Talk:Mario Salcedo

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Evrik (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Mario Salcedo over a 20-year period spent about US$1.4 million to go on 1,000 cruises? Source: Andrews, Malcolm (2016-09-23). "US businessman Mario Salcedo runs his business aboard luxury liners". Port News. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2022-07-01.

  The article notes: "For the past 20 years, Mario has run his investment company year-round from on board five start cruise ships, most of them from the luxury Royal Caribbean International. He reckons he's been on about 1000 cruises in that time, chalked-up some 6000 nights at sea, and spent in the vicinity of $1.4 million(US) doing so."

  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Gentner Drummond

Created by Cunard (talk). Self-nominated at 09:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC).

• Article was made today, so is new enough, and is definitely long enough (impressive single edit drop). It reads neutrally, has proper in-line citations, and the copyvio detector doesn't find anything outside of the direct quotes used in the article. The hook is short enough, interesting, and cited in-line. The QPQ has been done and there's no image to review.

Question: @Cunard: Would it be okay with you to remove the "had" from the hook? I feel like the sentence flows better without it. Silverseren^C 01:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and the suggestion for improving the hook, Silver seren (talk · contribs)! I've removed the "had" from the hook as I agree that the hook flows better without the "had". Cunard (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Everything looks good to go then. Silverseren^C 12:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Obligatory April Fools' ALT based on the Super Mario angle... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• ALT1: ... that Super Mario has spent over a million dollars on cruises?

• I also think this would be a good April Fools hook. Z1720 (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'm approving ALT1 hook. The rest of the review was conducted by Cunard above. Z1720 (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• I am fine with using this hook, which is much more interesting than the one I suggested. Thank you! To clarify, the review was conducted by Silver seren, not me. Cunard (talk) 08:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Alt0a ... that over a 20-year period Super Mario spent about US$1.4 million to go on 1,000 cruises?

I'm going with the approved hook, though I think that a version of Alt0 would be better. --evrik ^(talk) 15:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Style, tone

Well, congratulations on making the DYK with this article, and it seems adequately referenced. But I'm struck by the tone of this article. It is jarring in comparison to other, typical Wikipedia offerings. Mainly, I would say that it is very staccato. It consists of very short declarative sentences with a lack of cohesive narrative to tie them together. I feel like I've just been bombarded by hundreds of facts like so many insignificant cotton-balls. And so it's also very trivial and mundane. This guy seems to have an entirely ordinary life, other than living it at sea. He does normal things and there's very little I've found surprising or compelling in here, much less mentionable in an encyclopedic article. This guy may be notable, but he isn't really interesting at all. Perhaps the prose could be condensed and tightened overall, but I'm not sure that this has the makings of a durable story. Elizium23 (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I very much agree. This reads like a vapid People magazine article. If he’s even relevant enough to warrant a page, this could be cut down immensely. To summarize, he has a lot of money and spends it on cruise ships like any other passenger. He works remotely and has no family. CommentsTopic (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree that this article reads like an amateurish ghost-written biography. Notability isn't the issue, IMO. It's the vagueness (which multinational did he work for? nobody knows?) and the triviality (do we need to know his laundry habits?) that are bizarre. As for congratulations, no, not at all. This is just more evidence of how nonsensical DYK has become. Martindo (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of removing a lot of (in my opinion) non-notable information, as per WP:PSEUDO. I also tried to clean up the tone a bit. However, I'm not the most well-versed in Wikipedia's policies, so I understand if my changes were too drastic and need to be reverted. BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 03:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Tone says, "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves." This article complies with the policy by documenting in a dispassionate tone what reliable sources have said about him.

The subject is notable for being a long-term cruise ship passenger. If the subject was primarily known for being a politician or actor or scientist, a lot of the information about his lifestyle would be inappropriate and undue weight. But because every reliable source that covers him is about his being a long-term cruise ship passenger, that information is appropriate and due weight as it is directly tied to his notability.

I partially reverted changes that removed content that met Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. I retained a lot of the changes as the prose improvements were good and the trimming of some of the material was good. Thank you. Cunard (talk) 05:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Cunard:—I appreciate the help! BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Silverseren: and Z1720 The article wasn't even close to "being good to go"... Didn't you notice that it needed a major copyedit!!? I've edited it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

This article met Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria when it was approved. But as with other articles at DYK, featuring it on the main page led to article improvements owing to the high visibility.

The changes deleted nearly 50% of the article's content, which is excessive. I partially reverted changes that removed content that met Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. For example, I think the discussion from Oliver Burkeman about Mario Salcedo The Happiest Guy in the World is good commentary about Salcedo and is due weight. I retained a lot of the changes as the prose improvements were good and the trimming of some of the material was good. Per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Be cautious with major changes: discuss, please discuss further deletions on the talk page. Cunard (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Articles frequently get a sizeable chop when copyediting. You reintroduced a lot of fluff/trivia and magazine-like phrasing/short sentences. I can ping a large number of experienced editors here and I think they'd agree with me. Many of those details are unneccessary and read poorly. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Please explain which information in this edit is "fluff/trivial" and which information is "magazine-like phrasing/short sentences". When I did a partial revert, I did not restore information that could be viewed as "fluff/trivial" and restored information that I thought was due weight such as the commentary from the author Oliver Burkeman. From Wikipedia:Editing policy#Be cautious with major changes: discuss, "Be cautious about making a major change to an article. Prevent edit warring by discussing such edits first on the article's talk page. One editor's idea of an improvement may be another editor's idea of a desecration. If you choose to be bold, try to justify your change in detail on the article talk page, so as to avoid an edit war." Cunard (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

What he thinks about the documentary about him is irrelevant. This paragraph which you insist upon is poorly written, waffles, and isn't encyclopedic. There's nothing in it of vital importance. It's fluff you'd read in a magazine:

The author Oliver Burkeman questioned how happy Salcedo was in the documentary short, observing that he "prowls the decks, cocktail in hand, staring out to the sea, eliciting tight-lipped smiles and reluctant pecks on the cheek from the people he refers to as his 'friends'", who are the cruise line's staff. Burkeman further wrote, "'I'm probably the happiest guy in the world!' he informs random groups of other passengers, rather too insistently; and they smile and nod, and politely pretend they envy him." Burkeman argued that for many crucial events, people need to coordinate their time with other people's and that massive amounts of free time without the ability to work with others is not "just useless but actively unpleasant". He commented that the harshest penalty imposed on early humans was being banished from others and that through having large control over his time, Salcedo exacted on himself something similar.

Thanks for your work on the article, it's not easy writing about people like this and making it read like an encyclopedia. I've had to chop and had people chop lots of details from articles I've written to condense for a Good or Featured Articles. I don't think I've removed anything which you could say "that was essential information, this is much worse off". Trust me on this. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the empathy about the difficulty of writing an article like this. I don't agree that the Burkeman content is unencyclopedic. It is critical analysis of Salcedo's lifestyle and how the author disapproves of that way of living. I've restored information about Salcedo's life during the COVID-19 pandemic. Readers will want to know whether Salcedo was on cruise ships during the pandemic and if not whether he resumed cruising. Cunard (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)