This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Domdeparis was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Not enough sources
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Arts West and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
Hello! Mduvekot,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Domdeparis (talk) 11:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Domdeparis Was that really necessary? I did not submit that draft for review, so I reverted. It had fallen off my watchlist so I never noticed that Legacpac had submitted it despite the fact that is was incomplete. Articles on art magazines are helpful to establish context for sources about subjects that we cover at edit-a-thons. They tend to be difficult to source, so I leave them open for people to work on if they like, and in case something shows up on my google alerts. Thanks for bringing it to my (renewed) attention. Next time please try to avoid templating the regulars and just ask me what's going on if you come across something like that. Mduvekot (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Don't take it personally it was one of the articles that is on the list for review.if it was submitted I presumed someone wanted it reviewed so I reviewed it. In all logic an article creator is informed of submissions on his watchlist so I naturally presumed that you had seen this. So no it wasn't necessary and a waste of my time because the submission had not been removed in a timely fashion. I hadn't recognised your name and maybe if i had I would have removed the submission. There are nearly 2000 ages to go through and it's a shame to have to waste time reviewing articles that are not ready. Domdeparis (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Forrest Bess article
Hello Mduvekot,
I am writing for guidance.
The process for the Terrell James article left me thinking about contents of articles generally. So I looked at the page for Forrest Bess (with whose research James was quite involved), and found some distortions. Question is, What to do?
Essentially, the Bess article incorrectly attributes his 1980s re-emergence to the efforts of only two entities - Barbara Haskell at the Whitney, and Hirschl & Adler Modern - when in fact the story is more complicated. First, Bess had been discovered as an important research focus by the Texas Project of the Archives of American Art prior to Haskell's involvement (in fact she gleaned a number of items for the Whitney show from her 1980 visit to the Archives' Houston office), and the 1988 Hirschl & Adler show not only followed a 1986 exhibition at Hiram Butler Gallery (Houston), but largely consisted of works bought out of the Butler show.
I'm sure I could find other assertions in need of revision, but... is this the kind of thing a rank beginner should tangle with? And is this level of information of meaningful value Wikipedia-wise? I doubt my standing as any kind of editor, for good reason. And I have no interest in mangling entries. What to do?
The Haskell visit to the Archives is not something I could footnote, but the info about the Hiram Butler show of 1986 and its relation to the later Hirschl & Adler exhibition could be documented. All of this would be lots of work, hence another reason for my question... is this something I should just drop?
Hello Camo1955 I suggest that you raise this at the talk page of Forrest Bess. I'm not suffiently familiar with the topic to offer you any meaningful guidance with regards to this specifics of who discovered who when and where, so I'll try to answer you question in a somewhat more general manner. You're only a beginner in two senses. One is that you may not yet be familar with the all the policies and guidelines, and that can take a while. By now, most of it makes sense to me, but I am still occasionally baffeled by the sometimes contradictory guidelines and what has emerged as consensus over the years. I think there is a process of enculturation at work in becoming a Wikipedian. It takes some time before the wiki-way feels natural. And I say that as someone who has used wikis professionally before becoming involved with Wikipedia. The other is that you may not yet know how to use the technical features of the mediawiki software. That should be the least of your worries. Great people are available at the help desk or at the teahouse to help you. So your lack of policy knowledge and its hermeneutics are what might trip you up. My advice is to not enagage in wikilawyering.
Now, to your question. Is this the kind of thing a beginner should tangle with? The way you phrase it makes it sound like you think that the discovery of Bess might be controversial. I would generally suggest to stay away from from controversy. New editors are councilled to stay out of areas of conflict, because they are subject to dscretionary sanctions. I pretty sure that the Bess article comes nowhere close to any of those. Is there an issue with the sources for your proposed change? If you cannot provide a reliable source for the claim that you're going to make, then you should not attempt it. If you're not sure if your source is reliable, check Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I'm happy to help as well.
One way to approach a change to a page is to be bold, make the change and see if anyone objects. If they do, they will revert your edit, and you then start a discussion on the talk page with the goal of achieving consensus on what is written in the article. This is known as bold, revert, discuss. Whatever you do, do not get into an edit war by overriding an other editor when they revert you edits. The talk page is the place to resolve such disagreements. The other way would be to propose the change on the talk page and wait for feedback. I generally prefer taking it to the talk page if the change is potentially controversial, but it only works if enough people have the article on their watchlist to have a discussion with. Curently ther are less than 30 people who do. Your question may not receive much attention. I suggest you go for it and make the change. Please keep in mind that if you are in any way involved with, paid or employed by or have a relationship with any person or organization mentioned in the article, you ought to disclose that, as it may create a conflict of interest. You can do that on your userpage or on the talk page of the article that you are editing. All the best, Mduvekot (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks, I appreciate your attention. My feeling is to proceed slowly and carefully.
Thanks for stepping in to help with the Brabble issue - much appreciated S Philbrick(Talk) 19:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I second this! I very much appreciate all of your assistance with the Brabble page. I'll get right on getting the requested changes made, and I'll make sure to utilize the proper channels for article editing/publishing in the future! Again, thank you so much for your help, feedback and edits. Ralum23 (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #281
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Upcoming: WikidataCon, Berlin, 28-29 October (sold out)
We will have two exciting keynotes. The first keynote speaker is Fabian M. Suchanek, professor at Télécom Paris Tech University, working on the knowledge base YAGO. The second keynote speaker is Michael Kreil, datajournalist working on the project Data Sciences and Stories.
Please volunteer for some tasks at the conference if you are attending.
Breaking change: "wb_entity_per_page" table will not be updated and replicated on ToolLabs anymore
A mw.wikibase.getLabelByLang Lua function will be added (phabricator:T173262)
The mw.wikibase.sitelink Lua function will accept a second parameter with the global identifier of a wiki (e.g. "enwiki") to link to (phabricator:T142903)
Had to temporarily turn off showing Wikidata's changes on Commons and Russian Wikipedia because of database issues. We're working on turning it back on.
Continued work on persistently storing edits to Forms on Lexemes
Finishing work on checking constraints on qualifiers and references with the constraint checks gadget
Fixed a bug where notification emails for Wikidata changes were sent when they shouldn't have been (phabricator:T174794)
Full URIs for external identifiers will soon be in the RDF export (phabricator:T121274)
Monthly Tasks
Add labels, in your own language(s), for the new properties listed above.
I am apart of the Digital Marketing team within Barings and we would like to make some changes to our Wikipedia page. Last year Barings Asset Management merged with several other companies and is now known as "Barings".
The content that is shown on Baring Asset Management is extremely out of date and it needs to be updated as soon as possible. We will also have to redirect the old name that is no longer being used from Baring Asset Management to Barings. The new Barings page should not redirect users back to the Barings Bank page. You should be able to find additional information supporting the changes on the Barings - About Us Page
Since you have a conflict of interest, you should not edit any articles related to Barings yourself. You can however make suggestions on the talk page.
The article you wrote has only Barings itself as a source. That is not acceptable. An article must be based on substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources.
There cannot be two articles on the same subject. You can make suggestions on the page that needs updating, but you also pointed out that the title was no longer correct. I can see two solutions:
With your suggestions, and based on independent, reliable sources, we rewrite Baring Asset Management and rename it to Barings after deleting your version to make room. This involves a so-called requested move.
I can suggest that the two articles be merged and suggest which title is to be preferred. That also requires a discussion with the community. Sorting that out is somewhat complicated, because we must retain the edit history of all pages to be merged. Please do not attempt that yourself, as doing it correctly requires advanced administrative permissions that you do not have. Whatever you do, please do not copy paste content from one article to another.
In the mean time, if you could work on a version that is based on coverage in independent, reliable sources, then we can have sort it all out and have an article that is up to date and meets our sourcing requirements. All the best, Mduvekot (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Mduvekot
I updated all of the sources on the Baring Asset Management Talk Page and I proposed new content on that page as well. Please take a look at your earliest convenience. The Baring Asset Management name has legally changed to Barings. This is why I originally tried to take the redirect off from Barings. All of the new content should live on Barings instead of Baring Asset Management. Is it possible to keep the existing Baring Asset Management but still create the new page to reflect its name change to Barings? This will allow users to still view the old page with all of its history and the new page as well.
This is also how another firm has their pages setup after their rebrand. Take a look at the pages below:
Dr.300stryon, I honestly can't tell what you want changed. If you can format your suggestions in a way that facilitates a discussion about what changes to implement, that would be helpful. As it stands, I'm not clear on what you asking us to do. I'll make attempt at summarizing what I think you're trying to do. Currently, we have
Dr.300stryon, Let's look at what pages you think should exist first, and then look at what they should say. I'm afraid that the content you proposed is so promotional it would be deleted instantly. Mduvekot (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Artchivist1 I think that a user who is still working on an article in user space should have the opportunity to do so undisturbed. But if they're no longer working on it, and it looks ready, can we email them to ask what they want? The editor who worked on User:Pet hop sus/sandbox was adamant that she didn't want to "own" the article for example. Mduvekot (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately Domdeparis has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:
Sorry to unreview this article but it needs some serious work on it. the first sentence contains a basic error. It is not a secondary school diploma but an defunct masters degree level diploma.
To reply, leave a comment on Domdeparis's talk page.
User:Domdeparis Thanks for pointing that out. It should have said tertiary. I fixed that. Mduvekot (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome but there's quite a lot of things wrong with the article. If I have the time I'll try and improve it. Domdeparis (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Arnold H. Wagner, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Upcoming: WikidataCon, Berlin, 28-29 October (sold out)
If you organize a local event for the Wikidata birthday, feel free to add it on the events page and the birthday page
A blog post describing Textes d'affiches, a tool using Wikidata to show movies and the works they are adapted from, developed during a hackathon at the national French library (by Shonagon, in French)
Hello Vexations, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.
Technology update:
Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.
General project update:
The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I found the article to be encyclopedic in tone and was uncomfortable treating it as a speedy, particularly given that the article's author had gone to the trouble to upload and relicense some suitable images. I'm not sure whether it's notable. Overall a borderline case for keeping, at best -- no criticism of your tag intended. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #283
Wikidata weekly summary #282
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
More work on checking constraints on qualifiers and references (phabricator:T168532)
Now caching constraints results to make it ready for rollout for more users
Continued work on more fine-grained usage tracking so we better know which parts of an item is used on an article on Wikipedia and the other sister projects
Improved the way Wikidata changes are shown in watchlist and recent changes on Wikipedia and Co so they are more in-line with the other changes (phabricator:T48329, phabricator:T50684) Thanks Matej!
hi @Mduvekot! This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... the list deserves to have its own page just like List of former Star Magic artists or List of current Star Magic artists. This list is different from List of GMA Artist Center talents and List of current GMA Network talents mainly because there are artists who are previously worked on GMA Network that are not signed under GMA Artist Center (e.g. Joseph Marco, German Moreno, Ellen Adarna, Aljur Abrenica, Isabelle Daza, Louise delos Reyes, etc.) The difference between the three lists is that the first one is composed of artists who are a contract star of GMA Artist Center while the second list is a roster of celebrities who are working on GMA Network, and lastly those who are previously worked on the above-mentioned TV network, in which several are not signed to their talent agency. --RenRen070193 (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #284
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Upcoming : Wikidata and Wiki Loves Monuments editathon in Berlin, 24-26 November (in German). We're looking for trainers to explain the basic use of QuickStatements, Open Refine and Mix'n'Match. If you want to join, please contact MB-one
Wikidata's birthday
The fifth anniversary of Wikidata was celebrated, as every year, with a lot of presents, events and stories. You can find an overview on the birthday page.
inventaire.io CC0 Wikidata-ready NDJSON and TTL dumps are now accessible at dumps.inventaire.io
You can now move claims to new items with moveClaim.js. You can do so by typing "new".
Prefix search on Wikidata (wbsearchentities API) now is using ElasticSearch as backend. This should improve search quality and also is more flexible and tunable.
