinn. The-Pope (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- @The-Pope:
Done, restored and redirected. ✗plicit 14:23, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
deletion review Zone Laser Tag
[edit]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zone_Laser_Tag
hi, i'd like to request moving the deleted zone laser tag page to draft space. i have new independent sources from 2025 that address the notability concerns raised in the afd:
2025 iaapa brass ring award – they won 1st place for "best exhibit" at iaapa expo europe (barcelona), which is a top-tier international industry honor. 2025 association of indoor play – they were named "best trade supplier" in april 2025. market footprint – the company reached a milestone of 1,100+ active global venues in late 2025, which was covered in industry trade news.
could you move the content to draft:zone laser tag so i can add these citations and improve the article? thanks.
Stevene1919 (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Stevene1919: Done, now available at Draft:Zone Laser Tag. ✗plicit 14:23, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Non-free image of cod tongue box
[edit]Explicit, sorry to trouble you. I recently passed Cod tongue at GA; at that time the article contained File:Faroe cod tongue box lippukassan.png with a non-free license. Nom had written an NFUR but I expect it was too generic, resulting in your F7-ing the file. In my view, the historic image is really necessary for the article, as the use of the cod tongue box represents a historic practice of cutting and counting the tongues (so that the crew would get properly recompensed) which has long since died out, so the image could not now plausibly be recreated. The practice is described and cited in the article. If you could undelete the image, I'd be happy to take over the NFUR to document it properly. Many apologies that this didn't go as smoothly as it should have. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Chiswick Chap: The image had the following caption accompanying it: "Faroese sailor counting cod tongues beside the ship's cod tongue box". The file was tagged for violating WP:NFCC#8, which states that the use of a non-free file is permitted if "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." How would this image satisfy this criterion? See WP:NFC#CS for reference. ✗plicit 13:23, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- Explicit: Many thanks for discussing. I am sorry that the caption was insufficient. The image is in the context of the accompanying section of main text, which explains that there was a custom in the Faroes of cutting out the "tongues" of the cod and putting them in the dedicated cod tongue box, so that the contributions could be counted and the crew recompensed. The historic photograph showed this process in action. Along with the treatment of cod tongues as a delicacy, this practice is clearly a major focal point of the article, and deserves illustration. A free image cannot now be taken as the practice has ended. Clearly we should have explained the image further in the caption, and repeated the citation there; I'll be happy to do that, and to write a more detailed and apposite NFUR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) This is just my personal opinion (to be fair I've haven't seen the actual deleted image itself), but there's nothing really in Cod tongue#North Atlantic Islands that would seem to justify the use of any non-free image of this practice; so, if this would've came up for discussion at WP:FFD, I would've likely !voted that the file's use didn't meet relevant policy. If, however, you're looking to add more commentary about the practice, I would suggest adding it to that particular section, not the image's caption, to strengthen the contextual connection between article and image. Moreover, you should try to make it sourced critical commentary about the practice that just goes beyond being just a description of what was done; anything unsourced runs the risk of being removed which will likely lead the image to be nominated for deletion again, and text alone seems, at least to me, more than sufficient alternative to non-free use for simply describing the practice. Any sourced critical commentary you can find about the particular image itself (e.g., it was such a gross image that led to a public campaign to end the practice) would be a big plus.Lastly, even though this is no longer common practice, if someone (anyone really) could reasonably be expected to duplicate it (by a freely photo or video), then you're probably going to have issues satisfying WP:FREER regardless of how much critical commentary you add to the article about the practice. When it comes to non-free content, "historical" has a slightly different when it's used with respect to photos; historical photos of events tend to one which have themselves been the subject of sourced critical commentary over time separately from the event they're depicting; so, even though the practice itself may be historic, photos of it are not necessarily historic by default. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, I will add the sourced text first if that makes it easier for everyone. The Faroese practice explained in the source is like the foreign one but far more chaotic so it needs to be described and cited. As I said, the image could not now be re-created, the practice has long ended. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Did the practice end because people just stopped doing it or was it banned by the authorities? If people just stopped doing it because it became outdated or some reason like that, then perhaps someone could recreate it. Is this, by chance, the photo that was deleted? Do you remember anything about its provenance if it is? I just searched "cod tongue box lippukassan" on Google and that's the first photo that came up. Google says the photo is used in Cod tongue but the same photo can no longer be found in the article; so, I thought that might be the photo and Google is just showing a cached version of the article.Anyway, if the practice was common in Faroe Islands many years ago, then perhaps there's another photo that might serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the one that was deleted but which has already entered into the public domain. A photo taken before January 1, 1945, would've entered into the public domain under the copyright law of the Faroe Islands on January 1, 1995. Such a photo would also be within the public domain under US copyright law because it would've been in the public domain in the Faroe Islands before January 1, 1996, which is the URAA copyright restoration date for most countries under US copyright law. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- It became obsolete (as everywhere else). A recreation by actors would not be the same as a historic photo, so I don't think we need worry on that score, the NFUR can readily explain that. The image may not be unique but I can't find another. It's quite possible it's pre-1945 but the image is not dated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- An old photo isn't historic because of its age or because what's written about it in an NFUR, at least not when it comes to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; it's historic because there's something about the photo itself that has led to it being discussed by reliable sources and referred to as historic. If the photo is the same one I linked to above, I think you might have a hard time establishing a consensus that satisfies Wikipeda's non-free content use policy if it ends up being discussed at FFD. Anyway, I'm not trying to give a hard time about this. If you can provide a link to the photo you want to use, I can try asking about it over at Commons VPC. Some of the Commons regulars are pretty good at sorting out the provenances of photos and perhaps one might get be able to figure where the one you want to use originally comes from. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- I'll think about it, and yes, you are giving me a hard time, I'm afraid to say. The photo shows a captain counting the cod tongues from the lippukassan while the crew watch; that is a rare record of a process that no longer exists, as the fishery ended in 1958, so it is certainly a "historic" image within the meaning of the act. I've written up the practice now in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- An old photo isn't historic because of its age or because what's written about it in an NFUR, at least not when it comes to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; it's historic because there's something about the photo itself that has led to it being discussed by reliable sources and referred to as historic. If the photo is the same one I linked to above, I think you might have a hard time establishing a consensus that satisfies Wikipeda's non-free content use policy if it ends up being discussed at FFD. Anyway, I'm not trying to give a hard time about this. If you can provide a link to the photo you want to use, I can try asking about it over at Commons VPC. Some of the Commons regulars are pretty good at sorting out the provenances of photos and perhaps one might get be able to figure where the one you want to use originally comes from. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- It became obsolete (as everywhere else). A recreation by actors would not be the same as a historic photo, so I don't think we need worry on that score, the NFUR can readily explain that. The image may not be unique but I can't find another. It's quite possible it's pre-1945 but the image is not dated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Did the practice end because people just stopped doing it or was it banned by the authorities? If people just stopped doing it because it became outdated or some reason like that, then perhaps someone could recreate it. Is this, by chance, the photo that was deleted? Do you remember anything about its provenance if it is? I just searched "cod tongue box lippukassan" on Google and that's the first photo that came up. Google says the photo is used in Cod tongue but the same photo can no longer be found in the article; so, I thought that might be the photo and Google is just showing a cached version of the article.Anyway, if the practice was common in Faroe Islands many years ago, then perhaps there's another photo that might serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the one that was deleted but which has already entered into the public domain. A photo taken before January 1, 1945, would've entered into the public domain under the copyright law of the Faroe Islands on January 1, 1995. Such a photo would also be within the public domain under US copyright law because it would've been in the public domain in the Faroe Islands before January 1, 1996, which is the URAA copyright restoration date for most countries under US copyright law. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, I will add the sourced text first if that makes it easier for everyone. The Faroese practice explained in the source is like the foreign one but far more chaotic so it needs to be described and cited. As I said, the image could not now be re-created, the practice has long ended. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) This is just my personal opinion (to be fair I've haven't seen the actual deleted image itself), but there's nothing really in Cod tongue#North Atlantic Islands that would seem to justify the use of any non-free image of this practice; so, if this would've came up for discussion at WP:FFD, I would've likely !voted that the file's use didn't meet relevant policy. If, however, you're looking to add more commentary about the practice, I would suggest adding it to that particular section, not the image's caption, to strengthen the contextual connection between article and image. Moreover, you should try to make it sourced critical commentary about the practice that just goes beyond being just a description of what was done; anything unsourced runs the risk of being removed which will likely lead the image to be nominated for deletion again, and text alone seems, at least to me, more than sufficient alternative to non-free use for simply describing the practice. Any sourced critical commentary you can find about the particular image itself (e.g., it was such a gross image that led to a public campaign to end the practice) would be a big plus.Lastly, even though this is no longer common practice, if someone (anyone really) could reasonably be expected to duplicate it (by a freely photo or video), then you're probably going to have issues satisfying WP:FREER regardless of how much critical commentary you add to the article about the practice. When it comes to non-free content, "historical" has a slightly different when it's used with respect to photos; historical photos of events tend to one which have themselves been the subject of sourced critical commentary over time separately from the event they're depicting; so, even though the practice itself may be historic, photos of it are not necessarily historic by default. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Explicit: Many thanks for discussing. I am sorry that the caption was insufficient. The image is in the context of the accompanying section of main text, which explains that there was a custom in the Faroes of cutting out the "tongues" of the cod and putting them in the dedicated cod tongue box, so that the contributions could be counted and the crew recompensed. The historic photograph showed this process in action. Along with the treatment of cod tongues as a delicacy, this practice is clearly a major focal point of the article, and deserves illustration. A free image cannot now be taken as the practice has ended. Clearly we should have explained the image further in the caption, and repeated the citation there; I'll be happy to do that, and to write a more detailed and apposite NFUR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Deletion of spider genus
[edit]Hi Explicit :)
I just noticed that you deleted the page Pitonga. The thing is that we're trying to get a page for every spider genus that's accepted by WSC. In the case of family Desidae, that means there's now one missing genus. Would you consider re-instating this page, so I can bring it up to speed? Otherwise I'll have to recreate it, which would probably be a bit more cumbersome.
I've been away from working in Wiki for quite a while, and was never good in dealing with the politics etc. of this site :P So if possible, can we not draw this out too much, and just accept that we'll have a page for every spider genus (we're kind of 95% there already)? Thanks for your consideration! Sarefo (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Sarefo: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ✗plicit 13:23, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- thank you! Sarefo (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- ha, now that I can actually see the content, I realize this is for some obscure village, not the spider genus, and that there's already a page for that genus. which means that I have no opinion whatsoever whether the village article should be kept or deleted after all. Sarefo (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- thank you! Sarefo (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Please have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salliyargal. It's still open for 5 days after AfD nomination Withdrawn. SaTnamZIN (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Peter New
[edit]Hi. Will you please reconsider undeleting the Peter New article? Because all the page needs is just more references and sources. I could help. By undelete, I do not mean re-creating it, I mean restoring it to before it was initially deleted. Thank you. -- ILoveRichardSimmons (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Placing a redirect instead of an article that was deleted under PROD
[edit]Hey Explicit, I just noticed today you had deleted Care.com under WP:PROD. Would I be okay to recreate it as a redirect to its parent company, IAC Inc.?
Full disclosure, I am employed by Care.com. More precisely, I am employed by the european subsidiary/division Care.com Europe GmbH in Germany. I do not, and never have or will, edit Wikipedia on their behalf. The only editing involvement I had on the now-deleted article was using InternetArchiveBot to archive a dead source there once.
As far as I am aware, recreating a page that was deleted under PROD is not against policy, but I also want to avoid even the perception of COI here, therefore I wanted to ask you first. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2026 (UTC)