User talk:DGG/Archive 167 Dec 2020

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                                       ARCHIVES

DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG

Barnstars, Awards, etc.

Reminders

Topical Archives:
Deletion & AfD,      Speedy & prod,        NPP & AfC,       COI & paid editors,      BLP,                              Bilateral relations
Notability,               Universities & academic people,       Schools,                       Academic journals,       Books & other publications
Sourcing,                Fiction,                                               In Popular Culture      Educational Program
Bias, intolerance, and prejudice

General Archives:
2006: Sept-Dec
2007: Jan-Feb , Mar-Apt , M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D 
2008: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2009: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2010: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2011: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2012: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2013: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2014: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2015: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2016: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2017: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2018: J, F, M , A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2019: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2020: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2021: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2022: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2023: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O

 

            DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG


Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 18[edit]

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past three months (September, October, and November 2020).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 18th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

Updated scripts Twinkle has made a number of improvements, including using a change tag to identify actions made with it and automatically filing edit requests for protected XfD nominations.
SD0001's shortdescs-in-category is now compatible with scripts modifying category listings, such as Equazcion's CatListMainTalkLinks
GhostInTheMachine's TalkHelper2 is a newer version of their prior script, TalkHelper
GeneralNotability's spihelper updated to 2.2.10, fixing a number of small bugs, automatically tagging globally locked socks as such in the sockpuppet template, and restoring open cases following an SPI history merge.
Enterprisey's script-installer gadget has been updated with more internationalization of messages, as well as addition of a user preference, window.scriptInstallerInstallTarget to allow controlling where new scripts are to be installed.

Open tasks

Miscellaneous

My apologies for the delayed issue. As always, if anyone else would like to contribute, help is appreciated. Stay safe, --DannyS712 (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Hu Zhiying[edit]

Hi @DGG: How are you? This is regarding Hu Zhiying. There is a draft at Draft:Hu Zhiying that I would like to promote. I see it has been deleted several times, I think four deletes, in 5-6 years ago. I think the artist is genuinely notable and has got some international recognition and I've look at his work pretty extensively and it is notable. I would like to promote out of Afc and defend it, if goes to Afd. What do you think? It has been write protected, so it needs to be removed. Also on the second point. DGG, how about setting your archiver to run position. I was moving down the list using my mouse scrollbar and then I realised that I wasn't going to reach it. scope_creepTalk 13:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. You don't have to scroll down/ You can add a new section by click the "+" sign at thetop, and comment in a existing section by selecting it from the table of contents.
  2. I will consider the article. What you should do first is see if you can get an English language publication about the work at the Metropolitan Museum of NY--try their wenb site as a start. It would also help if you could find reviews of his books--in any language. DGG ( talk ) 17:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
accepted DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Frank Manheim[edit]

Hello DGG. I was reading the Scripts Newsletter on your May talk page (still trying to work those out) and saw the comment from the editor of the Frank Manheim article. I just came across him in a book I'm reading for a finance course and found him interesting. I agree with your comments on the original draft and would like to take a crack at re-writing. What do you think? Letita Bodicia (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can improve an article in Draft. Give it a try at let me know. DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. I'll give it a try and let you know. Letita Bodicia (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DGG. I rewrote the Frank Manheim article, adding citations and re-arranging sections. Please take a look if you have the time. I'll wait to hear from you before I submit for acceptance. Thanks for your interest and encouragement. Letita Bodicia (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mindel C. Sheps[edit]

You accepted this draft, and I agree that she satisfies academic notability. That isn't the question. Your acceptance script left the AFC submission tag on the draft when it moved it into article space. This has happened before, with drafts that you accepted. It does not normally happen to drafts accepted by other reviewers. Is there something about your acceptance script that leaves the articles with this tag?

The presence of the AFC submit tag on an article in article space is a yellow flag that typically indicates that an article was moved into article space by the author without AFC review. We agree that they have a right to do this, but that they are taking the risk of AFD. Sometimes the author moves the draft into article space after it was already draftified once. In that case, an AFD may be in order. In your cases, and this has happened before, the best thing to do is to remove the line that says not to remove it.

So do you know why you sometimes leave the AFC tag on articles that you accept? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's a problem. I understand the meaning, and I never deliberately leave it on; I try not to go too fast for the script, so I consider the problem to be that of the script. I use the unmodified AFCH. I'll continue to check. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:John Davenport (orientalist)[edit]

May you please move Draft:John Davenport (orientalist) back to mainspace? Some related articles are created and I think it deserves to be on Wikipedia sooner. ‍Ali Pirhayati (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Draft:Canadian Party Life[edit]

Hi DGG, as an end of the semester group project, my group and I have finished our draft page on a small Canadian digital media company of our choice which was Draft:Canadian Party Life. Would you be able to please take a look at it and give us some advice in order for it to get accepted? We see that you declined the submission, and would like to know exactly what we need to do in order for it to get accepted. The project is due on the 15th of December and it needs to be an accepted Wiki page in order for us to pass. Our team would really appreciate any feedback and help! Thanks --RickyRosea69 (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2020 (EST)

Is your class registered with our Education program? [1] and [2] and [3]? Our general information for this is at Wikipedia:Student assignments, and the place on the wiki to ask questions is Wikipedia:Education noticeboard As they would tell you, it is not appropriate to base a class grade on whether an article is accepted in Wikipedia. Even the best classwork does not necessarily get accepted, because our rules for this are confusing, contradictory, and subject to consensus, which can sometimes decide to come to unpredictable and even foolish conclusions. I've worked with classes before, and I can help explain this to your instructor.
But as for the article. At WP, notability depends on referencing. You need substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, not press releases or blogs or postings or mere notices. So let's look at them
Ref 1 is their own web page, it's obviously not independent. Ref 3 is just a page proving their corporate existence.
Ref 2 is a fairly extensive article. But it is in a student newspaper, and we regard these as less than fully reliable, because they tend to publish indiscriminately events on their own campus. Additionally, and this is a key issue, the article refers to CPL not as an organization, but as a brand consisting of "two instagram accounts"
ref 4, narcity, is actually a reprint from cbc news, which is quite reliable, even in its local coverage. ] However, the material here does not document the article, because it sems to talk only about the instagram accounts, not the company. "...over the past two years after Canadianpartylife, an Instagram account dedicated to..."
ref 5 , from Global News (which is actually the local news on a local source that is part of a franchise) also only talks about the instagram accounts.
So what you really need is a source as extensive as #2, but from a nationally or regionally recognized publication. Have there ebeen any magazine articles? DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi DGG, thank you for your feedback on our article! We really appreciate it. We took your advice/feedback on our draft and were able to find and add another reference similar to our 2nd reference. This reference goes into detail about the website/brand and is from a nationally recognized publication. Here's the reference --> [1] Please let us know if you have any other advice for our article to get published as we will be more than happy to make those corrections. Our group really needs to pass this course. Thanks RickyRosea69 (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2020 (EST)

Add it, but the coverage is minor. Your teacher is the one who bears the responsibility for arranging a course with grading expectations that do not match the way Wikipedia works. I would appreciate knowing confidentially by email, what the course is, so I can ask the relevant people to help him plan it for next time. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG. Unfortunately, my group and I cannot control the education system and/or the assignment that was assigned to us. We agree that the grading expectations of this assignment are flawed, however, we have no choice but to try our best. Please, what else do we need to do for this draft to be approved? If not we will have to search elsewhere for help as we're all trying our best to get a good mark. RickyRosea69 (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2020 (EST)

There are people here who can explain things to your instructor, if you will let us help you. DGG ( talk ) 20:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be more likely to get approved if we said it was an Instagram page instead of a company? There are definitely references on them being an Instagram page. RickyRosea69 (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2020 (EST)

certainly the standards for instagram pages are very much vaguer. Pages have ben rescued in similar ways from time to time, by changing the emphasis on the same basic material. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Articles for creation: Sun and Moon Pagodas has been accepted[edit]

I guess responding to a new message notification is a force of habit—even as an IP address rather than a username. Thank you for reviewing and accepting Sun and Moon Pagodas for article creation. Your username sounds familiar, I used to be a Wikipedian but it looks like I was leaving just as you were arriving. I know the notice is boilerplate, nevertheless I thank you for the invitation to sign up. However, I will not be rejoing Wikipedia as I am still unsure this is a community that I would find welcoming as most of the concerns I had when I stepped away seem to have gotten worse over the years. Even so, I am glad to see Wikipedians like you serving on committees, defending obscure—but notable—subjects from deletion, and investing in their creation. I hope you have continued success. Cheers! -24.35.158.128 (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

as before, there are more contentious corners and less contentious. The general attitude is considerably more bureaucratic, as we are better at devising new rules than removing obsolete ones. But it is also more predictable, and in most fields the personalities don't matter as much as in 2006: there's nobody who has the same kind of influence some people had then. In general, the article content is better, and as long as one stays away from fields like American politics reasonable people can do thing without trouble. So please try a few more. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Dean Lomax[edit]

Hi DGG, I'm a bit confused by these comments:[4]

That draft is just a recreation of what was brought to AfD which was closed as delete. Maybe you weren't aware of that AfD when you made the comment the subject was notable and removed the speedy deletion. We're basically in the same position as when the draft was speedy deleted back in 2019, so I'm curious why the tag was removed without deletion this time? Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the original deletion closing an error: "detailed discussion of sourcing is that what is there is not about the subject but their discoveries." is in complete opposition to WP. :PROF. The problems listed there can be fixed, which I intend to do. Thisis a lot simple than DelRev, because it can lead dieectly to a decent article.Naturally, this puts the burden on me , but it is my field. (there is, you ay be aware, a little wiki-politics involved in trying to avoid recognzing notability of entomologists; there have been more important inequities, which I intend to work on . but this will be a start) ). If you don't like what I do, when I put it in mainspace, there;\'s afd 2, but I hope it will get more careful attention this time. DGG ( talk ) 09:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kevin D. Breault[edit]

Hi DGG -- Could you give a second opinion on this American sociologist, when you have a moment? The GS citations look promising [5] and most of the text is covered on his university bio page.[6] Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the citations are sufficient, and the material is adequatrely sourced. I trimined the list of publlication and accepted. But see the article's talk p. DGG ( talk ) 09:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FeGiS[edit]

Dear DGG, thank you for accepting our draft and your helpful comments. Regarding to your comments wie have improved our article FeGiS: - Added new inline citations (e.g. Publication in Leibniz Information Centre for Science and Technology University Library) - Added specific terms of road traffic safety - Added more detailed information regarding our existing sources, so it is easier to verify them Are these corrections sufficient for removing the comemnts above the article? Thanks in advance for your answer. User Sichere Straßen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sichere.Straßen (talk • contribs) 09:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sichere.traßen, the references are indeed much improved. The main problem now is the wordiness and the style of writing which rather resembles a report by the organization. See if you can revise to make it as compact as possible. I need to alert you that it has in the past proven difficult to get articles on components of the EC framework programs accepted, so it is possible that my approval might be challenged.

Draft:Brian Wall[edit]

Thanks for your comments about citations needed for museums in my draft article on Brian Wall. I have added several new references to the "Selected Public Collections" section. Is this adequate?


Callan Method[edit]

Hi DGG I made the changes to Callan Method as suggested but have heard nothing more. In the meantime there are more pages appearing on Callan Method in Wikipedia in different languages. It would be good to have an English version as Callan Method is about teaching English and Callan himself was from England. I would be grateful for your help. Robert Hercules (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"the Callan method is a method of teaching English and Spanish " or "the Callan Method is a method of teaching English and Spanish, implemented by the Callan Method Organisation" or ""the Callan method is a method of teaching English and Spanish especially a version implemented by the Callan Method Organisation". Anyone can follow what they think to be the method, but they can't use their textbooks & teaching materials unless certified by the CMO. Is the C M a registered trademark. ? I assume it is not, because otherwise they would say it is.
The problem here is the implication in the article that nobody else may use their methods and call it Callan Method. For example "Callan Method, for learners of English, is divided into Stages 1-12; " If somebody teaches it but uses their own teaching material what's the status?. If somebody teaches it but uses their own teaching material and divides that teaching material in another way, what's the status?I interpret the current wording as an unwarrented claim of intellectual property without evidence of it. DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Hercules, If there are no further discussions, I will revise the article to minimize the proprietary use, as is normal practice with any article DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I have made contact with Callan Method Organisation with regard to trademarks and await confirmation. Meantime if the page could be published in a revised form this would be appreciated. I can confirm that Callan Method is a unique series of books which are integral to its teaching. A Callan Method teacher, even with 30 years experience, requires the Callan Method Teachers book at all times in order to deliver a class. This person is trained in the use of Callan Method books. Callan Method students require Callan Method books to follow the courses. The key point is that Callan Method can never be taught or learnt without Callan Method books, there is no question that anyone could attempt to teach Callan Method using different materials. Callan Method IS the material and special training is required to learn how to apply it. This material is protected by copyright. Sorry if this seems a little repetitive, I just felt it was important to make this clear. Robert Hercules (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC),[reply]

Robert Hercules, what you say amounts to the opinion of the Organization, its own advertising for itself. Have you a source for all that, independent of the organisation? If you do not, it will have to say something like, "the Organization claims that...." If that's how you write the article, it will need to be titled Callen Method Organisation. I point out to you that having copyrighted a book does not give anyone exclusive rightts to do what is in the book. The article says their books are now controlled distribution, which is what people do when they hope to maintain a monopoly. But if anyone can get hold of the material, they can use it. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG... I suggest we remove the final two paragraphs of the original draft and replace them with three short paragraphs as follows. This hopefully takes out all areas that could be contentious or misleading


International spread


From 1970, new language schools opened around the world to teach with Callan Method. It was initially widespread in Brazil, Italy and Poland – school owners were often former students at Callan School in London – but now hundreds of schools in the UK, Europe, South America and Asia use it.

In 2020 the first Callan Method school in USA opened in Atlanta, Georgia to teach English and Spanish

Publications

In addition to the core English course (12 books) Callan Method is available to teach Callan for Kids (6 books), Callan Español (6 books) and Callan for Business (1 book). Callan Student Grammar Workbooks, levels A1 to B2, are used in preparation for recognised international examinations including Cambridge, TOEFL, IELTS.

The Callan Student Practice Area was introduced in 2014 as an online platform for students to practice language skills in English and Spanish. In 2020 the Online Callan Classroom was developed to provide an online teaching environment tailored to Callan Method classes.


Ownership

Robin Callan, the author of the Callan Method, died in 2014.

The copyright to the Callan Method books and other teaching materials and the international trademarks are now owned by Callan Works Limited. The books and teaching materials are published by Callan Method Organisation Limited, under licence from Callan Works Limited. Callan Method Organisation also provides teacher training and school accreditation services. Both companies are part of Callan Method Group Limited.

The Callan Method trademark is registered in over 100 countries. The trademark number in UK is 2009317.Robert Hercules (talk) 12:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hercules, this will work better if the title is changed to "Callan Method Group" and the first sentence includes somewhere the word "proprietary". Shall lI move the draf to that title? And remind me, did you declare COI? DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK lets do that. I am not an employee, I am former Callan Method student. Thanks Robert Hercules (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, the above changes have now been made, please could you review and add the word proprietary as you feel appropriate, thanks for your help. Robert Hercules (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] 

#####

Hi DGG, can you let me know if the revised text is acceptable? I am looking forward to having this posted. Thanks. Robert Hercules (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hercules, you seem to have misunderstood me. I was suggesting moving t not just one section, but the entire article , to the title of Callan Method Group. It occurs to me that you do not have the userright to do this by yourself, so tomorrow I am going to move it for you, and make a few other changes, that I think indicate the status. You continue not to say that the method (lower case) can be taught by anyone who can figure out how to do so in whatever version they can devise, authorized by the Group or not authorized, and rather than force the issue, changing the title and adjusting the article to correspond might clarify this, at least by implication. (and still satisfy the company, in case you are indeed a connected editor--you said you are not being paid--you never said whether or not you work for the compan or are, perhaps, editing with a coi in its interest). DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, Did you make the changes as I don't see these on the Callan Method listing. I don't work for Callan Method, my husband and I studied with the Callan Method and were neighbours of Robin Callan when we lived in the UK. I have since done considerable research into the Method. Thanks. Robert Hercules (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

still working on wording. I'll get there. It's in my mind every day I know better than to claim I will forget, but I havent forgotten about this one. DGG ( talk ) 10:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, Robert Hercules, I've revised, moved, and accepted it. It's at the name of the firm that uses the trademark. You will note that as a requirement of the MOS, we when we refer to the CM. Group as the group, outside of the lead sentence and the article title, we use lower case for group. (and similarly for company, firm, organization, etc. ) There are a few places where I marked as needing references--it is possible that they are in the earlier versions. if you know them, add them. But please do not otherwise make changes except by suggesting them on the article talk page. DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

election[edit]

see User:DGG/ACE2020 , a little on the late side. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Real Life Barnstar
You are not only good administrator but also good user-friendly member of Wikipedia. I appreciate your sentiments. 🇮🇳DRCNSINDIA (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Bassler[edit]

I've been watching Draft:Robert_C._Bassler since I responded to the author on the AFC help page. The author has gone through and made *major* cuts, perhaps *too* much, IMO. Given the current state of the article, I think that moving it back to mainspace is appropriate, or maybe just going through and making more exact suggestions.Naraht (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thee are some fixes needed; I think as it stands it would not pass afd, but if fixed, it might. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected drafts[edit]

Hi, DGG,

I have had little involvement with AFC over the years but I am taking care of hundreds of stale drafts these days. Plenty of them have been rejected by AfC reviewers but, to my untrained eyes, even though they don't have 4 or 5 reliable sources, they would definitely make decent stub articles. I'm just wondering if AfC reviewers have high standards, looking for every claim to have verification, and declining articles that, are not in great shape now but if given time & attention, might make decent articles in the future. Or are reviewers discouraged from accepting submissions that would just be stubs? Just wondering. Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The basic standard is that the draft will be likely to pass AfD, but as usual at Wikipedia, every reviewer uses their own interpretation. The key word is "likely". Remembering the discussions from 4 or 5 years ago, it was established that it does not mean 51%, but also not 99%. Most reviewers say they interpret it at between 60 and 80 %, but in practice the actual range in 80 to 90%. However, most reviewers probably think more globally than numerically. There will always be disagreement about what ought to pas AfD, and many us tend to judge by what we think ought to pass, more than what we think will in the current state of things pass.
I do not try to judge what the community will do at afd for drafts not in my fields of interest, for I do not review them. In practice very few of my approved drafts have ever been rejected, but that's because if they're borderline I will if necessary fix them myself. A relatively small number of other people also do that.
There is considerable pressure to keep the level high--nobody wants to be called out for passing something that the community rejects, nobody wants to have a long discussion getting an article improved and then seeing it rejected, and there's even a warning message at various places about listing for deletion or changing the status to unpatrolled for something that passed AfC--whereas reviewers rarely get blamed for declining a draft.
For the 6 month old drafts now appearing for G13, some of them are my notably over-demanding reviewers. For the ones that are declined for clearly incorrect reasons, I will say so in a comment, which postpones them. An article does not need 3 or 4 reliable sources showing notability to pass; one is enough if it's good enough, like being in a standard encyclopedia. But I will often decline them and ask for more, in order to increase the chance that it will actually pass. I take into consideration whether further sources are likely. I also at least nowadays, carem ore about promotionalism than notability. I will not pass a basically promotional article regardless of notability -- although if it is extremely notable, i will once in a while remove the worst of the promotionalism and pass it.
What concerns me even more than the mis-reviewed drafts are the ones that are good enough, or almost good enough, but never got submitted. If I think they might be good enough, I will always at least fix them a little and postpoen them, or even just submit and accept them.
My advice is to follow your instincts about what belongs in Wikipedia. I tend to check deleted G13s a little as well as ones not yet at 6 months. I do not check something if its obvious from the title that its hopeless or not in my field. I see many that you've deleted, and I restore about 1/10 of them, I consider 90% agreement between two reviewers as good as can be expected.
There are not merely 2 classes of articles at AfC--the passes and the fails. There are 3: the hopeless, the improvable, and the adequate. I'd say the proportion as they arrive in draft is 40-50-10. As formally submitted, it's 20-60-20. Dealing with the ones in the middle takes more work than the available people can do. That's the basic problem. It's mot the fault of draft and afc, before we had it, there was the same proportion at New Page Patrol. We tended to accept everything that was possible, about 50%, which is how the early junk got into WP, and, if not of great interest to people, never got improved. Unsatisfactory as it is, the current way is better. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
] (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 18[edit]

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past three months (September, October, and November 2020).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 18th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

Updated scripts Twinkle has made a number of improvements, including using a change tag to identify actions made with it and automatically filing edit requests for protected XfD nominations.
SD0001's shortdescs-in-category is now compatible with scripts modifying category listings, such as Equazcion's CatListMainTalkLinks
GhostInTheMachine's TalkHelper2 is a newer version of their prior script, TalkHelper
GeneralNotability's spihelper updated to 2.2.10, fixing a number of small bugs, automatically tagging globally locked socks as such in the sockpuppet template, and restoring open cases following an SPI history merge.
Enterprisey's script-installer gadget has been updated with more internationalization of messages, as well as addition of a user preference, window.scriptInstallerInstallTarget to allow controlling where new scripts are to be installed.

Miscellaneous

My apologies for the delayed issue. As always, if anyone else would like to contribute, help is appreciated. Stay safe, --DannyS712 (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Hu Zhiying[edit]

Hi @DGG: How are you? This is regarding Hu Zhiying. There is a draft at Draft:Hu Zhiying that I would like to promote. I see it has been deleted several times, I think four deletes, in 5-6 years ago. I think the artist is genuinely notable and has got some international recognition and I've look at his work pretty extensively and it is notable. I would like to promote out of Afc and defend it, if goes to Afd. What do you think? It has been write protected, so it needs to be removed. Also on the second point. DGG, how about setting your archiver to run position. I was moving down the list using my mouse scrollbar and then I realised that I wasn't going to reach it. scope_creepTalk 13:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. You don't have to scroll down/ You can add a new section by click the "+" sign at thetop, and comment in a existing section by selecting it from the table of contents.
  2. I will consider the article. What you should do first is see if you can get an English language publication about the work at the Metropolitan Museum of NY--try their wenb site as a start. It would also help if you could find reviews of his books--in any language. DGG ( talk ) 17:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
accepted DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Frank Manheim[edit]

Hello DGG. I was reading the Scripts Newsletter on your May talk page (still trying to work those out) and saw the comment from the editor of the Frank Manheim article. I just came across him in a book I'm reading for a finance course and found him interesting. I agree with your comments on the original draft and would like to take a crack at re-writing. What do you think? Letita Bodicia (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can improve an article in Draft. Give it a try at let me know. DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. I'll give it a try and let you know. Letita Bodicia (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DGG. I rewrote the Frank Manheim article, adding citations and re-arranging sections. Please take a look if you have the time. I'll wait to hear from you before I submit for acceptance. Thanks for your interest and encouragement. Letita Bodicia (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, DGG. Saw what you did on Frank Manheim and understand. Sometimes I get carried away. Your thought on linking the efforts of Lehman Brothers on boards in the 50s and 60s to success/failure/influence in various businesses is a good one and I will take up the challenge. Question: Should I wait to submit for acceptance until after I've done that, or ask for acceptance first? I'm concerned that I'll have a difficult time finding the proper references. And, I think we'd have a better chance of a variety of editors contributing to an article rather than a draft, but will certainly defer to your experience on this. Thanks! I'm really enjoying this task. Letita Bodicia (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Draft:Canadian Party Life[edit]

Hi DGG, as an end of the semester group project, my group and I have finished our draft page on a small Canadian digital media company of our choice which was Draft:Canadian Party Life. Would you be able to please take a look at it and give us some advice in order for it to get accepted? We see that you declined the submission, and would like to know exactly what we need to do in order for it to get accepted. The project is due on the 15th of December and it needs to be an accepted Wiki page in order for us to pass. Our team would really appreciate any feedback and help! Thanks --RickyRosea69 (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2020 (EST)

Is your class registered with our Education program? [7] and [8] and [9]? Our general information for this is at Wikipedia:Student assignments, and the place on the wiki to ask questions is Wikipedia:Education noticeboard As they would tell you, it is not appropriate to base a class grade on whether an article is accepted in Wikipedia. Even the best classwork does not necessarily get accepted, because our rules for this are confusing, contradictory, and subject to consensus, which can sometimes decide to come to unpredictable and even foolish conclusions. I've worked with classes before, and I can help explain this to your instructor.
But as for the article. At WP, notability depends on referencing. You need substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, not press releases or blogs or postings or mere notices. So let's look at them
Ref 1 is their own web page, it's obviously not independent. Ref 3 is just a page proving their corporate existence.
Ref 2 is a fairly extensive article. But it is in a student newspaper, and we regard these as less than fully reliable, because they tend to publish indiscriminately events on their own campus. Additionally, and this is a key issue, the article refers to CPL not as an organization, but as a brand consisting of "two instagram accounts"
ref 4, narcity, is actually a reprint from cbc news, which is quite reliable, even in its local coverage. ] However, the material here does not document the article, because it sems to talk only about the instagram accounts, not the company. "...over the past two years after Canadianpartylife, an Instagram account dedicated to..."
ref 5 , from Global News (which is actually the local news on a local source that is part of a franchise) also only talks about the instagram accounts.
So what you really need is a source as extensive as #2, but from a nationally or regionally recognized publication. Have there ebeen any magazine articles? DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi DGG, thank you for your feedback on our article! We really appreciate it. We took your advice/feedback on our draft and were able to find and add another reference similar to our 2nd reference. This reference goes into detail about the website/brand and is from a nationally recognized publication. Here's the reference --> [1] Please let us know if you have any other advice for our article to get published as we will be more than happy to make those corrections. Our group really needs to pass this course. Thanks RickyRosea69 (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2020 (EST)

Add it, but the coverage is minor. Your teacher is the one who bears the responsibility for arranging a course with grading expectations that do not match the way Wikipedia works. I would appreciate knowing confidentially by email, what the course is, so I can ask the relevant people to help him plan it for next time. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG. Unfortunately, my group and I cannot control the education system and/or the assignment that was assigned to us. We agree that the grading expectations of this assignment are flawed, however, we have no choice but to try our best. Please, what else do we need to do for this draft to be approved? If not we will have to search elsewhere for help as we're all trying our best to get a good mark. RickyRosea69 (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2020 (EST)

There are people here who can explain things to your instructor, if you will let us help you. DGG ( talk ) 20:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be more likely to get approved if we said it was an Instagram page instead of a company? There are definitely references on them being an Instagram page. RickyRosea69 (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2020 (EST)

certainly the standards for instagram pages are very much vaguer. Pages have ben rescued in similar ways from time to time, by changing the emphasis on the same basic material. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
as you will see , I accepted the current version. DGG ( talk ) 09:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. RickyRosea69 (talk) (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2020 (EST)

RE: Articles for creation: Sun and Moon Pagodas has been accepted[edit]

I guess responding to a new message notification is a force of habit—even as an IP address rather than a username. Thank you for reviewing and accepting Sun and Moon Pagodas for article creation. Your username sounds familiar, I used to be a Wikipedian but it looks like I was leaving just as you were arriving. I know the notice is boilerplate, nevertheless I thank you for the invitation to sign up. However, I will not be rejoing Wikipedia as I am still unsure this is a community that I would find welcoming as most of the concerns I had when I stepped away seem to have gotten worse over the years. Even so, I am glad to see Wikipedians like you serving on committees, defending obscure—but notable—subjects from deletion, and investing in their creation. I hope you have continued success. Cheers! -24.35.158.128 (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

as before, there are more contentious corners and less contentious. The general attitude is considerably more bureaucratic, as we are better at devising new rules than removing obsolete ones. But it is also more predictable, and in most fields the personalities don't matter as much as in 2006: there's nobody who has the same kind of influence some people had then. In general, the article content is better, and as long as one stays away from fields like American politics reasonable people can do thing without trouble. So please try a few more. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Dean Lomax[edit]

Hi DGG, I'm a bit confused by these comments:[10]

That draft is just a recreation of what was brought to AfD which was closed as delete. Maybe you weren't aware of that AfD when you made the comment the subject was notable and removed the speedy deletion. We're basically in the same position as when the draft was speedy deleted back in 2019, so I'm curious why the tag was removed without deletion this time? Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the original deletion closing an error: "detailed discussion of sourcing is that what is there is not about the subject but their discoveries." is in complete opposition to WP. :PROF. The problems listed there can be fixed, which I intend to do. This is a lot simple than DelRev, because it can lead dieectly to a decent article.Naturally, this puts the burden on me , but it is my field. (there is, you ay be aware, a little wiki-politics involved in trying to avoid recognzing notability of entomologists; there have been more important inequities, which I intend to work on . but this will be a start) ). If you don't like what I do, when I put it in mainspace, there;\'s afd 2, but I hope it will get more careful attention this time. DGG ( talk ) 09:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I must have been cross-eyed when I read the draft comment because I thought it was part of the speedy deletion template for a second, so ignore that last bit of reverts on my part there. Not to nitpick, but given your statement above without really editing the draft and removing the deletion tag, it does come across a little WP:SUPERVOTEy as the closest way to describe it. The better option like you mention is to work on the burden aspect by editing content, and there are a few months for that now that the clock technically restarted.
I'd disagree about WP:PROF since part of that is the "average professor test" that I alluded to at the AfD (i.e., naming/discovering species is kind of normal among taxonomists). If sources start commenting that he stands out due to sheer volume/quality of work, that'll pass the threshold for me. I actually asked our resident taxonomist down the hall about that article and their thoughts were similar to mine (but kinda cool on the local popular science/education side of things). My vote then was more of a notability TOOSOON issue though, so obviously my opinion can change.
As for entomologists, maybe I've been missing out on some AfDs this year, but where has some of this politiking been going on? I'd definitely chime in if I thought an entomologist was notable (and it'd be easier for me to dig up more sources), though I'd put a lot of scrutiny on it too like I do above in terms of what a "normal" professor tends to do. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supervote refers to my over-riding the community consensus in a afd or afc. That's not what's in question here. In trying to restore an article, if the community disagrees with what i do , the consensus will correct me. But none of that is what happened here either. No admin action is in question. Anyone can remove a speedy tag. Anyone can stop a G13 deletion, and any admin's G13 deletion will normally be restored on request. That's all I did. I haven't even restored the article yet. as I said, there are two acceptable ways to restore an article that's deleted at afd: Del Rev, or making a new one, where it it should be improved enough to have a reasonable chance.. If it wasn't protected anyone can do that. But I didn't even do that yet. I just put it into Draft, which is being as cautious and conservative as I would advise anyone. I think the consensus for AfCs is that a prior deletion is no bar to making an AfC, unless the AfC is also protected, which is very rare.
In carrying out admin actions, I follow the community consensus rather closely, particularly because I am quite aware that some of my opinions about what that consensus ought to be are not (yet) accepted. In editing, however, I have the same right as anyone to be BOLD, because the community can & sometimes does correct me. In giving someone advice about policy, I try to be very safe and conservative, and I never advise people to see what they can perhaps get away with. . In expressing my opinion about what guidelines are, when in a discussion, I use my judgment, keeping in mind the full range of permissible interpretations, and that the effective deletion policy anad notability guidelines are what happens at AfD, which can be quite variable.
The "average professor test" reads " When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?". In my opinion, this as written is not helpful, because it depends 1/on the definition of "a researcher in the field" which could mean anyone from a grad student who has published a paper on up, but probably means anyone who is making a profession out of research in a subject which to my understanding is someone on a tenure track position or the equivalent. and 2/ "stand out clearly", which is totally vague and can only have an operational meaning of anyone who stands out clearly in the consensus of the community at any particular AfD. It also uses a word that isn't in any other of the other guidelines "accomplished"--which is about as indefinite as one can get. Considering the great flexibility of the guidelines here, it's remarkable that about 95% of the individuals submitted are clear one way or another--and even 80 or 90% of those challenged at AfD!
As applied to taxonomists, the standard is not clear as to how many species--it obviously depends on what sort of organisms one is working with. I think that although the consensus at afd in the past has sometimes been that a single species is enough, this is no longer the case & more is required. I agree that even in the broadest interpretation a single species would be much too wide for those working on, say, coleoptera. (as for the political examples, I meant wiki-politics, not RW politics. I need to look--the story is a little complicated) DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kevin D. Breault[edit]

Hi DGG -- Could you give a second opinion on this American sociologist, when you have a moment? The GS citations look promising [11] and most of the text is covered on his university bio page.[12] Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the citations are sufficient, and the material is adequately sourced. I trimined the list of publlication and accepted. But see the article's talk p. DGG ( talk ) 09:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- indeed, his faculty page is a little more self-promotional than I'm used to reading, which was one of the reasons I hesitated to promote it unilaterally. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FeGiS[edit]

Dear DGG, thank you for accepting our draft and your helpful comments. Regarding to your comments wie have improved our article FeGiS: - Added new inline citations (e.g. Publication in Leibniz Information Centre for Science and Technology University Library) - Added specific terms of road traffic safety - Added more detailed information regarding our existing sources, so it is easier to verify them Are these corrections sufficient for removing the comemnts above the article? Thanks in advance for your answer. User Sichere Straßen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sichere.Straßen (talk • contribs) 09:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sichere.traßen, the references are indeed much improved. The main problem now is the wordiness and the style of writing which rather resembles a report by the organization. See if you can revise to make it as compact as possible. I need to alert you that it has in the past proven difficult to get articles on components of the EC framework programs accepted, so it is possible that my approval might be challenged. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Secundative language[edit]

I've added a few examples; do they address your concern, perhaps even sufficiently to remove the template? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 07:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its as clear as its likely to be, so I remeoved the template. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Ayesh[edit]

Can we remove the PR tag on Omar Ayesh article? What other changes would you suggest? Smilingbandit (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

who's "we" ? You did not declare any COI? DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?[edit]

[13]. Sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

deWP-enWP[edit]

I hope that I'm correct in replying here to the comment you made on Olaf Kosinsky's talk page concerning the translation from German to English Wikipedia. I have read your comment and I must admit, I hadn't noticed the differences until you pointed them out specifically, like the example on Rudolf Pichlmayr. Thank you for that and I'll take it into consideration when working on future articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMike94 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 19[edit]

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past month (December 2020).

Open tasks

Pending requests Pending requests

Miscellaneous

As always, if anyone else would like to contribute, help is appreciated. Stay safe, and happy holidays! --DannyS712 (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The World Academy of Art and Science Page[edit]

Dear Dr. Goodman, This is Ranjani Ravi, an Associate Fellow of the World Academy of Art and Science, an intl thinktank the wiki page of which you edited recently on November 9, 2020 (Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Academy_of_Art_and_Science&action=history). The Management section of the page previously listed the names of most Management members, which I agree, is not necessary but we would like to retain the names of Vice President, Secretary General and Honorary President because of the increasingly important role they play in the Academy which is a non profit organisation that addresses world problems. Not as a form of self promotion or anything, just to make them get the recognition they deserve. But I recently checked the page and found some names missing and that's how I came here.

Having said that, please, I would like to the rationale behind your deleting the names. Is the norm usually to include just the names of President and Chair? Thank you so much in advance.

Best regards Ranjani Ravi Associate Fellow, World Academy of Art and Science Editor, Cadmus Journal http://cadmusjournal.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inajnar (talk • contribs) 01:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the role they play in the academy is of interest to the members of the academy, not the general public who reads an encyclopedia . To the extent you think it is of interest to those interest in the academy, you have your own web site. People with any specific interest in the organization will find it there.
I point out also that there is considerable other material in that article which could be considered`promotional, and not appropriate to an encyclopedia ; it is likely to be removed as well. "Getting people the recognition they deserve" is not the function of an encyclopedia . It's the function of a press release. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Experience[edit]

I wrote The New York Experience article, then decided not to publish it on Wikipedia. It appears that you published it on Wikipedia without my permission. How do I take it down?Milst1 (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

as a courtesy, I have replied only on your user talk page, not here. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leandro Bueno Bergantin[edit]

Hi! Hope you're healthy & relatively well. If & when you have a moment and interest, love your input on whether Leandro Bueno Bergantin is a notable academic. It's an autobiography, but the larger issue is it's incomprehensible so I can't make heads or tails of potential notability. Loathe to lessen our coverage in non english speaking countries, but unsure if this can be improved. Thanks, as always, for your insight. StarM 03:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

not yet notable. moved to draft. Your intuition is excellent. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Leonid Adamovich Sosnovskiy[edit]

I have corrected almost all the comments I could.

But

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject

This remark is incomprehensible to me. How can I correct the article to bring it into an encyclopedic format? When writing, I was guided by articles about other Russian scientists in Wikipedia, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhores_Alferov

As to independent, reliable, published sources, they are given in article section "Publications about L. A. Sosnovskiy" Barejsha02 (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Draft:Jiliang Tang[edit]

Hi DGG -- Could you possibly take a look at stale draft Draft:Jiliang Tang -- a computer scientist with apparently high citations in GS. The draft appears to have been created by a student with permission from the subject. It's been declined twice, the subject is fairly early career (assistant prof, PhD 2015)[14]. I postponed the G13 based on the GS profile [15]. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I missed spotting this one, so thanks! I'll deal with it. it may take some analysis of the actual citations to decide, and computer science has its own peculiar publication patterns.. It is discouraging when new eds or classes write inadequate articles on notable people, and I wish we had a way of catching them earlier than the six months. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks. I've improved it a touch and the creator has re-engaged and submitted it for review. Even if Tang isn't quite over the threshold now, I think he will be soon, especially as he appears to have a book in press with Cambridge University Press. I never know what to do with such articles; deleting plausible drafts G13 every 6 months is such a waste of everyone's energy. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 07:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
there are several routes to a solution--mostdesirable, fixing them when submitted, but if not getting them before 6 months, or if not at least getting them at 6 motnhs, or, at worst, deleting htem longer. But I intend to try something in Janaury, now that I'll be free from the arb com prison: making a list of everything I postpone, and trying to distribute it. .
and there's another dilemma--when we fix it enough to go itnto main space, how much do we fix it--just enough, enough so it would pass afd without our needing to defend it, or into an actually decent article. I know the first is more efficient, but if I am going to work on something, I want to do it in a respectable fashion. DGG ( talk ) 07:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been wondering for a while if a wikiproject or the like might be the way to go. I try to pick up expired drafts when I can, but I rarely do more than postpone these days -- there's just too much, one always feels to be drowning in it. Often I find that the drafts I pick up (independently) have been postponed by you 6 mths or 12 mths ago. Might a joint list of postponed items from established editors be useful?
Women in Red is a great resource if the subject happens to be female, but I often feel like proposing Men in Red for the academics/writers/historical figures/non-Anglophone people &c&c that aren't sportspeople or American/British politicians. No doubt that would make me very popular :) Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We already have the AfC project, and it does fairly well. If I were going to find a slogan, it would be pople in red, possibly divided up by subject. Women in red had done splendidly, once hey realizred they needed to be selective. I'fd not be opposed to other subgroup or national projects, iif they can get enthusiasts., but dividing people in these ways is not an ideal way to build a truly npov WP. I think we could do academics sucessfully on a university by university basis, with optional participation of the students in the schools involved. If we don't do something like this, the college pr people will do it for us, smd it makes even more work trying to get them to do it right. But the more specific the better. I would start with the subject lists in List of members of the National Academy of Sciences. first making a a list of everyone who has every been in the groups involved, and working on the redlinks. --the NAS has the advanrage of bios on deceased members available., but we haven't used them except sporadically. Other ideas welcome. We should take advage of the fact that for certain honors, everyone it is is notable, and we could start with the most basic stubs. This is a suitable place for wikidata to help us with a list, tho I wouldn't want to write even stubs on the basis of the information there. If we have 1 or 2 more people, we could start tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 10:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested in joining a group that wanted to build up the coverage of academics, though my preferred focus would probably be Brits. (I'm much less familiar with the American education system, and they tend to have better coverage.) Last I looked there were still some redlinks in the Fellows of the Royal Society lists, which confers bullet-proof notability (and also has bios for deceased fellows, although as I recall they're not currently free), and moreover the bulk of the articles that exist are extremely poor. It would also be extremely useful to get some community discussion on precisely what honours/similar constitute bullet-proof notability, to the point it's worth going through lists indiscriminately. I tend to be very conservative, and in consequence I don't think I've ever had an article I created deleted, but it's meant I tend to investigate people in detail and then NOT start the article because I'm not certain whether they are quite there yet... Not so much FRS-type awards, but (off the top of my head) presidents of national but specialist bodies, professorships at less-prestigious universities, invited autobios in various Annual Reviews (I did some of these a while ago and got pushback that they weren't independent), citations in disciplines off the mainstream, and -- broadening to writers -- precisely which writing awards count. Every time one brings this kind of issue up at general noticeboards, one hits variants of "just meet the GNG" or "three good sources" arguments, that ... aren't really helpful.
What would be excellent would be a single talk page where one could bring bios -- or ideas for bios -- not relating to women and get the kind of enthusiastic, positive but not uncritical support, advice and collaboration that the Women in Red project routinely offers on bios of women. For example, I recall encountering an apparently good-faith editor who was trying to build articles on civil engineers who'd served as president of a society of which the editor was also a past-president, and had been meeting storms of deletion requests on the grounds that the society didn't provide an independent source for its presidents. I know nothing about civil engineering, and most of the people were in commercial companies rather than universities, and of course they were all male, so I had to leave the creator to flounder. Architects are another discipline where apparently good-faith contributions tend to get rejected, in my experience.
I don't know about creating microstubs; they tend to put me off contributing sometimes because someone's "stolen" the creator rights, but it might make it easier for new editors to contribute (which could be positive or negative, given the quality of the average newbie edits). I worry that an autopatrolled editor could start a microstub and then a student expand it into a promotional wreck, without going through Articles for Creation or New Page Patrol.
Anyway, just a few jumbled thoughts to mull over the solsticial period! Cheers, and festive greetings if they're appropriate, Espresso Addict (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, in a borderline situation the thing to do is to do the article, and see if it gets accepted, but of course nobody want to spend effort on things that won't be accepted, so it is always a balance. Beginners I advise to start at the top; experienced people like us can take chances. Similarly, microstubs can be argued both ways--I personally create them, because I know my own inclination is to edit an existing article rather than start a new one. But I'm overall not all that concerned with people in mainstream fields as for some other topics, such as the practical side of life in general. It's very hard to go out and specifically look for sources--the technique has to be to find a good encyclopedic source, and work from it. Architects I think have a usable standard: notable buildings, and monographs about the person.
An excellent technique for all of this is editathons. It simply doesn't work online, and least not for me or for any I've seen, but in a place like NYC we've done very well with both small and large groups. The very best have been the ones at the Museum of Modern Art and the Metropolitan Museum. Maybe next fall... DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion on K D Krori by the way. I haven't stepped into AfD for a while, and was surprised at how many people whose notability seems to me fairly clear are currently being debated just in the Academics & educators list -- deletionists clearly don't take time off at Christmas/New Year...
I've not lived in/near a city since the foundation of the 'pedia, so I've never attended an in-person editathon. I've never succeeded in helping/encouraging a person to edit offline, despite trying many, many times with my online/offline acquaintance. There seems to be an enormous barrier to surmount before people make even one successful edit, even among people who are fluent in English, highly educated, used to professional or academic writing, and highly computer literate. In terms of online ones, I can't imagine it working with beginners but the British stub expansion that was held in March 2020 worked quite well, with established editors competing for prizes and improving ~thousand articles in the month. So looking forward to autumn, already! I'm trying to reconcile myself to the fact that I will have to shield till then, when I haven't been out in public since the beginning of March.
The new free sources in the Wikipedia Library need to be more widely publicised; I only worked out what was newly available without application the other week, and there must be a lot of qualifying editors who've never heard of it. The OUP collection is particularly useful; I've been working on a music theorist based on Grove's, and on a spotcheck there must be thousands of Grove's bio entries without articles. Resolution for 2021 to write more articles and get less drawn into fractious venues that make me walk away for 6 months; we will see how well that goes. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hey DGG, I noticed you marked the post I made for Draft: InStride as sounding more like an advertisement and I wanted to see if you could provide any updates/recommendations on how to improve this?

InStride Type – Private Industry – Education Founded – 2019 Area Serves – Worldwide Website – InStride.com InStride is an American education technology company located in Los Angeles, California. Background InStride enables employers to provide degrees and credentials to their employees through its partnerships with academic institutions across the United States, Mexico, Europe, and Australia. Its seed funding was provided by Arizona State University and The Rise Fund, a global impact investing fund managed by TPG Capital.[5] Vivek Sharma is the company’s CEO.

to be a little more exact, this does not show notability AND it's promotiona--I could have applied both templates. The Inside Higher Ed articles, and the other ostensibly third party sources, are essentially promotional writeups--promotional for both the firm and for the university . The article itself is a mere directory entry. Wording like "enables employers to provide degrees and credentials to their employees through its partnerships with academic institutions across the United States ..." is advertising-talk, from enables through across .
In a previous discussion, you claimed no Conflict of Interest (with respect to Kat Nouri .) I've looked at your other drafts. I am a little puzzled how you select your topics. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Živko Andrijašević[edit]

I think Živko Andrijašević is not a notable academic, but I'd like your input. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have written the standard historical dictionary of Montenegro--or at least the only historical dictionary of the country I was able to identify. I'd let it be. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll fix the stale tags. Bearian (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Ilya Wolston[edit]

This was proposed for deletion but turned away. Take a look at the weird history of the article. I don't think they are notable. Bearian (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

looking at [16] , it seems to have led to a supreme court case, about which we might be able to write an article. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Bearian (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Beddit[edit]

I noticed that you labelled the article I created as sounding like an advert. Can you give me any advice on how can I fix the article to not sound like an advert? Thanks in advance! X-Editor (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

emphasis on the trivial differences between versions, and the labelling of the product. Use of multiple minor articles and unauthoritative websites as references. I just tagged it for problems; not listed it for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know what the general problems with the article are. I removed some of the trivial info in the article. But would you mind telling me what these minor articles and unauthoritative websites are so I can remove their references? Thanks! Also, what labelling in the article do you consider problematic? I also understand that you didn't nominate it for deletion and just tagged the article instead. X-Editor (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
for an example of what I mean see my revision to Hello (company) I removed overuse of the corporate and the product name and substituted generic terms, combined 1 sentence paragraphs, eliminated minor product details of a device no longer manufactured, and condensed the presentation generally. I removed one unreliable source; What now needs to be done is to remove the refs to the unreliable Business Insider interviews, which are promotional interviews where the subject simply says whatever they care to,--such interviews are not longer considered reliable sources. I didn't remove it because its the unique source given for one of the statements, but its information that can probably be found in the others. All of these are common faults of promotional editing. So much of the information about companies in WP is promotional coi editing that it's very easy to fall into the same style. (I also added that one of the refs was from the NYT--promotional eds. often don't realize what we consider strong indications of significance)
Beddit is less of a problem, because there is more to say. Clean it a little, and remove the tag., DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the BI refs in the Hello article and cleaned up the article as well. I also did the remaining cleanup needed for the Beddit article and removed the tag. Thanks for helping me! Although there is some info in the Hello article that belonged to the BI articles that might not be in the other articles, but I don't have the time to go through all of those other sources to see which content to remove. It would be nice if you could that as well. X-Editor (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's your responsibility, not mine, to fix the articles you write. The reason I did so much editing here was as a demonstration, because it can be the best way to make things clear. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was just making a suggestion, but I'd be fine with doing it myself. X-Editor (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfC for 1929 all-black cast talkie - Draft:Oft in the Silly Night[edit]

I noticed that classic films are one of your interests. I ran into an AfC for a 1929 all-black cast talkie. Looks notable but could use some attention from somebody with more expertise: Draft:Oft in the Silly Night Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I accepted it. We usually accept film articles of this sort. I'm not going to add to it myself, but someone is likely to see this and pick it up. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b "Why students jumping off roofs is 'a huge social media thing'". www.cbc.ca. Retrieved 8 December 2020.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG/Archive_167_Dec_2020&oldid=998756858"