Archives: 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013 · 2014 · 2015 · 2016 · 2017 · 2018 · 2019 · 2020 · 2021 · 2022 · 2023 · 2024 This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived. Nota bene: I quickly weary of editors who spew ALPHABET SOUP all the time, and when I am tired of eating ALPHABET SOUP, I like to remind them that WP:IAR ("ignore all rules" for those who like me dislike SOUP) is policy, while most of the SOUPs being sloshed around are merely guidelines. Skyerise (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You reverted my citation in Carlos Castaneda yesterday because his books are not a reliable source. I agree that they are not reliable for stating that the facts within them are true, but the paragraph I was adding the citation to was not stating facts, but rather only stated that Castaneda said certain things, with explicit attribution to him. Cannot a book that was undisputedly written by someone be a reliable source for stating that he said what is written in it?

10x

ERG EntropyReducingGuy (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EntropyReducingGuy: In an article about the book, yes. In an article about the author, no. Skyerise (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10x EntropyReducingGuy (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 February 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mariann Budde, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that US congressman Mike Collins called for Bishop Mariann Budde (pictured) to be "added to the deportation list" after she urged President Donald Trump to "have mercy"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mariann Budde. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mariann Budde), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 20,815 views (1,734.6 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of February 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Skyerise! There is a new article on the Institute for Hermetic Studies.

Notability is not established and it needs a major cleanup re promotional tone etc. Wonder if you would like to lend a hand?

Kind regards, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Apaugasma: I'll look into it when I get a chance, but it seems pretty hopeless at first glance. Skyerise (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Apaugasma: Yeah, pretty hopeless. I removed all the promotional external links and AfDed it. Skyerise (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look and cleaning it up a bit! It might be semi-notable, but I just don't know where I should even start looking for sources. Afd was probably the right choice though. Thanks again, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no lack of understanding of how categories work; I was, in fact, one of the main writers of a lot of our guidelines about how categories work, which means I very much know do what I'm doing when it comes to categories.

One of the central key rules of categorization is that the broad top-level concept categories, like Category:History or Category:Geography, should only contain a small handful of the most very basic "introduction to core concept" articles, while anything that's drilling down into specialist areas doesn't belong there — for instance, historical figure is fine in that category, but a biographical article about a specific individual historical figure would not be. The overview article history itself belongs there as the head, but a narrower "history of [specific topic]" does not. The basic overview local history belongs there, but a narrower "history of [Specific Place]" would not. Category:Geography should only contain basic concept articles about the study of geography as a whole, not individual lakes or rivers or towns or individual "Geography of [Specific Place]" articles. And on and so forth.

It's a core principle of categories that a top-level subject-area category like that should only contain the most very basic broad-concept articles about the most fundamentally central concepts in that subject, and not narrower articles on particular subtopics. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: I agree, but you still don't remove them unless you create an appropriate subcategory, which is very easy to do. If you don't have the time or the motivation to do so, you should leave it in the category and post on the article's talk page about the issue rather than simply removing the article from what is the most appropriate category at the moment, especially when the article has been in the category for, I suspect in this case, two decades. Skyerise (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm currently doing the good article review for the above article, and I noticed you seem to be quite familiar with religion and theology so I thought I'd reach out in case you might like to take a look and provide feedback. Other than a couple "Who?" tags and a "Which?" tag I added this morning, I'd say the article is in pretty good shape, but we might benefit from the opinion of someone better educated on the subject than I. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skyerise, I notice that you changed Colin Wilson and John G. Bennett from "author" to "writer". To my thinking, while all authors are writers, not all writers are authors; and authors usually like to be known as authors. What's your rationale? Regards, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Esowteric: our categories and templates all use the word "writer". In general speech, one says someone is a writer. The use of author is usually followed by a specific work: "author of ...". Some editors think "author" sounds more prestigious, implying publication, but that usage runs afoul of WP:PEACOCK. Skyerise (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. check my improvements to List of occult writers. Skyerise (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input onto the Gurdjieff page which now reads much more coherently than before and thankfully places the issue of his nationality into a proper context without conveying the impression that he was ethically Russian (which he was not). Londonlinks (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]