User talk:Stevecull

Scouting Barnstar

- A hearty thank you for your steadfast, tireless, and quality contributions to Scouting articles, especially in Irish Scouting. Rlevse 01:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A (microwaved) brownie for you!

Good work on Tommy O'Regan. You might consider joining Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge or adding such new articles to Did you know? for the Main Page. It has a significant impact on page views. Caaaaaaark will get on the front page this afternoon. Bogger (talk) 10:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN/WP:TONE

Hiya. I happen to have a lot of Cork towns/villages/suburbs on my own watchlist. And I note that you've added similar text to a lot of them. In some cases I've tweaked and tagged these additions. In other cases I have, in honesty, just removed it. As uncited. And oddly promotional in tone. In terms of:

WP:BURDEN, all content additions should be supported by a reference. So they can be verified and distinguished from hoax material. Ideally with an inline ref. Added by the same person who adds the text. None of your recent changes have been supported by references. This is not ideal.
WP:TONE, all content would ideally be neutral in tone and intent. Some of your recent changes have used quasi-promotional language. Which isn't ideal. (Why describe a Scout group as "active" or "very active" for example? Except as a form of boosterism?) Unless this editorial can be objectively justified or supported, then perhaps consider why you are adding these flourishes. And whether they are in keeping with project norms and goals...

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is useful. I have been inactive on Wikipedia for a while so I can improve. On the point about the use of the term active, I used this instead of "open/operational" rather than them being a historical group. and I used "very" where I know these to be large groups. Where it's possible to cite a source for this I'll do so. The Groups I've added details about tend to be prominent parts of the community so I think are of worthy of inclusion, but I take the point about citation and not using language which may be seen as promotional Stevecull (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC) Stevecull (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. While I (now) understand the use of "active" (to distinguish from an inactive/closed/defunct group), I wonder if there's a better way of stating that. Or, in all honesty if the present tense is used, whether that type of flourish is likely to be needed at all. In terms of "very active" (to distinguish a relatively smaller group from a somewhat larger group), I'd also question whether that type of subjective editorial distinction is needed. (FYI - While I mentioned "active" as an example of a type of editorial language, I'd put phrasing like "[the 45th Cork Blarney] has a particular emphasis on camping and hillwalking for young" in the same bracket. As less-than-neutral in tone. And where the "particular emphasis" editorial is not supported by any type of reference.) Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]