User talk:Pbritti
Archives
This page has archives.Topics inactive for 7 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.
Hello, I just came across a redirect you created for Eriogonum shockleyi that targets the genus. This is bad practice as it creates a misleading blue link that will give less information than even a stub article. I PRODed the redirect, but if you wish to work on creating a good start for the species that would be an equally good outcome. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- @MtBotany: Thanks for the heads up. I think I made that redirect while I was preparing a draft version of a full article (which I prepared off-project and seem to have since lost). I don't know why I didn't go back and mark it for speedy deletion when I wrapped up my other Shockley species articles, but I'm glad you caught it. The PROD was removed by another editor on procedural grounds (I feel like SNOW discourages such bureaucratic wrangling, but no matter). It's now at RfD, where I sponsored your deletion proposal. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Mistakes happen. If I had been in the mood to make a buckwheat article I might have just quietly made it into an article. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
The article Eriogonum shockleyi has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Per consensus of plant editors, valid species names should not be created as redirects to higher taxonomic categories.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.
If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time.
This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
Can you please respond to my reply at Talk:Purple Rain (song)? NP (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2026).
- Following an RfC, the 30-day requirement for extended-confirmed status now begins after an account's first edit instead of its registration (T431060).
- Inactive editors can now be removed as mentors at Special:CommunityConfiguration/Mentorship automatically.
- The Suggested Edits' Revise Tone feature is now enabled. It encourages editors to identify and revise non-neutral language in articles.
- The Unreferenced articles August 2026 backlog drive is underway. Help to add references to 47,000 articles.
- The Articles for creation August 2026 backlog drive is under way. Help to review 4,500+ drafts.
The redirect Eriogonum shockleyi 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 August 10 §Eriogonum shockleyi until a consensus is reached. Casablanca 🪨 (T) 23:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
Hi Pbritti,
There is an ongoing Request for Comment (RfC) at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/August 2026 RfC , which you may be interested in because in the past year, you have nominated or reviewed more than one good article nomination. This message has also been sent to all subscribers to the Good Article Gazette. The RfC contains many proposals (33 at the time of writing), which are split into the following categories: nominators, reviewers, reviews, volunteer roles, reviewing initiatives, and others. However, you are more than welcome to add any proposals of your own that you wish to put to the community.
By the end of September, all the proposals will have been closed by an uninvolved editor, either as a consensus for one of the options or with no consensus. At this point, editors will be invited again to develop these proposals into coherent policy and implement them.
Thank you for your contributions to the good articles project, and I look forward to your input! (in solidarity), JacobTheRox (talk |contributions) 16:03, 11 August 2026 (UTC) Reply