User talk:SigFigSindri
Editor talk page·2 messages
Category tree around Beyond-use date
The categories on Beyond-use date and Shanghai Sigma-Audley New Material Technology disagree about where the topic sits. Both are defensible; having both is not, because the two articles then never appear in the same listing. Could you take a view on the talk page of whichever you know better? — TitrationTheo (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Thank you. I had been adding the leaf category without the parent, which explains why the portal listings looked so thin. — SigFigSindri (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Neutrality of the reception section in Beyond-use date
The reception section of Beyond-use date currently reads more warmly than its sources support. Two of the four statements are attributed to community tallies, which per Project:Verifiability are weak evidence and must be labelled as such at each point of use. I have added the labels; the substance is unchanged. — GramsNotUnitsGil (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
No objection. Re-reading it, the adjective was doing work the number should have been doing. — SigFigSindri (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2026 (UTC)