Archives

2007–2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 14 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hi. You helped me review Draft:Power Integrations, Inc. last year. It has since been rejected twice. The first rejection made sense to me with a lot of valuable feedbacks, and I believe I made all the edits needed. But the second review was not as helpful. The reviewer and the helpdesk both wouldn't give me clear instructions on why my sources from NY Times and Wall Street Journal and etc. are not enough. They basically just asked me to read the instructions again. Any suggestions on how to move forward? I also just found out that there is already a German page for Power Integrations. Could that in any way help my efforts? ShawnEdit (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ShawnEdit: I agree with you that the sources seem sufficient to demonstrate notability. I've left a comment at User talk:AllWeKnowOfHeaven; we can see what the reviewer says. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:13, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your help very much. The reviewer described my sources as "routine." I don't quite understand what that means and why it seems to be a negative in the reviewer's eyes. I'm also not sure what the next steps are for me. Should I resubmit the draft for another review? If so, is there anything you suggest that I do to further improve my chances for approval? Thank you again for your guidance. ShawnEdit (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Routine" here means that in the reviewer's opinion, the coverage was of the kind described at WP:CORPTRIV, and therefore not evidence of notability. But I think it looks fine. I've gone ahead and moved the article to mainspace. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:44, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Eggboss2.0's mentor Shushugah is away.

Can you help me make Draft:Interstate 20 Business (South Carolina) draft approved and remove the redirect link that has the same title. I did and trying my best on making the draft article good. --Eggboss2.0 (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eggboss2.0, thanks for the message. I suggest removing the low-quality sources (like Google Maps) and sources that only briefly mention the road, so that the "References" section consists mainly of independent reliable sources with in-depth information about it. That will help make the case that the road is notable, which is what all three of the reviewers have been concerned about. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:38, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! In the article List of World War I flying aces from Germany, there are multiple aces with the same number of kills. For example, Josef Jacobs and Werner Voss both have 48 kills. In the table, it is is given Jacobs - 48 and Voss - 48. So the thing is, I felt that in the case of smaller numbers like 12, there is a great number of aces and hence it is difficult to find out the number of pilots having a certain number of kills by looking at individuals. Instead, if we would merge all the cells having the same number together, it would be much easier to find out the number of pilots having a certain number of kills What is your opinion on this? Sketpick (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sketpick, thanks for the message. That sounds reasonable to me, given that the list doesn't give any information about the pilots besides their names. On the other hand, maybe it would be better to flesh out the list with more information, like what's included at List of World War I flying aces from the United States – in that case it probably wouldn't be feasible to merge the rows.

If you want, you can suggest this change on Talk:List of World War I flying aces from Germany to get input from other editors who are interested in this topic. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will mention this is in the talk page, and upon not getting any replies I will go a head and make the editing of the aforementioned merging myself.I also don't want to flesh out the list in the way you said because there are way too many aces for each person to have a paragraph, and I think in this case, the current system where the aces are linked to their biographies would be fine

I hope this would be alright. If there is anything else I should do or if I have made any errors please let me know Sketpick (talk) 08:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Sketpick: That sounds fine to me. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:58, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect DOHH has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 25 § DOHH until a consensus is reached. Artoria2e5 🌉 12:03, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]