User talk:Mn1548

Hi Mn1548! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Since when is swedishcharts.com an official site to judge what is a single? It doesn't even state that it is a single. I've given a reference stating that the song was released in 2014 and if that reference isn't good enough I'll give a better one. The only one adding incorrect changes is you by putting it under 2015. AAron 8967 (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AARON 8967: It archives the Swedish Charts (And other countries as well) therefore I think it's an official site to judge. They recorded it in 2014, doesn't mean it was released in 2014. Also if you scroll back far enough on Axwell Λ Ingrosso's Instagram you'll find the same information from the artists them selves!Mn1548 (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mn1548: If you go to 69 weeks ago on their instagram they have information saying it was released in 2014. The music video for Can't Hold Us Down was released in 2015. And if a song enters a chart it does not make it a single. The Swedish Charts doesn't say that it is. I've given two references saying it was released in 2014 from complex and google play and I'll give another one from dej jam the record company their signed to.

@AARON 8967: If a song is released separate from and album, then it is released as a "single" format!Mn1548 (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop using 90.194.233.120 (talk · contribs) to carry out contentious edits or I will report you for sockpuppetry, which is inappropriate use of multiple accounts. Do not add spaces between certifications and references, as you did at Little Mix discography. Also, stop adding The X Factor to the "Album" column; the column says Album. Same goes with your IP edits at Sam Smith discography. Spectre the film is not an album. By the way, I know you are Nathanaelsadgrove (talk · contribs) as well; you edit exactly the same topics and articles (and you also performed the same edit at Little Mix's discography concerning adding a TV series into the Album column). Ordinarily, using multiple accounts is not a problem but when you keep doing the things I and other users warned you not to, that's when there is and will be a problem. Ss112 12:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please ensure that you include a link to your previous account, User:Nathanaelsadgrove, on your user page. Without providing the link it gives the appearance that you are trying to avoid possible sanctions due to the number of warnings received under the Nathanaelsadgrove user name, which is contrary to our policies regarding multiple accounts.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: How would one do that?Mn1548 (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could just add the link to your old user page (User:Nathanaelsadgrove) after "Old Account Broke:" on your new user page. I can do it for you if you're unsure.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: I mean code format, is it just the same as a standard page?Mn1548 (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just type [[User:Nathanaelsadgrove]] and save it. Sundayclose (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundayclose: Thank you Mn1548 (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo - the link was removed, although Mn1548's back to the same kind of thing Nathanaelsandgrove collected the warnings for. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as socking is concerned, I'm not too worried about the removal as the link is in the user page history as well as in this talk page section, and there has been no overlap in the account usage. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mn1548. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Summertime Ball, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Raye. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure the information in references you're deleting is contained in other references on the page. On Axwell and Ingrosso, you claimed in an edit summary that "individual peak chart positions refs are unnecessary as there are refs for the all peak chart positions at the top". The reference for the Flanders peak of "I Love You" is not in the reference at the top of the column, hence why I added it in the first place, so I have restored the reference. Do not remove it. Thank you. Ss112 16:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, thanks for fixing the mistake User:Mn1548

You claimed in your edit summary here "F.F.F." is a single and wrote "NOTE: Reference was included..." (cut off?) but yet you have provided no reference with your edit that indicates it is a single. The difference is "Galway Girl" and "Don't Let Me Be Yours" were both announced as singles. Has "F.F.F." been called a single? Ss112 19:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ss112 The rest of that was "...reference was included but it prevented the edit from saving, if anyone could find a reference that worked it would be much appreciated". By the way if my references that I tried to include (from Billboard and YouTube) are incorrect, please correct the edit. The song did following the same release as the songs mentioned (One after the album it's from but wasn't given its own one songed album) thus is and should be classed as a single. User:Mn1548

Ina Wroldsen was not credited on "How Deep Is Your Love", so it is not appropriate to include the song in her discography, and it's been removed. I'm pretty sure you've been warned about this practice before. For instance, Beyoncé quite notably had her vocals on Coldplay's "Hymn for the Weekend" but the song is not on her discography because she was not officially credited. Putting "uncredited" next to it does not excuse it. Ss112 00:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the discussion to Talk:Robin Schulz discography, as it seems more appropriate for that page, as you are seeking changes to the page that may be controversial. Ss112 16:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Avicii discography. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.

Coldplay's songs did not gain those chart positions because Avicii remixed them. You're taking chart positions of songs that Avicii remixed after the fact, and attributing their success to Avicii. That's original research unless they are credited as being Avicii's remixes on sites. Do not reinstate said information to Avicii's discography without proof. This will be considered disruption and be reverted. If you want to reply, you can do so here, or discuss it on Talk:Avicii discography. There is no need to open a duplicate topic on my talk page. Ss112 15:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: Firstly, I never credited an Avicii remix of a Coldplay song; and secondly, I put no chart positions on the remix part of the table I split.

However regarding the production table, surely those songs got there chart positions and certifications due to all the production and songwriting that went into making the song. My intent was to add the chart positions and certifications of those songs like in the rest of the discography. Note: I was unable to find an overall reference for the chart positions as the credit artists were different but references for the certifications were there and for Avicii producing the songs. Please tell me if given chart positions for production credits is a "no" for the reason that finding overall chart references are hard, or for any other reason as the no original research policy doesn't really say anything against as as the cerdit of "producer" has been made clear. Mn1548 (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my mistake: I meant you created an unsourced chart table for Avicii's production work. It's original research because there were no references. If you can't find references for material you're adding, you shouldn't be adding it. Full stop. You also added fake peaks of Devil Pray: it didn't reach number 3 in France, let alone any chart, and its peak in Sweden was number 16 on the Digital chart, not the overall singles chart. Ss112 17:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: OK. Charts and Certifications should be avoided for production credits. However I still think the table should be split and some songs removed as the apper in "As featured artist" as "Other charted songs". Mn1548 (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mn1548. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The album column does not mean "which albums is the song included on?" because if it did mean that, every compilation a song subsequently appears on should be listed too. Is it for other discographies? No. It means which album or release (EP, mixtape, compilation, live album and so on) it was released in promotion of. The note was there for a reason. Don't come along and disregard it because you think you know better. Thanks. Ss112 00:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sebastian Ingrosso, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Everytime We Touch and Swedish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Spotify is a streaming media WP is an encyclopedia. We don't refer to backing vocals on the track list and no this has nothing to do with WP:OR. Plus in Edit warring it does not matter who and why started it you just need to avoid it. So if you still have problems discuss it here first before reverting. CerberaOdollam (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CerberaOdollam: Firstly, you made the edit with out discussing and the reason why backing vocalists are not normally included is because they are not normally credited but in this case they are so they should be added. Mn1548 (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If either of you are going to discuss the matter (which neither of you have done properly), it will be at the article talk page, not someone's user talk page. Mn1548, as the person making the edit, you should have started the discussion (see my edit summary}, and CerberaOdollam, you shouldn't be encouraging to start a discussion here. I've started a split proposal at the Hugh Jackman talk page, so feel free to have this discussion there as well as weigh in on the proposal. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Greatest Showman: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michelle Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that qualifies Lee Grant as having been given the #13 jersey is United officially announcing either his squad number specifically or the squad as a whole. As you can see on the club's website, Grant has not yet been officially given a number. The only reason Fred has is so people can start buying his shirt! – PeeJay 20:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I will post comments wherever I damn well please. Feel free to delete this afterwards, but if you post on my talk page, I'm going to respond on yours. That's just the way I do it, and there's no Wikipedia policy to say it's the wrong way. Secondly, squad numbers worn in friendlies are, by definition, unofficial. The club have on several occasions allowed a player to wear one number in a friendly before changing it for competitive matches. The number he wears in a friendly is just that, a number worn in a friendly. He's free to change it any time he or the club wishes. – PeeJay 20:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 2010s. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Ss112 01:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: "Spectrum (Say My Name)", the remix, is the version which went number 1 not the album version called "Spectrum".^[1][2] And I think you'll find Calvin Harris was officially credited on the remix,^[3] which is why "Spectrum (Say My Name)" was originally on that list. I made the edit because I noticed it had been removed. Mn1548 (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The list did not previously state Calvin Harris had another number one with "Spectrum (Say My Name)" before you added it. Also, the Official Charts article you just cited doesn't actually say or credit Calvin Harris as a lead or featured artist. Nor does the cover art of the remix; nor does the article Spectrum (Say My Name). They just state that he remixed it. Where do we draw the line? Did Calvin also have another number one because he produced "I Will Never Let You Down" by Rita Ora, which went to number one? Also, Spotify was nowhere near as relevant as it is now in 2012 when that song went to number one, so I hardly see how what they choose to credit it as now matters. Spotify doesn't decide everything. What matters is that is not how the Official Charts Company credits it—according to them and all other media I've seen reporting on it, Calvin has had eight number ones on which he is credited according to the OCC. Ss112 10:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: The list did previously state it as a number 1. That's how I realised it was missing. Spotify/Apple Music etc uses official credits for songs as I believe you pointed out previous regarding Beyoncé and Hymn for the Weekend. A production, while technically would count as being a number 1, we would not included as there are no official credits. A remix on the other hand is completely different as it is a different version of the original songs which in this case is quite important as the remix performed considerably better than the original. Finally the main article does credit the Calvin Harris remix as number 1 - read it "Spectrum (Say My Name)". Mn1548 (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you added it to Harris' number ones on that list in 2017 and it was rightfully removed after that by another editor. Dude, I did read Spectrum (Say My Name), and you don't seem to know what I'm referring to: the infobox and the cover art contained on that article do not credit Calvin Harris as a lead or featured artist. The cover art does not say "Florence and the Machine & Calvin Harris" or even "featuring Calvin Harris". Linking me directly to the section titled "Calvin Harris remix" is unnecessary because that section doesn't really say anything different. Calvin is not credited by the Official Charts Company, who have specifically stated he's had eight number ones in the 2010s decade and ten overall here. Remixers are not always given lead or featured credit on the songs they remix. I'm done arguing with you, so if you tag or reply to me again, you're really wasting your time because you won't be getting another from me. Ss112 20:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zac Efron discography, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Marcus Rashford. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mn1548. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zac Efron discography 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/Zac Efron discography 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. — Philip J Fry talk 02:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Will Grigg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Sharpe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've started a discussion at Talk:Scott McTominay regarding the "youth career" issue. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Cribinau into St Cwyfan's Church, Llangwyfan. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: OK, thankyou for the heads up. I wasn't aware of this. I shall remember for next time. Mn1548 (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Stevey7788 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Wikipedia is not a schedule of tours and small one-off events. Please see WP:NOT.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Swedish House Mafia Reunion Tour and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Swedish House Mafia Reunion Tour, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Stevey7788 (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Avicii, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: Vargas & Lagola are associated acts of Avicii. May I also point out that no acts on that list are sourced and neither is that section of the infobox sourced for the vast majority of other artists. Correct me if I'm wrong ut the definition of "associate act" that Wikipedia uses is a minimum of two or more collaboration (at least that's what it seems to be based of other edits of the same natute). By that definition the information I added to the Infobox is already sourced throughout the article and does not need to be resorced in the infobox as no other artist is. Mn1548 (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Correct me if I'm wrong"...I already did by reverting your edit and leaving a caution on your talk page. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: Well then...Please do the next logical thing and explain why I'm wrong and what constitutes an "associate act" so this thing doesn't happen again. Mn1548 (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any material added to an article that "is likely to be challenged" needs to include an inline citation, per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: Thats still not you answering the question I asked of "What is an associated act?" So seen as you're unable to let's do this properly. Template:Infobox musical artist states that an associated act should follow on of four criteria. One of which:

Acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together

Such times Vargas & Lagola have collaborated with Avicii include:

• You Make Me
• Hey Brother
• Waiting for Love
• Friend of Mine
• Without You
• Peace of Mind
• Tough Love
• Excuse Me Mr. Sir

If this doesn't class as "collaborated on multiple occasions" then I don't know what does. Information is generally not sourced in infoboxs as it is a summary of the main article where such information is already sourced. Now do I need to source these here and now or are you able to click the links and see that the collaborations have been sourced on their respective pages and are also sourced on the main page as well! Mn1548 (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Phil Neville. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattythewhite: Please check the edit history and you will find that it is indeed sourced. Thankyou. Mn1548 (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should be sourced in the article itself. What use to our readers is a link when it's hidden away in an edit summary? Mattythewhite (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well realise the mistake and move it there then. Most things in the infobox aren't sourced like his position as England manager just to give an example. Putting the source in the edit summary is common practice for small infobox changes so please check the edit summary of an edit before you blindly revert it. Thankyou. Mn1548 (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That content is already sourced in the prose. Please ensure that you cite content properly in future if you don't want to be "blindly" reverted. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish House Mafia Reunion Tour, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Missvain (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gee Cross, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United Treble Reunion, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 19:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gee Cross, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Wigan Warriors season, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sulfurboy (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Wigan Warriors season, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sulfurboy (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Manchester United Treble Reunion 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/Manchester United Treble Reunion 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. – PeeJay 21:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019 Wigan Warriors season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Craven Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at International Dance Music Awards instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:International Dance Music Awards and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:International Dance Music Awards, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Creamfields, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Giggs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Wigan Warriors season, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

1292simon (talk) 09:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Wigan Warriors season, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sulfurboy (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by GoingBatty was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Needs more references

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2012 Wigan Warriors season and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:2012 Wigan Warriors season, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

GoingBatty (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article you submitted to Articles for creation has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

CNMall41 (talk) 07:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Wigan Warriors season, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sulfurboy (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by GoingBatty was:

There is no lead section - see WP:LEAD.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2005 Wigan Warriors season and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:2005 Wigan Warriors season, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

GoingBatty (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Wigan Warriors season, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Zanimum (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Wigan Warriors season, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Zanimum (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Wigan Warriors season, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Zanimum (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Wigan Warriors season, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Zanimum (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Wigan Warriors season, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Zanimum (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1999 Wigan Warriors season, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Zanimum (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paul Pogba, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bruno Fernandes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiAviator was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Where's your lead? You should give a brief description of what the subject is, but not write something like a preface, stating what does this article outline.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2005 Wigan Warriors season and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:2005 Wigan Warriors season, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

WikiAviator (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Stretford Paddock and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Stretford Paddock, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How much are you going to expand on these articles other than copying and pasting information from the parent article? This looks more like creating articles for the sake of it rather than providing a good experience for the reader who can no not read for example the complete account of the 2015 Challenge Cup without having to click through to another page? Also by copying and pasting as you have you are not complying with WP:COPYWITHIN and providing attribution as required of the contributions you have copied. Nthep (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nthep: The problem is there is a broken sequence of pages with only the 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2019 final pages existing. My plan was to link 2009 to 2019 together with a basic overview and expand later. All pages should ideally look like 2009 but 2019 would be the minimum. Mn1548 (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK but look at this the other way round. How much information is there in 2019 Challenge Cup Final that doesn't already exist in 2019 Challenge Cup? From the look of it not much, in fact three short paragraphs of uncited text. Much better, imo would be to merge that content into 2019 Challenge Cup unless the intention is to provide an article in the detail of e.g. 2009 Challenge Cup Final. WP:SIZESPLIT suggests that for articles that our Challenge Cup articles approximate in size splitting content out is only really necessary if "the specific material within one section becomes too large" (WP:WHENSPLIT) which doesn't look to be the case with the 2007, 2008 and 2019 final articles. The 2009 final was appropriate to split off on the basis of WHENSPLIT but that is looking like the exception rather than the norm. If you're prepared to do a 2009 on any of the others than I certainly wouldn't object but to split, actually little more than copy, content from an existing article runs in the face of WP:SPLITTING and the objective of providing a good reading experience to readers.

Strangely enough this is the second discussion on a similar topic today. I am also querying separate articles for the pool games for the 2021 RLWC on the same basis. What are they going to add that couldn't be included in the overarching 2021 RLWC article. Nthep (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nthep: OK I see your point. My original approach to this was to create a basis overview and expanded later after connecting 2009 to 2019. But from this a one at a time approach is probably best. Creating one at a higher standard than bringing them all up gradually. Mn1548 (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Create a basis by all means but a) make sure you comply with WP:COPYWITHIN if you copy existing content and b) don't delete that content from the parent article until such time as it is worth summarising. So if an expansion of 2018 Challenge Cup Final starts with attributed copy from 2018 Challenge Cup ok but leave the copied content in 2018 Challenge Cup until such time as the Final article is much more expanded and then reduce the content in 2018 Challenge Cup - if necessary. It might be that the existing content is the reasonable summary of what's to be found in 2018 Final if the latter matches the 2009 Final article. There is a lack of good articles on rugby league and too many stubs/start class stuff which in many case is little more than a collection of stats about that player or season/competition. I've got one rugby league article to GA status and that took several weeks to do including all the researching. I started that in my sandbox and then merged it into the existing article when I felt there was enough to go on for it not to look half-finished. Pick an existing GA e.g. 2011 FA Cup Final and use that as a template to work from. It might be worth starting with 2009 Challenge Cup Final see if you can get that to GA status then you know the challenge for the other articles. Nthep (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nthep:OK Thanks for the help. Mn1548 (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Dean Henderson, you may be blocked from editing. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 Wigan Warriors season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Bateman.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mn1548. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Stretford Paddock".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, The Quadruple (rugby league), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ... discospinster _talk 04:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mn1548. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2005 Wigan Warriors season, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you need to edit the Wigan-Saints rivalry page to the version you had it at Good Friday Derby and then request that an admin properly moves the Wigan-Saints rivalry page to Good Friday Derby over the redirect as cut and paste title changes are forbidden. @Nthep: may be able to further assist, they're an admin I've seen around on the RL pages. c87d98b10 09:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to merge the articles then there probably needs to be a merge discussion first. These three articles have a chequered history and there looks to have been an undiscussed (afaik) and partial merger in 2019. Having a discussion should settle it once and for all. If they are merged then it needs to be done correctly to retain attribution and not just copying and pasting. Nthep (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Greenman was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: As per discussion, this has been merged into The Treble (rugby league)

Greenman (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mn1548. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "2005 Wigan Warriors season".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Celestina007 (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hull Derby, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that rugby league's Hull F.C. forced rugby union's Hull KR out of their home ground by paying triple the rent before the teams became part of rugby league's Hull Derby? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hull Derby. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hull Derby), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2021 Challenge Cup Final, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2021 Challenge Cup Final between Castleford and St Helens today will be played at a half-full Wembley Stadium? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2021 Challenge Cup Final. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2021 Challenge Cup Final), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thatto Heath's history is separate from Saints as the women's team has continued after the formation of the Saints womens team. I know it was a wholesale move/co-operative approach but you can't credit THC achievements prior to 2018 to St Helens. Nthep (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nthep: The current Thatto Heath women's side is essentially the reserve / feeder team of St Helens women (See RFL statement on the team's acquisition). Therefore anything achieved by Thatto Heath pre St Helens takeover can be accredited to them as they are the same team. Mn1548 (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Debatable - that might have been the intention in 2018 but is that what has happened since? I doubt it. This isn't a simple renaming like Bradford Thunderbirds becoming Bradford Bulls where there is no dispute about the achievements carrying over, but similar to the Chorley Lynx situation, they weren't the inheritors of Blackpool Borough's heritage. Nthep (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nthep: From the way I read the RFL article it seems clear that St Helens Women are the continuation of Thatto Heath. The current Thatto Heath, can't claim the heritage, as it's explicitly stated that they are the reserve team. It's therefore logical to state that St Helens does inherited the heritage of the original Thatto Heath as there is no mention of Thatto Heath exiting the league and later reforming like what happened Blackpool Borough. Also please elaborate on the phrase "is that what has happened since". Mn1548 (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]