User talk:Morogris

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

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

@Sparks19923: Do those reviews cover the subject (Holden) in detail or just his novels? My concern with reviews like those is that they show the works are notable and could merit a Wikipedia article, but that doesn’t mean the author itself should have a standalone article. Holden would have to be covered in detail (early life, style of writing, career over the years and not just reviews of his work) by multiple independent sources for him to merit his own article. For example, we have a lot of articles of companies, but the threshold for their founders/CEOs are much higher since sources would need to cover them in depth (not just the company). Hope this makes sense. Curious on your thoughts (sorry for the choppy writing, I’m on my phone). Morogris (✉ • ✎) 05:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Morogris: Thanks for clarifying. Your comparison to companies and CEOs makes sense in a business context, but Wikipedia handles creative professionals differently.

For authors, the relevant specific notability guideline is WP:CREATIVE (a subsection of WP:BIO), which provides an alternative path to the General Notability Guideline.

Specifically, Holden meets Criterion 3 and Criterion 4c of WP:AUTHOR:

Criterion 3: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews..."

Criterion 4c: The person's work "has won significant critical attention."

Holden's novels won the Great Lakes Book Award, appeared on the USA Today bestseller list, and were the primary subjects of standalone reviews in major publications (The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The Globe and Mail). This satisfies the requirement for works that have received multiple independent reviews and significant critical attention.

Under Wikipedia's established approach for biographies of creative professionals, widely reviewed and award-winning works confer notability on the author for a standalone article. The strict separation between creator and creation that you mentioned applies to WP:CORP, not to WP:AUTHOR.

Let me know if you have any other concerns about the article's sourcing. — ~~~~ Sparks19923 (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for this. I was not aware of the author guidelines and should have checked. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 18:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

—TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:55, 15 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Wow! 15 years. Thank you so much. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 02:06, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Cielquiparle (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

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

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

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

Hi Morogris! I hope you're doing well.

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

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

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

I was in agreement with you on the Pumas UNAM and Tigres UANL issue but changing the Toluca article without a discussion is another story. This is something that should have been discussed. GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 07:28, 9 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I brought it up briefly in the article's talk page not too long ago and simply defaulted to action. "Deportivo" is more of a formality and is not usually included in sources so it fails WP:COMMONNAME too. Even the team’s website uses only Toluca FC as well as other sources I shared. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 07:33, 9 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes but the Deportivo is used a lot as well. If you want to use the common name then it should just simply be "Toluca". On search terms "Deportivo Toluca" is more coomonly searched for than Toluca FC. If you want to go use the name on their website then Manchester United's article for example, should be called "ManUntd" or "Manchester United". GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 01:16, 10 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@GoPurpleNGold24: Most sources refer to FC Barcelona simply as "Barcelona" in standalone use, but the club article title could probably never be changed to "Barcelona" in standalone because the city already occupies that title; same issue we'd run into with Toluca. "Deportivo" is not used by most Mexican sources when describing the team in day-to-day language, which instead opt for "Toluca." Given the precedent already established with "Barcelona" → "FC Barcelona" and other teams (I'm thinking São Paulo FC is another good example), "Toluca FC" is cleaner and better respects how most sources actually describe the club. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 01:23, 10 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

What sources? If you search the term "Deportivo Toluca" there are many websites and sources that use that term or simply just "Toluca", "Toluca FC" even though it is used, it is not used as much as the other two. Even on the team's website and social media pages that have "Toluca FC" listed, the term "Deportivo Toluca" is also used. GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄

@GoPurpleNGold24: "Deportivo Toluca" does appear in searches, I'm not trying to suggest otherwise and I believe this may be the source of our disagreement. My point is that "Toluca" as a standalone name for the club, similar to how "Barcelona," "São Paulo," and "Valencia" are used, is WP:COMMONNAME when referring to the club, obviously the city too.

To illustrate: when Toluca won the recent championship, Mexican sources consistently used "Toluca" rather than "Deportivo" (which they excluded) in prose. This pattern also holds in older sources from 10 to 20 years ago, based on research conducted for the article.

Sources (from recent championship): Mediotiempo, Récord, Récord 2, SB Nation, ESPN Deportes, El Sol de Toluca, Sports Illustrated, Fox Deportes

Sources (from +10 years ago): CONMEBOL, TUDN, Marca, Diario de Juarez

My conclusion: "Deportivo Toluca" is used and you'll find that in searches because that is the club's official name, but "Toluca" as a standalone when referring to the club is more common in sourced coverage. Given that clubs such as Barcelona, São Paulo, and Valencia exist as both city/club and follow similar convention, removing "Deportivo" and adding the FC abbreviation to make the distinction seemed the appropriate approach. Let me know what you think. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 15:14, 10 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I was okay with the Tigres and Pumas thing because I had been doing this for years. The Toluca issue is another thing, I feel it was fine the way it was. The thing is that "Toluca" is the team's common name, Toluca FC I feel is not their common name, but "Deportivo" is not part of their common name either unlike Deportivo Cali or Deportivo Saprissa. Since the article cannot be named simply Toluca, I feel their official name should be used. GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 05:15, 13 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Would you say "Liverpool FC" is common name too or just "Liverpool"? Or "FC Barcelona" or just "Barcelona"? The point is "Deportivo" is rarely mentioned by reliable sources when compared to "Toluca" itself so it fails WP:COMMONNAME and shouldn't be used as a title. It's the official name but not the common name, and that's why we have a policy for it. What we've done is added the FC to make the distinction with the city. If you don't think that Deportivo Cali and Deportivo Saprissa are common name either, then feel free to provide the sources and change the name too. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 14:35, 13 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I never said that was not their common name so there' no reason to change their name, what I meant is that "Deportivo" is part of their common name unlike Toluca, which it's common name is simply Toluca. Many of the sources you listed above have the team listed as simply Toluca while the Facebook page that has @TolucaFC as their handle has Deportivo Toluca listed in the bio. Even the official website has Deportivo Toluca or simply Toluca, Toluca FC is only used as the web address, most likely because they didn't want it to be simply Toluca.com or the social media pages be simply @Toluca. If you don't think their official name (Deportivo Toluca F.C.) should be the name of the article, then like I mentioned before Manchester United's article name should be changed, as well as others. If that happens then I'll stop trying to change the Toluca article back to its previous title. If you want sources of Deportivo Toluca being the more common name then go to the team's official website and here are others:

• https://www.transfermarkt.us/deportivo-toluca/startseite/verein/1804
• https://www.sofascore.com/football/team/deportivo-toluca-fc/1931 (has it as CD Toluca not Toluca FC)
• https://onefootball.com/en/team/deportivo-toluca-1685
• https://www.foxsports.com/watch/fmc-d85d560litpkx71o
• https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sportian.tolucafc&hl=en_US (the official app listed on their website)
• https://footystats.org/clubs/deportivo-toluca-fc-1424
• https://www.newbalancemexico.com/t/deportivotolucafc.html (their official kit provider website)
• https://www.foxsports.com/soccer/deportivo-toluca-fc-team-stats
• https://www.sandiegofc.com/news/san-diego-fc-sends-international-statement-in-3-2-win-over-toluca-fc (lists Toluca FC in url but lists the name as Deportivo Toluca in article)
• https://www.coloradorapids.com/news/know-your-opponent-deportivo-toluca-f-c
• https://www.newyorkcityfc.com/news/match-recap-deportivo-toluca-2-1-new-york-cityfc
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBww7r3hlZY
• https://bleacherreport.com/deportivo-toluca
• https://www.foxnews.com/video/6394839938112
• https://us.marca.com/soccer/deportivo-toluca-fc.html

GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 05:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Interestingly enough, these are mostly English-language sources and landing pages, whereas I provided how news coverage in Mexico referred to them (which I've found avoided "Deportivo" in many instances) both from their recent championship and from coverage 10+ years ago. One of sources you shared has removed "Deportivo" for Saprissa, and one of them has Deportivo Guadalajara too, so we clearly have different naming conventions. I still think WP:COMMONNAME applies for Toluca without "Deportivo," given the examples from their recent championship and how they were referred to 10+ years ago. I find it really interesting that Mexican sources do mention Deportivo at times (since, again, you will find sources mentioning it), but Toluca standalone has been more common over the past 10 years, and sources oftentimes default to not mentioning "Deportivo" at all. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 13:13, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes I agree with you, Toluca is their common name but since that can't be the title of the article, Deportivo Toluca F.C. is more appropiate because Toluca FC is not commonly used as much. In articles or websites, when it's not referred as Toluca or Diablos Rojos, Deportivo Toluca is more commonly used. This CONCACAF article from just a few days ago refers it as Deportivo Toluca FC, this article talking about the team's history is also listed that way. If you want more recent articles, here are more.

• https://www.lagalaxy.com/news/la-galaxy-to-face-liga-mx-champion-deportivo-toluca-fc-in-ccc-quarterfinal-on-april-8-and-april-15
• https://www.philadelphiaunion.com/academy/news/u-18s-open-dallas-cup-with-win-over-deportivo-toluca-fc
• https://www.rfi.fr/en/sports/20260531-deportivo-toluca-defeat-tigres-uanl-to-win-concacaf-champions-cup
• https://www.concacaf.com/competitions/champions-cup/news/champions-cup-winners-toluca-back-on-top-in-club-rankings
• https://www.si.com/es-us/futbol/alineaciones-chivas-vs-toluca-18-7-2026
• https://www.concacaf.com/competitions/champions-cup/news/toluca-defeats-tigres-on-penalties-to-claim-third-champions-cup-title

GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 03:24, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

When referring to the club, what is more common (according to your research), "Deportivo Toluca" or simply "Toluca"? According to the sources I provided about the team across time, it was simply "Toluca". "Deportivo" is part of its official name and you will find sources like you did above, but is not how it is commonly referred to by most reliable sources, especially in Mexican news articles which is where most of the coverage comes from. You seem to not understand that so I’m not sure what to tell you. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 04:28, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I know it is simply known as Toluca, I am not saying it's not, I've already told you multiple times. What I'm trying to tell you is that Toluca FC is not the name this article should have, you seem to not understand THAT. Toluca FC is not the club's common name either, which is why this article's name should have never been changed. GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 07:57, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

So we shouldn't call it "Deportivo Toluca" since "Deportivo" is not WP:COMMONNAME. And we obviously cannot call it "Toluca" since that's mostly used for the city. So "Toluca FC" is best, similar to Liverpool FC (which is also mostly known simply as "Liverpool" but a city already exists for that). Morogris (✉ • ✎) 18:49, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Toluca FC is not it's common name either, that's why it should have never been changed in the first place, Deportivo Toluca is more commonly used. If the team's name was simply Toluca Futbol Club, then Toluca FC would have been fine but that is not the case. GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 05:52, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

"Liverpool FC" isn’t common name nor is "FC Barcelona", but we add those abbreviations since their standalone names (Liverpool, Barcelona) are. Same applies Toluca. "Deportivo" should not have been used as part of the title given its not common name. If you don’t get that I have nothing else to say. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 13:52, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

To add, most of the sources you provided above seem to be a possible case of WP:CITOGENESIS, as they are recent, English-speaking, and mostly revolving around the same topic (CONCACAF/League Cup articles). Most sources in Mexico across time don't mention "Deportivo" as often as just "Toluca" when referring to the team so "Deportivo" fails WP:COMMONNAME. See my previous message for why it should be called "Toluca FC" (since same applies for "Liverpool FC" and "FC Barcelona", which are the titles of the articles but the teams are just referred to mostly as "Liverpool" and "Barcelona"). Morogris (✉ • ✎) 23:12, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Toluca FC is not the common name either, so that's incorrect, it also fails WP:COMMONNAME. The sources you mentioned don't list name as Toluca FC either. The Liverpool and Barcelona examples don't work here since those clubs don't have "Deportivo" or any other words in their name. They add "FC" because the article can't be called just "Liverpool" or "Barcelona" due to the city articles already using those names. If Toluca was called Toluca Futbol Club (like I mentioned above) then yes, Toluca FC would make sense, but it's not. We both agree the team is mostly just called "Toluca" but since we can't use that, the article should use the next most common form, which is Deportivo Toluca. "Toluca FC" is mostly just their website and social media handle. A lot of sources still use Deportivo Toluca when they don't call the team Toluca. GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 05:57, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

"Toluca" is how the club is mostly referred as, not as "Deportivo Toluca". Maybe we disagree here. Given we cannot name it "Toluca" because of the city which is the primary topic, we add the FC and that's it. I have nothing else to tell you. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 07:14, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I still think you're wrong on this. We both agree that Toluca is the common name but I think "Deportivo Toluca" is clearly more common than "Toluca FC" when the full name is used. The page shouldn't have been changed without a proper discussion. Since you seem to be a fan of the team, this move may also go against WP:INVOLVED. Since because you seem to be a fan it's going to be hard to change your mind so I think it's pointless to continue this discussion. GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 04:34, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I never said "Toluca FC" was WP:COMMONNAME, I’m saying "Toluca" when referring to the club is. Similar to how "FC Barcelona" or "Liverpool FC" aren’t common names either but their standalone names are. What I’ve tried to demonstrate is "Deportivo" isn’t commonly used by most sources across time, hence why Toluca FC made the most sense. Unless you have another suggestion that doesn’t include Deportivo, which I’m all ears.

Regarding the other comment, I recently started editing Toluca after years of being here (after seeing how bad the article was after their second title in 2026). I’m a fan of FC Juárez and have worked on their stadium article too. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 16:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

— Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Sohom (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi Morogris, I noticed you're active in WP:Business. I've proposed updates to the "History" and "Products" sections of the Bridgewater Associates article here: Talk:Bridgewater Associates#Updates to "History" and "Products" sections. A reviewing editor asked me to build the changes out in my sandbox, which I've done. If you agree with the additions, would you please move the sandbox content to the live article? Thanks! Jaren Laurel Strategies (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

EggRoll97 ^(talk) 12:03, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2007 Messi–Yamal photo shoot, a link pointing to the disambiguation page AFP was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Reagrding my citations on Tenth Floor - I'm increasingly finding that Google Books is archiving ebooks or books w/out page numbers which complicate my citation building! All the best No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

JuniperChill (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply