I left a brief reply to your comment, but I assume that you will want a longer explanation, so here's a start. First, from the GNG:
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
I think the reference to NOR is confusing, but my past efforts to re-write it (not to change it, just to decrease the confusion) haven't worked. The usual example is that you can't SYNTH two tweets ("I'm in city" and "I got married today") to result in "He got married in city today". But it's really the rest of the definition that matters:
SIGCOV "addresses the topic directly and in detail". Obviously, an autobiography will "address the topic" of its author "directly and in detail".
SIGCOV "is more than a trivial mention". An autobiography is "more than a trivial mention" of its author.
The author needn't "be the main topic of the source material", but it is.
A "book-length history of" the subject (any subject) "is plainly non-trivial coverage of" that subject. That is, if someone's written an entire book about a subject, we have achieved SIGCOV for that subject.
A single sentence, on the other hand, is a trivial mention and not SIGCOV.
There is nothing in SIGCOV that's about who wrote it, who published it, whether it's primary or secondary, etc. The reason that the GNG wants "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", instead of just saying that "SIGCOV" and stopping is because you need SIGCOV+RS+INDY, and not merely SIGCOV alone. SIGCOV gives you a volume of information to work with. SIGCOV does not give you anything except volume, and volume alone isn't enough. Ergo, RS and INDY are additional requirements. If SIGCOV included those other factors, then we would consider naming them separately to be a pointless redundancy, and we would have left them out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aah, I see. Thank-you for taking the time to write out an explanation to me. I was (quite foolishly) conflating WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for improving article quality in August! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not revert source needed tags
You removed them from both Crystallography and Alloy. The tag does not indicate that the article is not notable, it indicates that it needs sources. Both very definitely do, there are expanses of unsourced statements. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded on your talk page. You are using the wrong tag, please use {{more sources needed}}. Cremastra (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That one is OK but not the best; removing the tag was not. It is not as good as I know sources exist, but it would take time to search out all the best ones including page numbers (as many would be textbooks). The tag you are using would be appropriate if there might or might not be sources, i.e. for OR. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So as far as I understand, you want a tag that says "there are sources that can be used to expand this article"? In that case, {{refideas}} is your answer. Unless you have concerns about the notability of the topic, and I think you don't, then please don't use {{sources exist}} because it is miscommunicating what you are trying to say. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that is not what I mean at all, the text that {{sources exist}} shows is exactly what I want. As an illustration take from Crystallography#Materials science
Crystallography is used by materials scientists to characterize different materials. In single crystals, the effects of the crystalline arrangement of atoms is often easy to see macroscopically because the natural shapes of crystals reflect the atomic structure. In addition, physical properties are often controlled by crystalline defects. The understanding of crystal structures is an important prerequisite for understanding crystallographic defects. Most materials do not occur as a single crystal, but are poly-crystalline in nature (they exist as an aggregate of small crystals with different orientations). As such, powder diffraction techniques, which take diffraction patterns of samples with a large number of crystals, play an important role in structural determination.
Every sentence is a true statement, but there is not a single source for any of them. Rather than going through and adding [citation needed] everywhere the whole article needs them. For certain {{refideas}} would be inappropriate. It is not "please add from this list" it is "almost everything needs a source, they exist but are not being used".
As I find time I have been adding here and elsewhere that lie within my expertise, but it takes time. In some cases such as Electron microscope I have been able to enlist others to help. If you are help to please do, that is what the tag is for. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for all your work; you certainly have the subject expertise that I don't.
Based on your description above, {{more sources needed}} is what you need, not {{refideas}}. Sorry for the misunderstanding – but {{sources exist}} is, I assure you, the wrong tag, because it turns it into a notability issue. You can ask at WP:HD, but they'll give you the same answer there. Cremastra (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. If it does get flagged as a notability issue then I will suggest changing the text that is printed. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cremastra! Thank you for your help at CFD, sincerely. Every little bit helps!
I was wondering if you are aware of User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/CFDlister.js? It is a very handy tool: It makes it easy to add discussions you closed to WT:CFDW, where admins can make use of a bot to do the leg work for you. You are, of course, welcome to continue doing things manually—but I would feel bad if I neglected to mention this life-changing script :)
Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was vaguely aware of it, thanks. I still prefer to do it manually if I'm able to; using Cat-a-lot is frankly fun, and I figure there's no need to create work for the bot if I'm able to merge it manually. Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thank you for closing the RM, but please also close the associated § Proposed moratorium discussion. Preferably, you would've closed it as part of the larger RM, but since you did not do so, please close it separately or amend your close. (Please note that if you do find consensus for a moratorium but no consensus for a specific timeframe, you should perform a WP:BARTENDER close.) Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@InfiniteNexus: I was under the impression that the moratorium discussion was basically independent and should be closed separately. But if a close from me is necessary, I will do it shortly. Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Not to rush you, but is this close still forthcoming? If you are unable to close this, that's OK, just let me know and I can make a request at WP:RFCL. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was waiting for a confirmation that a close is necessary. To be totally honest, I don't really want to close the sub-discussion; I'd rather leave it to a more experienced closer or admin (RMs I'm used to, but more general RfC-like things I'm not). I've made a request at CR. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
Did you know that your nickname, in Greek, means hanger? Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 16:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pallikari No, I didn't! Interesting... I picked it from Cremastra because I liked the way it sounded. :) Cremastra (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know about this plant!!! Nice to meet you... Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 00:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move Hamm to Hamm, North Rhine-Westfalia
I think this move was not in the best interest of Wikipedia:
1. The City Hamm is by far the largest and most important muncipality or community with this name, the City does not use any additions to the official name.
2. There are at least another three, in numbers 3 places within North Rhine-Westpalia called Hamm and another 10 in Germany as far as i know of, so by creating a Lemma with "Hamm, North Rhine-Westphalia" the Lemma became less correct as it was in the first place.
3. Many people have names deriving from their families places of origin, that should not be a reason to move a near 800 year old city with 180.000 inhabitants to a simply wrong Lemma.
I would suggest to reconsider the move alone by the said above reasons, but i would like you to think of this peace of mind, you surely would not move "London" to "London, Great Britain" or any other region that might fit more or less because their are several other smaler less important places in the World with the same name or at that because their are people living or dead with the surname "London" like for instance Micheal London, would you? No, you would most certainly not, i think you would make a note template in the article like the one there is in the Lemma London stating:"This article is about the capital city of England and the United Kingdom. For other uses, see London (disambiguation)." That would have been the most proper way to deal with the proposal for moving the Lemma to such a wrong Lemma, so please reconsider the move you approved.
As i'am a more or less inactive author by now, in the german and english wikipedia, i haven't noticed this move by know, otherwise i would have strongly opposed it.
Yours sincerely Gabriel-Royce (talk) 10:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the requested move discussion. I moved it according to my interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS. If you think my interpretation of consensus was wrong, you are welcome to start a move review. This move was not my own personal decision, it was the implementation of consensus. I honestly don't care very much either way, I was just closing the discussion.
As regards 2 and 3: please consider reading WP:At and WP:Ptopic for the relevant guidance.
you surely would not move "London" to "London, Great Britain" of course not. Again, please see our policies on article titling and primary topics.
In short: this was not my own move, as you seem to be assuming, it was just my implementation of consensus. I want to make that clear, because otherwise we'll be talking past each other. My move, was, I believe, in line with Wikipedia's article titling policies.
Since the requested move discussion is now closed, you can start a move review if you disagree with my close. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
