Hi!
You were my host at the Teahouse assisting me on infoboxes. I insisted on submitting the article I recently created Meddy (singer) for review when it's finished. I've so far tried to cite/reference any available 'fact' I added on the article. Hope the article is well with you too ANUwrites16:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
afyaniuhai, now there are very many references, and they're in very many places. As an example:
In 2021, Meddy married[9] his long term[10] Ethiopian girlfriend, Mimi Mehfira,[11][12] who met in the U.S. Meddy and his family live in Texas,[13][14] U.S, where both of them work. They welcomed their first child in 2022.[15]
Let's look at [10]. What's it the/a source for? Maybe "his long term"; maybe "Meddy married his long term"; maybe "in 2021, Meddy married his long term". But none of these is an intelligible statement. Only statements should be sourced. So I'd expect: In 2021, Meddy married his long term Ethiopian girlfriend, Mimi Mehfira, who he met in the U.S.[one or more references]. Or, if no single reference provides all that information, then: In 2021, Meddy married his long term Ethiopian girlfriend, Mimi Mehfira,[one or more references] who he met in the U.S.[one or more references]. -- Hoary (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Hoary for the preview, looking at the mistakes I've done on the article I thought was the best of my articles, I'll only dream of getting a , I still have alot to learn from you, Thanks, I'll relocate the sources on full and understandable statements from now on, starting with this article. ANUwrites08:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hoary!
user user:Ayo9 seems to be a possible sockpuppet/vandal (vandalizing mt talk page). Since I've written some articles around Tanzania, user thinks I'm a pushover/a paid editor. Forcing me to have a private conversation and giving out contacts. User deleted whever he/she wrote which I reverted both on my talk page and user's (I didn't). Also whatever the project user is doing I can see relationship between Draft:Simon Cosmas Michael to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Rieber. ANUwrites14:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
afyaniuhai, I encounter possible sockpuppets every day. Before doing anything about any of them, I need more than mere possibility. Now, if some user is vandalizing your talk page, I'm very willing to stop them, whether or not they're a sockpuppet. So I took a quick look at the three most recent edits by this user to your talk page:
This edit: It's a little odd to invite another user to contact one in some way outside Wikipedia (and for no specified reason).
This edit: I can't read this; but according to Google Translate, it's a polite (although rather surprising) request.
This edit: Improper, but the user is deleting their own earlier edits -- indeed, edits that you don't like.
On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge.
The page WP:Vandalism elaborates on this at some length. Note that vandalism is not described as meaning "editing in some way that irritates another editor".
I see no vandalism in any of these three edits. Ayo9 is free to invite you to do something, and you're free to decline the invitation or simply to ignore it. (Of course, repeatedly making the same invitation when it's clearly unwelcome would be a different matter.) If you don't want any further invitation to communicate outside Wikipedia, then simply say so (either to Ayo9 or to any visitor to your talk page), firmly but politely. -- Hoary (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary I appreciate for helping out to get clearity on this draft Draft:Damola Victor Ayegbayo On the comments questions you asked about the draft It Saatchi Art see the catalog here
[1] and the publisher is Issuu see my sources is from a reliable platform The Nation (Nigeria)The Guardian (Nigeria)see[2][3]the names of his artworks on the catalog can also be found on the first reference aswell.but i have also adjusted the contents by doing some copyediting and removed the contents that looks controversial. Thank you, I appreciate your highlights comments. Princek2019 (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary you are right, my phrasing was wrong that is the reason I did copyediting and removed any controversial contents as you highlighted. I have just adjusted it to the exact contents as you adviced and the reference as you advice aswell, I hope is better now ?. Thank you. Princek2019 (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm going to be failing the GAN for this article shortly, due to what appears to be an almost complete lack of response by the nominator. A pity, as it took some time to produce the review. Before I do that, can I check you aren't interested in completing it yourself, seeing as you made a few comments in the review page? I can extend the deadline by a week for you. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 07:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the invitation, Amitchell125. Of course articles don't become "Good" via the worthiness of their subjects, but I admit to occasionally feeling some twinges when I see "GA" awarded to scrupulously assembled articles on subjects that seem to be of little or no significance. By contrast, this church seems most worthwhile. Uh ... not that it matters, of course. Well, I see your point. At this stage, I'd fail the article too. I sense that its most energetic editor did a pretty good job with sources that tended to be rather mediocre: for real improvement, one would need access to specialist books (on City of London architecture, Wren, London social history). Quite aside from other constraints, I simply have no such access. And I have no education in architecture; so I fear that even if critical studies of Wren miraculously fell into my lap, I'd make terrible misunderstandings that would have architecturally informed readers chuckling. Let's hope that one or two people who are energetic, well-equipped and skilful turn up to improve the article. (Where's Giano when one needs him?) -- Hoary (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have improved the draft and would like to know your thoughts on it. I have removed all content that was not reliable. There're 2 other sources I'm not sure if they are reliable such as the glass magazine and Bristol old vic Veganpurplefox (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Veganpurplefox, try summarizing what reviews in intelligent sources have said about his acting. If there don't seem to be any such reviews, then perhaps, as others have suggested, it's too soon to create an article. -- Hoary (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will do the research about it now , I had added back the citation for will series. I had removed it before because I put the TV guide source in the first paragraph where is the Infobox and didnt want to have the same source appeared twice, but I added the source back as it said citation needed Veganpurplefox (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think the draft could be approved now? I only kept informations that had multiples reliable sources and took away the non reliable sources and content. Once I find reliable sources I'll will add them back Veganpurplefox (talk) 04:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Veganpurplefox, I suggested above that you "try summarizing what reviews in intelligent sources have said about his acting". I don't mean a list of TV programs, etc; I mean accounts of how he acted. I don't yet see any such summary in the draft. -- Hoary (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see sometimes on the reliable sources verified accounts on twitter can be a source. I was wondering if the account is not verified but it is shown in multiple reliable sources such as the time and the Guardian that they mention the username that it's the real one, can it be used then? Veganpurplefox (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to if if you're someone who can help me with another draft I created called Victoria Emslie. Someone else is also editing it but I don't think some of the sources are reliable ,or should I ask in the tea talk? Veganpurplefox (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Veganpurplefox, reliability isn't simply yes/no. It's common for musicians to start with a recorder, so an article about a cellist might say that her first instrument, when still a child, was the recorder, and may use her own website as the reference for this. If on the other hand the article said that at the age of 10 she made her professional debut on the recorder with a public performance of a trio sonata by C P E Bach, her own website would be utterly insufficient as the reference. In order to read up on the relative reliability of certain specific sources, start by looking for these sources in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. If there's nothing there, go to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and look near the top for "Search the noticeboard archives". Just above it, type the title (website, magazine, etc) that you're looking for; and then click "Search the noticeboard archives". If you're still not sure about a potential source, ask about it on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Do not get into an edit war over the source. Instead, explain on Draft talk:Victoria Emslie why you believe that the source is inadequate, aiming to persuade other editors of this. -- Hoary (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went to the user talk and said "thank you for helping me with the draft" and explained about the reliable sources and sent the link of reliable sources but when I joined wiki I didn't know there was something to talk to others and didn't know the red notification so it might take a long time before the user notice it, I have made some changes in the draft Veganpurplefox (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this draft could be approved, I found more informations about her from reliable sources and more websites than Hayter, I believe she could meet the notability criteras. I also found out Chloé Hayden had already had a wiki page and I improved it as it had lack of reliable sources! Veganpurplefox (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Veganpurplefox, if Victoria Emslie is "best known for her roles in Downton Abbey, The Theory of Everything, The Frankenstein Chronicles, The Danish Girl and the TV adaption of 12 Monkeys", then what has been said about her performance in these roles? Although The Guardian says quite a lot about British TV programmes, it seems never to have mentioned her. Unfortunately no other British newspaper comes close to the Guardian (combined with the Observer) for the quantity of material that's both (i) free to access and (ii) (usually) of high quality; but I'd expect that other news websites would say something. However, if they do not, then this suggests that she's not "notable" (as this is defined in Wikipedia). Of course lack of Wikipedia-defined notability doesn't mean lack of merit. -- Hoary (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If some do talk about it it's from website that aren't considered reliable or the ones that were taken down/archived that I have no access to them Veganpurplefox (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was wondering since Hayter is both in tv guide and rotten tomatoes for his role in the Will series as Thomas Walsingham, can he be added to the recurrent characters in the Wikipedia page of the series? Veganpurplefox (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried but got removed all the time,so I don't understand why since those 2 websites are reliable but people say it's "promotion" to add him Veganpurplefox (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Hoary, thanks for your advice. You indicated to me to only put 3 references of the livign person CONSTANZA NAVARRO MEZA to ask you to publish it on Wikipedia. I already sent for publication her biography in english and in spanish. Her 3 most notable references are the following.
The editor who created that page and has been most active there is known for naive use of machine translation to process content from languages they cannot understand. Unfortunately, in all cases I've explored in depth, it is clear that they also don't understand the subject matter of the articles they are creating, which is making a bit of a mess. See also User_talk:Immanuelle/Archive_2#New_article, and more extensive commentary and advice to that user at User_talk:Immanuelle/Archive_2#Dongyue_Dadi, among other threads.
Thanks for your comments re: Draft:Yinka Ilori. May I ask you to point me in the right direction to add comments directly via the AfC process (e.g., {{AFC comment|1=[etc.]}} rather than the manual addition I made)? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A very reasonable question, Cl3phact0; but as the creator of the draft, you're not really supposed to do this. If a reviewer's comment/suggestion/request seems reasonable, you simply follow it; if it doesn't, you could comment on the reviewer's talk page. Incidentally, when I praise the previous article, I don't mean to knock your draft. The deletion of the previous article annoys me, because the deletion has wasted various people's time: its author's, yours, mine, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I picked-up on someone else's draft when I noticed the declined article (although I am now a significant contributor). Ilori was on my to do list previously, but the impetus was sparked by the declined article.
Re: the AfC question, I'm simply curious how to access (even if not appropriate in this case).
Re: deletion of previous article, I understand your annoyance (though I never saw the actual article, so can't speak to its merit or otherwise). Waste of time is frustrating. I only joined this project fairly recently, so don't have too much history here, but I've seen some of my work removed with seemingly very little regard for the the value of other people's time. If enough of my time is wasted, I'll probably head for the exit at some point.
It's a reasonable question. You have to sign up to be an AfC reviewer. There are requirements for this: You can be fairly new, but not very new: all this is explained here. Once you're okayed, you install AfC's "helper script". Once that's done, any time you, the reviewer, see a draft (whether or not it has been submitted as an article candidate), you hit a certain key combination (which combination it is depends on your OS, GUI, browser, etc), and you get two or three options. One of these is "Comments". Click this option, write the comment (which will be autosigned), check "Notify submitter" if you want to notify the submitter, click "Post comment", and you're done. Incidentally, when any reviewer uses the same helper script to accept the draft as an article, all these comments are automatically flushed away. (The helper script is an excellent little piece of software.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vaporetto, Venice, 1960: What an extraordinary photograph! Fantastic too that Berengo Gardin sort of shrugs it off as just a lucky day on the way to work, one-shot-deal kind of thing — humilitas occidit superbiam, alas (would that there were more of it too). I'll absolutely read the articles in finer detail. (If I spot any translation improvements that might be made, I'll let you know.) Thanks for the links, Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Hoary. Since I addressed all of your concerns as well as Greenman's, can you please consider approving the article now? It looks to be far more neutral and comprehensive than several other published articles about architectural firms. Rambam666 (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your new comments. I will work on adding more information about each of the projects. So that I can try to address everything at once, can you please let me know if you have other issues that I need to address before the article can be published? Thanks. Rambam666 (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Hoary - Thank you for your recent help last week on adding page numbers to references using Rp. I did not see your latest reply for a few days, but when I noticed it was there, and clicked on it in my "Alerts" -- I got the message that the message could not be found and may have been deleted or moved. How can I easily find this conversation if I need to refer to it? Who deleted or moved it?
SP-lava, a very few question-and-answer or request-and-response pages here don't have archives. But the Teahouse is among the great majority that do. So I went to the top of that page, and looked for either a link to a set of archives (there wasn't one) or a list of archives (there was one). I clicked on the link to the most recent archive (the one with the highest number). Within that, I searched for the string "template:rp". -- Hoary (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your review of my page for Wilf Perreault. I have tried to address the points you raised. Are you willing to review the page again before I resubmit it, or should I take the plunge? Again, many thanks.
Eisbergsk (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Sharon Eisbrenner[reply]
Hello Hoary, I'm not sure if it's best to discuss Gianni Berengo Gardin here or on the Talk page of the article itself (some of my thoughts are only tangentially related).
Being a mostly visual thinker, my go-to is Commons, especially when the subject is a visual artist. In the case of the GBG article, it seems to me that more examples of his work (perhaps even a "Gallery of work" section), as well as a portrait of the photographer himself would be a welcome addition. There are a few fotos that are attributed to Gianni Berengo Gardin on Commons. I also noted that (this is the tangent) in the accompanying article Gianni Berengo Gardin bibliography, the name Paolo Monti is mentioned a number of times. There is a vast amount of Monti's work on Commons, some of which seems to intersect with GBG (who's name is mentioned in the metadata of some of the Monti photographs: such as here and here). They were contemporaries, and one would assume they were acquainted. Without meaning to veer into WP:ORIGINAL, it seemed that this might be of use. (I've used or found Monti's work in a number of articles which I've edited, mostly about Italian architects and designers who were active in the post-war period.)
There is also a Screenshot of the film In the Mind's Garden, which purportedly is an image of Berengo Gardin (I don't know what he looks like, so am only assuming the WP:GOODFAITH accuracy of the claim). A few thoughts and questions (and some more tangential stuff): Would it be appropriate to use this image in the GBG article (it's used in the it:wp article about the film in the context of Morire di classe — though not in en:wp)? (I've had a pretty off-putting experience on Commons thus far with most everything I've tried to do with imagery — notably in relation to screenshots I have made/uploaded — and don't want to invite any of that to be visited upon your good work here.) I also note that the marvellous Vaporetto shot is not on Commons. Is any of this related to the apparent randomness of the vetting process over there (in Commons)?
Cl3phact0, many thanks for the research and suggestions. I'll follow up the latter within the next few hours. In the meantime, yes, the Vaporetto photograph is here at en:Wikipedia, and at a miserably small resolution, because it's (conventionally, "all rights reserved") copyright and thus ineligible for upload to Commons. If there are images by GBG at Commons, this could be for legitimate reasons and (unfortunately) also despite being ineligible. If I believe that they're not there legitimately, then I'll move to have them deleted, regardless of the uploaders' or anyone else's (or my own) disappointment. The thing is, if you're the creator of a fairly recent photograph, then it shouldn't be some random person with an internet connection to Commons who gets to decide that this photograph of yours is their "own work" either to license via CC or whose copyright he can waive so that anyone can use the photograph for just about any purpose (including commercial). -- Hoary (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is indeed a photograph of Berengo Gardin (who I recognize from how he appears in other photos that we cannot use). And I have no reason to believe the uploader's claim that this and the other three screenshots are, as Commons would define it, their "own work". (I'm willing to believe that the uploader was the person who made the screenshots from a video, but this is not authorship as understood here.) And therefore I've nominated all four for deletion. I'm open to being persuaded that I'm wrong; but if I'm right and we had an article on that film in en:Wikipedia, then perhaps one of these four, reduced in size, could be used for the article under a claim of "fair use". But I'm not sure even of this, because it's not obvious to me that any one of them could be said to represent the film as a whole. [cough] How much of this talk about the little group of Berengo Gardin articles is a smokescreen to keep you from noticing and examining two other articles, Elio Ciol and Enzo Sellerio, for whose awfulness I am largely responsible? My explanation (not justification) was that both articles were perpetrated a long time ago, back when the requirement for verifiability was largely ignored (at least until somebody questioned what an article said). I really ought to try to improve both. Not this week, however. -- Hoary (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot to take in on the Commons side. I'll try to find time to gain a better understanding. I'd somewhat abandoned it for now (as often when I've touched something image related it's led to unexpected and mostly negative outcomes).
Works in Commons by photographers one has heard of (or anyway weren't the uploaders) -- ugh, this area may be even more of a mess than you realize, Cl3phact0.
I looked at the Ciol photo. "Lorenzociol" (contributions), who uploaded it, describes it as the work of Stefano Ciol and as coming from this page. Imaginably Lorenzo and Stefano are grandson and son respectively, or otherwise related. But imaginably not at all. However, yes, the photograph is from that web page, at the foot of which, we read: "ELIO CIOL COPYRIGHT 2013 - TUTTI I DIRITTI RISERVATI".
As for File:Paolo Monti - Serie fotografica (Ferrara, 1982) - BEIC 6346632.jpg, if I understand right, the "Photographer" is Paolo Ravenna (a lawyer), and it's "Sicilia/ n. 30 fotografie di Enzo Sellerio/ (1963 ca.)". And it was taken in Ferrara, circa 1963, or more precisely 1982. (I'm surprised to learn how far south Ferrara was back in 1982.) It's from a 1978 notebook of Monti's, so the notebook may have included photographs from four years in its own future. Anyway, if the print was indeed in the possession of Monti (and I have no reason to doubt this), then it's legitimately at BEIC. But I have trouble believing that when Sellerio passed these prints to Monti, he added "And the copyright too is yours. And because it's yours, you or your estate are free to pass it on."
The Sellerio photo ought to be usable (in the right place), if one both (i) points out that it's Italian and created over 20 years ago, and (ii) can convincingly claim that it's an image of a person that's not a "work of photographic art" but is instead a "simple photograph". (See this template.) So Wikipedia has articles (in five languages) on Sellerio because he was a notable artist of photography; but we deny that the photographs by him that we want to use are works of photographic art. Something's wrong here.
However, one thing is clear about this confusingly described photo. The person it shows is not Sellerio. Its appearance, by itself, in an article about Sellerio would probably be misunderstood as showing Sellerio. And therefore, no.
On 16 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Yinka Ilori, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the artist and designer Yinka Ilori once made a collection of chairs that were inspired by a Nigerian parable about a giraffe? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Yinka Ilori. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Yinka Ilori), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
I want to thank you and the other two reviewers for taking time to review Draft:Mildred Johnson Library. At this point, I've added all the relevant information and will not be doing any additional editing. Will it be possible to approve the draft as it stands now? I appreciate your time and feedback. Thanks again. Amycarson12 (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing feedback. I have updated Draft:Mildred Johnson Library with two additional citations (as suggested). Hope that it can be approved as an article now. Appreciate your time and advice. Amycarson12 (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has improved, good. But its status remains fragile. I'm not so surprised by this. The article isn't at all promotional: this is good, and might slightly help the chances for survival. However, there's no guideline or policy that says that the sobriety or modesty of an article helps outweigh the lack of evidence in the article for the notability (as defined here) of its subject. And therefore I suggest that you try hard to come up with more sources for the article. (From now, avoid editing the article; instead, make suggestions at the foot of Talk:Mildred Johnson Library, preferably using Template:Request edit.) Good luck! -- Hoary (talk) 10:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will keep this in mind and encourage our students to dig deep for reliable sources to back up our notability claim.
Before doing additional editing, I will post any updates or issue to the article's talk page.
My hope is that the article will survive until (at least) the end of May as this will allow me to mention the Mildred Johnson Library article during our National Library Week Wikipedia event (April 23-29). Thanks again for your assistance and advice. Much appreciated. Amycarson12 (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, David10244, I try to tell it like it is. I know I should utter more of the "Welcome to the teahouse" kind of thing, but I have to retain my sanity somehow. (For the last several days I've been on the verge of losing it, while drafting an augmentation of an existing article -- though so far on my hard drive.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I have added some new information onto the Wikipedia page for Provoke Magazine. Seeing as you have in the past edited this page, and that you are a part of WikiProject Photography, I would like to ask if you could take a look at my edits and provide me with some feedback. Thank you! - Andrew34jack (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, Andrew. You've certainly improved the article. There are several distinct oddities, however: please look at the foot of Talk:Provoke (magazine) for my comments. (Perhaps these oddities predate your involvement in the article: I didn't look.) Several of the references that don't specify the authors are probably to sources that do have their authors specified: I fixed this for the series by Brueggemann, but I'll (lazily?) leave the others for you, or some other energetic person. ¶ This is irrelevant to editing Wikipedia, but if you happen (A) to be interested and (B) to have some spare cash, Nitesha has just reprinted its Provoke reprint. ¶ And a minor matter of custom here: We add a new discussion thread to the foot, not the head, of a talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hoary. Thank you for the feedback you provided on the Provoke article. I am fairly new to Wikipedia so my apologies for adding a discussion thread the wrong way. I am still finding my way around Wikipedia's interface, so I am sorry for replying to messages late. I would have loved to purchased copies of Provoke, but unfortuntely they sell out fast and I typically don't have enough cash for the amount they are being sold these days. Andrew34jack (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew34jack, yes, 8800 yen (or for you, 8000 yen, plus "shipping", plus retailer's profit, perhaps also plus sales tax) is a lot. (It's not a lot only for those who both have an ample income and can take seriously the prices asked for remaining copies of the original.) I have to say that I wouldn't be tempted even if it were discounted by 60%: Provoke is significant in photographic history, and richly deserves a good article here ... but in 2023, when I look at that style of photo, it seems terribly old hat. By contrast, Takanashi's later books Machi and Miyako no kao haven't dated at all. ¶ After this university assignment is done, are you intending to stick around in Wikipedia? (I hope so!) -- Hoary (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I do think the aesthetics of Provoke have been widely replicated since its release (a testament to how influential it was I am sure), I still retain a particular soft spot for their style, especially for the works of Moriyama Daido. He has always been one of my favourite photographers and I often take inspiration from him when taking pictures of my own. There is also a great documentary on Moriyama called "Near Equal" (if you haven't already seen it). One of my favourite contemporary photographers, Trent Parke, I feel also takes inspiration from Provoke (especially in his book "Minutes to Midnight"). To be honest 8800 yen actually seems reasonable to me, I have seen reprints of Provoke go for upwards of 150USD. I do hope to stay on Wikipedia after my university course ends, although I am a bit skeptical of whether I possess the expertise in regards to knowledge in order to contribute. Andrew34jack (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew34jack, I haven't even heard of "Near Equal"; thank you for the tip. I should look at Moriyama's work afresh -- particularly his early work, made when his style was new to him. Or perhaps this or that within his later work if somebody recommends it. On the pricing of the Provoke reprints: I blame the anchoring effect. (If I'm attributing a cognitive bias to you -- hardly a polite thing to do -- then I attribute the same to myself. When Nagasawa publishes yet another book of Suda's for two or three times what an alternative publisher would charge, I tend to tell myself "Well, it has dozens of photos, and it costs less than just a single print of his would.") Though by all accounts Nite-sha has done a fastidious job here; I don't suppose that they're getting rich from this project. Meanwhile, Trent Parke: I've never managed to see a book by him, unfortunately. And these days copies of Minutes to Midnight are priced for people with deeper pockets than mine. Three things that the articles here on Suda and Parke have in common: they're mostly lists, they're crap, I'm partly to blame. If you improve the one on Parke, I'll improve the one on Suda. (Umm ... eventually, maybe.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A tempting proposition to work on Trent Parke's article. I will look into it and update you. If you are a fan of the Provoke/Moriyama style, I think Minutes to Midnight will be right up your alley. Andrew34jack (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew34jack, as I hinted, I'm not a fan; but jpegs have shown me that Parke does something interesting with unexpected gleams and radiances (I can't think of the right word), so I'd approach a book of his with an open mind and perhaps enjoy it. (And I see that the photo museum here hasMinutes to Midnight.) I should warn you that I can't work on an article on Suda (or take on any other non-trivial project) any time soon: I'm working on something entirely different (using my hard drive as the "sandbox"); it's rather a big thing and it's coming along a lot more slowly than I feared (let alone hoped) when I embarked on it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case you are not aware (I reckon you are though!) The editor adding the multiple 'same name threads' at the help desk is our old 'friend'. Like everything else, been advised dozens (100s?) of times, to no effect. Eagleash (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha; indeed, but trademark editing traits and we know they are a retired teacher from Australia, probably from a religious order (Username, Sr(sister)XXXXX). Also used the same IP to edit pages with a Lupton connection. Keep whacking that mole... Best, Eagleash (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be a good thing if Wikipedia shut down. The few hundred good articles could be saved somehow and the rest binned. It would be no loss. 2.99.213.247 (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Hi there. Although I wish that all our articles could be on par with that of a professional publication, Wikipedia itself is a non-profit volunteer-managed project, which means that all of our editors do work here (with a few exceptions) for free. We could just hire professional editors, but doing so is expensive and restrictive towards the many people who can contribute on widely different and niche topics, and would leave many of our millions of important articles unmaintained and out-of-date. So although Wikipedia will never be as good as a paid publication, we can provide free, up-to-date knowledge that will be gradually improved over time. If you want a more professional but less flexible (and paid) source of knowledge, I suggest trying out the Encyclopaedia Brittanica website. The Night Watch(talk)23:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am. But being an administrator doesn't bring with it the power to shut Wikipedia down. If it were shut down, the good articles probably would be saved; the bad ones too. It's unlikely that Wikipedia will shut itself down any time soon. An approach more likely to succeed might be to persuade authoritarian nations, of which there are many, that Wikipedia dangerously threatens lawn order, morals, religion, "family values", etc (not to mention gratitude for and love of the current autocracy). However, if you're still intent on persuading Wikipedia to shut itself down, the place to develop such a proposal and make it more persuasive, is Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). -- Hoary (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article Teikō Shiotani you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Teikō Shiotani for comments about the article, and Talk:Teikō Shiotani/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is indeed an acceptable address. (The full form, "Hi ho Your Excellency", need only be used at coronations, abdications, whippet races, and the like.) Your suggestion was proper; I agreed with it (as long as the hyphen was slightly lengthened); I implemented my minor variant of it. -- Hoary (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hoary, thank you for reviewing the Sasha Gordon draft page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sasha_Gordon). I removed the exhibition history section and correct the "the artist" references (made by a previous writer, unknown to me).
I believe that the standard for reliable sources is met. The source list includes most of the top reliable publications in the art world today...ones that most artists could only dream of having any coverage in:
Yes, some of the articles naturally include interviews with the artist, but they also include a significant amount of the author's coverage/perspective. This artist is currently prominently displayed at major art museums including the Hammer Museum and the Baltimore Museum of Art, and she is the subject of a major solo show at the Institute of Contemporary Art Miami later this year. She just attended the Met Gala, putting her in an extremely rarified position among living visual artists.
It is evident that the artist is on a trajectory to the top of modern art and will continue to receive a steady stream of significant coverage, especially driven by her major US museum solo show later this year, which is occurring at the same time that the global art world will be in town for Art Basel. It's not doing anyone any favors to shelve this article, which a lot of time was put into by uninterested parties, until then just to tip past an ambiguous standard that most reasonable people who regularly read art news would conclude to have been substantially met by Vogue Magazine, ArtNews, Artsy, ArtNet News, and Juxtapoz.
If it is possible, I request that this be put up to a community review to alleviate any potential bias against the subject's age or other factors by a single reviewer. Arthistoryx (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, from tracking this artist on Instagram for awhile, it is evident that many of the writers of the articles sought out Gordon, rather than being approached by a publicity agency or gallery. In particular, this was the case with the Vogue Article. They appear to essentially be "fans" who are also writers at major publications. Naturally, they are going to want an interview with someone they are fascinated by. Regardless, as mentioned before, the writers still included substantial coverage/commentary on top of the first-hand interview data they obtained. Arthistoryx (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, here is a bit of background on some of the sources (excluding the major museum websites, etc):
ArtNews: Founded in 1902; Circulation of 180k in 124 countries. It includes news dispatches from correspondents, investigative reports, reviews of exhibitions, and profiles of artists and collectors. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARTnews)
Juxtapoz: As of 2009, Juxtapoz had the largest circulation of any art magazine in the United States, more than established counterparts like Art News, Art in America, and Artforum. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juxtapoz)
Additionally, I added a "Public Collections" section (listing works in major museum collections) in lieu of the exhibitions section and added a few other pieces of information throughout. Arthistoryx (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reread all of the articles. I don't think it's accurate to call them "interviews" which would seem to insinuate that they're maybe 1-2 intro paragraphs and then a question/answer transcript. Again, yes many of the articles interviewed the primary topic of the article (naturally), but quotes from the artist account for well under half of the content in most of the major articles.
Again, I have no relationship or connection to the artist, if that's the hunch here. I'm an art enthusiast and was surprised that this essentially A-list painter didn't have a Wikipedia page yet. Arthistoryx (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arthistoryx, you raise a number of points, most of which I shall (at least temporarily) set aside, because (through no fault of yours) I'm tired after spending a lot more time tweaking the draft than I'd intended to. (Briefly, I edited it, accidentally reverted my own edits and more by editing a much earlier version, failed to realize quite what had happened and misattributed the oddity to a database failure, and had to do all my edits again, and some earlier ones too.)
You write: "This artist is currently prominently displayed at major art museums including the Hammer Museum and the Baltimore Museum of Art". That surprised me: When I declined the draft, had I really been so sleepy that I failed to notice something about collections? The draft showed that she had work in five museums: that's WP:ARTIST 5(d) satisfied. But no I hadn't been that sleepy: This material had (beneficially) been added afterwards.
Arthistoryx, I've promoted the draft to article status. Now, a few of the loose ends. You wrote: It is evident that the artist is on a trajectory to the top of modern art and will continue to receive a steady stream of significant coverage, especially driven by her major US museum solo show later this year, which is occurring at the same time that the global art world will be in town for Art Basel. I ignored that. Even if "reliable sources" were cited as saying this, I'd have ignored it. It's not doing anyone any favors to shelve this article, which a lot of time was put into by uninterested parties, [...]. I ignored that too. "She's about to be really famous", and "Editors disinterestedly invested a lot of time and effort into creating this" are not reasons for an article. If it is possible, I request that this be put up to a community review to alleviate any potential bias against the subject's age or other factors by a single reviewer. A draft reviewer has three options: (i) accept a draft (as I did a few hours ago), (ii) decline it (as I did earlier), and (iii) reject it. The third sends the message "Stop this enterprise: it's just wasting your and our time". The second says "This has one or more kinds of problem. You're welcome to try fixing them and then to resubmit." Of course a reviewer might decline vexatiously or vindictively (and you might suspect that sexism, racism, or similar is to blame). If so, the first place to ask is probably Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. (Tip: Avoid diagnosing sexism, racism, or similar [unless it's blatant, of course]; instead, provide the evidence for your inference and let readers infer it for themselves.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciate the additional review, reworking of the article, and the very helpful information, Hoary! I did indeed add the collections section as a rework of the Exhibitions section (thanks to your original advice), so you definitely didn't miss anything there. Thank you for the time you dedicate to this great resource for the benefit of present and future generations! Arthistoryx (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the article the way you mentioned by addimg the book titles in the original language (Persian) and ISBN for the books that had it (some of the books didnt have ISBN). Can you check the article again to see if i should do something else or change other parts ?
Sorry, too sleepy now to think very constructively, Bear1375. But one thing you could constructively do is to convert (I'll show via one example) ISBN 978-9936-31-128-2 to {{ISBN|978-9936-31-128-2}}. (I'm assuming that you're using the source editor.) The result: ISBN978-9936-31-128-2, which usefully links to a page with links to that ISBN in libraries, databases, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delivering advice by the truckfulColinFine, this is an encyclopedia; I don't normally subject people to unsolicited advice or pedagogy, but time and energy willing I'll subject myths to unsolicited corrections. Certain bizarre dicta are solemnly repeated at the "Teahouse": that (say) Biden is not the subject of a page (every article is a page), that the article about Biden is not "Biden's" article (true only for a risibly blinkered understanding of the genitive), that Biden doesn't "have" an article (true only for a risibly blinkered understanding of have), and more. -- Hoary (talk) 09:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I get that this genre well too simillar with street photography... and a lot of people are under this misconception. So just like wikipedia's article redirects to street photography when you search UP, a lot of people indeed write about SP, while the contents are well too accommodated for UP. So only a few experienced photographers could write about it
they may all not have strong online article sites... (feeble references), But I assure you it is a notable article...
i'm just asking if there is any lack of citation or other common problems in there...
and this article would be improved once it's out there as people more experienced then me can put their edits
maybe they didn't get the idea to post an article on it...
Fahim Mostafa324, after saying that I guessed "urban photography" meant "photography in the streets that wouldn't normally be thought of as 'street photography'", I read and thought again and wondered if it instead meant "photography in the streets whether or not it would normally be thought of as 'street photography'". (Of course "street photography", as the term is now widely used, isn't limited to the streets.) ¶ Do you have any sources in books (that is, books from regular publishers, not self-published books, books from vanity publishers, etc)? Or in journals about the history or theory of photography? Or newspaper or magazine articles by critics/historians of photography? ¶ As for books, I imagine that Westerbeck and Meyerowitz's Bystander: A History of Street Photography would be useful. It can be "borrowed" from archive.org. And as for the term "urban photography": this. ¶ For you to move this draft into article space would be a bad idea. -- Hoary (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, man. People just don't write things comparing SP with UP.
It's a completely different genre.
and is considered so
they are two Photographic genres with same venue...the town...
and people who are photography passionate knows the difference easily.
so they don't have much need for writing on distinctions between them.
And these books are written for these audiences mainly....
SP is simillarised with UP only by amateurs and other People who lack sufficient knowledge on photography
For example SP is also simillarised with candid photography, but CP is a diff thing altogether...as you can take candid pics anywhere (not just the streets)..."
these are misconceptions and i think the larger audience needs to know and edit this article...
I'll look into some more sources and I think it should be moved to the mainspace ...
Fahim Mostafa324, if UP is such a very different genre from SP that they're incomparable, it would be wise to have the draft say this, backed up by a citation of a reliable source. And you won't be able to assert that people who are passionate about photography know such-and-such unless you can back up this too with a good reference. Rather than dismissing opinions that, however sincerely, you believe are wrong, dismissing them because they're held "only by amateurs and other People who lack sufficient knowledge on photography", be sure to present reliable sources for the veracity of what you know to be right. The article you now point me to, "Street Photography vs Urban Geometry: What’s the Difference?" is rather odd. ¶ It's about "urban geometry", and the author introduces it in terms of "street photography" and even describes it in contradistinction to "street photography" (as one might guess from the title), and also "architecture/real estate". The article doesn't mention the string "urban photography". Are you saying that what the author calls "urban geometry" is what you call "urban photography"? I'd understand that, but if it's what you're saying and if you're recommending this web page then you're going to have to abandon any claim that UP and SP aren't comparable. -- Hoary (talk) 05:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your comment on User talk:Igor Markov and wanted to know what you thought of the actions of editor Edit.pdf. On their 11th edit they were nominating pages for deletion discussions and they are now sending a lot of articles to AFD and draftifying articles and they have less than 200 edits to their name. I was here for a long time before I took on actions like this. I asked them on their talk page if they have had previous accounts which would explain their authoritative and knowledgeable attitute towards editing and other editors. But when I make inquiries like this, editors are usually less than forthcoming (although I have had some editors admit to having blocked accounts).
I think their editing has been positive in general but their precociousness raises red flags which I see was true for Igor Markov as well. I don't think it's a good sign when relatively inexperienced editors are accusing more experienced editors of being paid to write. Not that you can't be an experienced paid editor, it just seems a little unusual behavior for a newbie editor to do. Thanks for offering a second opinion. LizRead!Talk!03:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Without commenting on this editor in particular, Liz, I've often sensed that a lot of editors have little appetite for reading the instructions about, say, giving warnings, and perhaps don't even have the education/maturity to let them distinguish between (A) evidence that's hard to explain other than having arisen from a COI, and (B) evidence that's merely compatible with a COI. I'm certain that very inexperienced editors shouldn't be posting such warnings, that they shouldn't be creating new drafts, and that they shouldn't be making more than a dozen or so edits per day. Also, anyone posting a warning and having the warning questioned (other than vexatiously) should either justify it or withdraw it. But WP is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and editors are told to "be bold". -- Hoary (talk) 06:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, 痛: I think you're the first person to diagnose patience or the ability to deescalate things among my editing traits. (I'd thought that uppermost was a tendency to whinge -- and there's also this revelation.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Vanessa1014, The section on the speeches delivered looks irrelevant to me because WP:NOTADIRECTORY and the same with so many non-notable awards on the list. Besides that the Design theory is entirely unreferenced. I would suggest trimming down the article a bit more. I am happy with having the Signature projects section in prose than being in a list that consumes a lot of space, once again for the same reason. Best regards, ─ The Aafī(talk)12:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt comments. I will update the content and try to trim down the concent mentioned by you and The Aafi. After I revise all the parts, I will let you know. Best regards. Vanessa1014 (talk) 08:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Hoary, I've already revise those parts accordingly. Could you help recheck it again? If no further problems, kindly give me further instructions how to proceed the latter steps. Thank you very much for your patient direction. Vanessa1014 (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your prompt review and suggestion! I recheck all the source links again. If any more problems, just kindly give me further instructions. Best regrards! Vanessa1014 (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hoary, could you continue to review the draft? The sources has been updated for several rounds. If any problems, just give me further instructions. Thank you. Appreciate for your help and do let me know there's hope for this draft to become an article. Best regards. Vanessa1014 (talk) 07:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you helped me a lot getting my Jusaburō Tsujimura article published. Because of your interest in articles on Japanese arts and culture I thought you might be able to offer some notes on my draft for the Gutai artist, Minoru Yoshida? I am sorry if this is rude or odd to ask directly, fairly new/infrequent user here and not totally clear on the manners here.... Chainsawpunk (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
Hi, Hoary. Looking at the last 50,000 edits at the Teahouse, I see you're the fourth most active editor there at the moment.
It'd be great if you would consider adding your name to the 'Host' list, as I would like to replace two or three of the inactive editor names with currently active ones in the little image/name section that rotates around in the Teahouse header. It obviously makes sense to have those people's usernames also listed in the Host list. It's hardly a mission-critical element, but I like to think it helps create that slightly different and friendly feel that the Teahouse has always tried to maintain. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Moyes, I'm number four? That's disturbing. I'll see if I can't push it down to number eight or so. ¶ I thought somebody had already added my name, with a generic graphic. Whoever that person was, they didn't ask me beforehand, and seemed rather apologetic about the fait accompli. (I didn't much mind; though I didn't think, and still don't think, that I have the right temperament.) ¶ It's been a long day. I'll attend to this tomorrow morning (my time). -- Hoary (talk) 11:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear - I've cocked up again! It would indeed have been me who did the 'fait accompli' a while back. I'd forgotten. I'm afraid when I wrote the above, I was working off my (slightly out of date) Excel spreadsheet which I maintain at home to try to keep track of the hosts and so-called 'featured' usernames. So, yes, actually you are already on the rotating image on the Teahouse header, but I could still do with you appearing on the general list of all Hosts. I'm happy to do that for you, if you wish.
Nick Moyes, no, you're innocent. It was "another user". My then-status (since unchanged) is explained in WT:Teahouse/Archive 25, I find. You write: "another user (who was previously very active here), stepped away and unilaterally added Hoary's name without me spotting it". And that addition was to a one-host-at-a-time doodad (template, "feature", whatever), which no longer seems to be in use. -- Hoary (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Moyes, thinking that Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host start might tell me, I went there, and was told: "Hi! This is how you become a Teahouse host: / Are you..." and a curiously scrunched-up list (needs leading!) -- followed by "You are not yet eligible to become a Teahouse host because you are not extended-confirmed, but we hope you'll stick around and consider it in the future!" So either my extension needs to be confirmed, or my confirmation needs to be extended, I suppose. -- Hoary (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's weird: I'm also getting the same "You are not yet eligible to become a Teahouse host because you are not extended-confirmed, but we hope you'll stick around and consider it in the future!". I am currently editing in a Chrome incognito browser as I also have my alternative (NM Demo 2) account in use in a normal Chrome window. Maybe that's the cause.. .
...but to answer your question, yes, Host start is the easiest route to sign up with (when the form's working), but it's quite feasible to edit Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host landing directly.
TBH: I think it's time we delete that part of the form (see WP:Teahouse/Host preload) which inserts all this now irrelevant gumpf into the Host_landing page, and then I can clear all the 100+ sets of empty fields out of the Host_landing page:
Hi Nick/Hoary, and thanks for the ping! I see what's happening. Since being extended-confirmed is a requirement to become a Teahouse host, the purpose of my edit back in June was to make it so that the sign-up box appeared only to those eligible (showing content only to those it is relevant for is a good design principle anywhere, and is particularly important for the newcomer-friendly environment of the Teahouse). It's working as expected for me and most others, but you two are seeing the non-eligible message since you are not extended-confirmed (!?!). That's since you're admins, and admins aren't technically part of the extended-confirmed group. I tried adding a separate switch so that, for non-EC editors, it also checks if you're an admin and shows the sign-up box if you are and the "you're not eligible" message if not, but that didn't work as it's not possible to show content only to non-admins (@Izno and @Xaosflux rejected the request to make that possible here).
@Sdkb you want to only show something to xc and sysop? Just wrap it in a div and use extendedconfirmed-show and sysop-show class should work. — xaosfluxTalk23:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux, the trouble is that we also want to show a "sorry, you're not eligible" message to those who are neither admins nor extended-confirmed. And I don't know how to do that/if that's even possible without nonsysop-show in MediaWiki:Group-sysop.css. {{u|Sdkb}}talk23:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can't, but the admins can just get over it. Just make the nope message say something like you must be extended confirmed or an admin to be eligible. — xaosfluxTalk00:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux, I'm not sure I completely follow your suggestion. The message currently looks like this, where if you scroll down, you'll see the rejection note because you're not technically extended-confirmed. We'd ideally want it for admins to look like this, where there's a form that allows one to sign up. Adding that form to the rejection note would defeat the purpose of removing it for those not eligible. I continue to think that there are valid use cases for nonsysop-show, this being one of them, and that it should be enabled to support those. {{u|Sdkb}}talk22:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can't you just take the entire "Hi! This is how you become a Teahouse host:" box, and style it with both classes - it will show for xc and sysops; if you're not either one you won't get it at all. If you're not eligible you don't really need a box to tell you here's how people can be hosts, but other people, certainly not you. — xaosfluxTalk23:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for volunteering as a Host at the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a community of people working together to make knowledge free. You are an important part of that effort! By joining as a Host, and by following our expectations, you are helping new users to get started here at Wikipedia, and aiding more experienced users who just have a question about how something works. We appreciate your willingness to help!
Here are some links you may find helpful as a Host:
Useful scripts you can install to make responding easier,
Nick Moyes thank you, but I need no particular reason to sulk: after all, sulking is one of my default states. Well, I'll endeavour to be hospitable at WP:TH; no guarantee that I'll succeed. -- Hoary (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you have my sympathy, mate. I'm still sulking from when my FA nomination of Mont Blanc massif was turned down c.5 years ago (even though I believe it's quite ready). Just haven't had the heart - or time - to pick it up again. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
M4V3R1CK32, this is a surprise. Thank you. Before almost forgotting about this article, I'd sadly concluded that I was the only (surviving) editor for whom its subject was of any interest. I'd expected that by now I'd have a copy of Spilt Milk and would be able to solve minor mysteries concerning it; however, for well over a year the only copy at Abebooks has been one advertised by its would-be seller as in "poor" (i.e. atrocious) condition and for whose shipping it would charge $75, ha ha, no thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I picked it up as part of the GAN backlog drive, I had never heard of him until today. I wish I had better news for you! I did unfortunately fail the GAN. You've clearly got a great understanding of and fondness for Bishop's works.
As for Spilt Milk, I hope you're able to find a copy for a more reasonable price! Do let me know if you resubmit the article, I'd be happy to take a look! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Appearances can be deceiving, M4V3R1CK32. I haven't read a single one of Bishop's serious works (those that justified his position at Cornell), and The Widening Stain held my attention only intermittently. I do like his verse, however. But thank you for your kind offer. -- Hoary (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen, many thanks for the link to this leading luxury menswear bespoke article, offering exquisite custom-made verbiage to each reader's unique preferences. So far so good, but the article failed to assert either the legendariness or the iconicity of its subject, and so it's dispensable. (Then again, as someone whose writing skills are freshly exposed as inferior to those of ChatGPT, I'm hardly qualified to comment.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to let you know. I accepted the draft at Berberisca dress because I didn't think it needed to marinate in draftspace (would pass at AfD). I have absolutely no issues if you decide to move it somewhere else. SportingFlyerT·C10:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Hoary,
Thanks for reviewing my article submission. I need your help to improve it, could you please suggest what reference sources I need to remove. Basically I have put references of some news coverages and references of art galleries winner announcements, so it would be helpful if I know which references are not relevant. I will also try to improve the content of the article, if possible please suggest some existing wiki articles of similar field that I can refer for improvement. Apswikicontrib (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aarti completed her Bachelor of Fine Arts (BFA) with a specialization in sculptures from Govt. Institute of Fine Arts, Gwalior. Her artistic journey has been one of continuous exploration and experimentations. She has dedicated herself to the intricate art of terracotta sculptures, a medium that captivates and challenges her in equal measure. Her ability to transform the clay into expressive, emotive, sculptures has garnered her global acclaim. It is actually an abstract art in which Aarti does not have a fixed model in front of her, but she has to shape her feelings and emotions imaginatively. That’s why Aarti’s artworks reflects her thoughts, attitudes, feelings and skills.
Hi Hoary, thanks for the clarification, I now understand the point and will try to work towards it. And, Aarti is the first name, in our culture we mostly address people with their first name hence it's reflecting in writing too, but I realized it's different for Wikipedia so I'll also look into it. Apswikicontrib (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, it's normal to address people by their first name (which is their personal name). But this doesn't matter for Wikipedia. It's normal to address them formally, and to refer to them formally, by their last name (which is their family name). So Mary Trump addresses (and refers to) her uncle as "Donald"; but most of us refer to him as "Trump" and that's how Wikipedia refers to him. It would be wrong to assume that normal Icelandic or Vietnamese (or some other) names work the same way; they do not (even in English-language contexts). If I understand correctly, southern Indian names too are unlike US names. -- Hoary (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I saw it too late to respond over there, but just wanted to say thanks for your reply in the Teahouse! Still getting used to how Wikipedia formats its citations :) Remainsuncertain (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to follow your informative feedback and assistance. This is my first article (of hopefully many to come) on Wikipedia, so I am hoping to get important experience through this process. I don't want to begin any other articles before I have managed to finish my first submission as until I now I have learnt everything I need to learn to get an article approved - it wouldn't matter if I had only one article, or a hundred articles, in the review queue.
For that reason, I am hoping you could be of assistance - both when it comes to possible other issues with the article I have yet to rectify to make it acceptable, but also to perhaps get the article through quicker than the current review queue due to the fact I am very eager to become an active contributor to Wikipedia, having used it as a source of research for almost two decades now myself. The reason I am hoping to become an active contributor is that I have found a few notable persons/historical events/geographical locations currently do not have an article, when it, to me, clearly feels like they/it should have - as I know there will be people looking to access the information. There are some other subjects that I also want to contribute to.
I chose this as my first submission as I felt submitting a well known person would be the easiest way of learning the ropes. Access to information about the person were easily accessible through articles in the news, as well as a chronological order of their career also being very easily accessible online. It felt easier to "source" the submission and with it being a well known person from my own home country, it added another level of familiarity to the process. After (if) I am successful in creating and getting my first submission published, my next few submissions will concern film and television titles that have yet to be covered on Wikipedia - as well as two or three other notable Norwegian personalities. In Norway the film and television industry isn't the largest, so the few Norwegians that manage to make a name for themselves outside our borders are national treasures - yet some of the largest names behind the camera from Norway do not have articles on Wikipedia - I hope to recitfy that.
Again, thank you so much for all the valuable tips and experience your feedback gave me - I look forward to finding out if I managed to understand everything you meant needed to be remedied in the draft and then did it successfully or not.
As mentioned, should I need to do further edits or sourcing, I am grateful for all assistance you can give.
Kaizero, I appreciate your politeness and your eagerness to become an active contributor to Wikipedia, but your message mystifies me.
You're asking about the draft for a "well known person" from Norway, suggesting that she either is or deserves to be among "the few Norwegians that manage to make a name for themselves outside [Norway]". Since all but one of the sources cited in the draft are in Norwegian, I presume that she's better known in Norway than elsewhere. In order for a Norwegian person to have an article in English Wikipedia, no article in (either) Norwegian Wikipedia is necessary. However, the fact that neither no:Amalie Olufsen nor nn:Amalie Olufsen exists makes me wonder if she's much known even in Norway. Unfortunately I can't read Norwegian and therefore can't properly judge the value of what's cited, but the assertions that are referenced seem rather minor -- meaning that notability (in the normal, non-Wikipedia sense) isn't obvious to me.
There is no review queue. Reviewers review what they're in a mood to review. The pair that I most recently reviewed and passed, Creativity Explored and BuZ blurr, were new (indeed, BuZ blurr moved all the way from draft creation to article promotion in less than one week); but the one I reviewed and passed before that, William Crewe, had had to wait almost five months. -- Hoary (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't include articles on her from non-relevant countries (or so I thought), such as Hungary, Germany, Netherlands, Greece, Denmark, USA, Russia, Ukraine (pre-war) and more. I can include a list in this section but unsure of the relevancy of the foreign articles.
The Norwegian wikipedia is, no offense meant to anyone actually editing it, very poorly sourced, written and updates are few and far between - there's a reason I want to contribute to Wikipedia in English rather than in Norwegian.
I would say that given these four have articles on Wikipedia, with extremely little information about about them, their background, their achievements, their notability or even why they hold any relevence at all - that an official Playboy Playmate - Norway's fifth among all other Playboy Playmates in the 70 years Playboy Magazines all over the world has existed. Someone who's been cast as Sheryl Gascoigne in the Paul Gascoigne biopic, displaced John Carew as the main spokesperson for betting company, ComeOn! in all their advertisements (i.e. ComeOn! place Amalie Olufsens recognisability higher than John Carew's). She's also only the third Norwegian to be nominated for Playmate of the Year in history, the first since Lillian Müller in 1976 - making her extremely relevant across all nations still publishing a localized edition of Playboy Magazine in their territory.
She's been on the cover of FHM USA and FHM India. She's been featured on US celebrity blosgs. She's been on the cover of Playboy Africa, Australia, Netherlands and Mexico. She's the current "Miss March" in Germany, where she has been featured twice. She has also been featured in Playboy Magazines released in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, South America, Ukraine and Russia.
She's been featured in M! four times, the largest men's lifestyle mag in Denmark. She's been on the cover of Ekstra Bladet!, the biggest newspaper in Denmark:
She's had two features in the biggest newspaper in Europe measured by circulation, Bild!
She's been featured in articles on ITV, BBC, Daily Mail, Scottish Sun, Evening Chronicle and Daily Mirror in the UK.
I didn't source all the articles as they didn't hold direct relevance to proving the statements made in the article, whereas the Norwegian ones are more personal in their nature rather than merely reporting news. Some are in depth interviews where she discusses her youth and more. Therefore I viewed those articles as better sources for the claims made in the article than the "foreign" ones - I igh have wrongly assumed that google translate would suffice for the editor(s) looking through it all.
Happy to refresh the source list however! That said, if it is what I need to do, I would love to be given some information about how sources work in effect on Wikipedia and how to apply them to the relevant topics. For instance, say I went with a Greek article as a source - I know of one that mentions both the feature film "30 Years of Hurt" as well as her Playboy history, so it would back up that information as well as show she is relevant outside Norway in the news. But, at the same time, I could prove that information with a Norwegian article, but, that article also includes confirmation regarding her brother being a professional football player in Norway as well as other statements made about her, such as family details, hometown and more. Which of the two options is the one that would work the best to get an article through? I understand that "only" using Norwegian articles as sources might be a bit one-track minded, but at the same time my familiarity would of course be more related to knowing what's been covered in the Norwegian press than in foreign press - and - like yourself, I don't understand the language of any article outside in Norwegian, Swedish, Danish and English - so whilst I know Google Translate can be trusted like, 99% of the time to not mess up much more than by missing local contexts and such - I can say 100% that the sources used in Norwegian and/or English contain the confirmation I intended for them to provide. Even with Google Translate I am uncertain if I could say higher than 99% certainty that the articles contain everything I think they do.
Just a quick google for international articles (just searched for her + one of the submission subjects; the Gasoigne movie. I can assemble lists of international articles supporting other subjects as well, but here's a fair selection already:
Kaizero, you say "She's been featured in articles on ITV, BBC, Daily Mail, Scottish Sun, Evening Chronicle and Daily Mirror in the UK."
These promised to be in English (a great convenience for me), so I took a look. The Evening Chronicle story to which you link merely says "Among the other actors already cast is a Norwegian actress, Amalie Olufsen, set to portray Paul's ex-wife Sheryl Gascoigne." (So here, "featured" means "mentioned".)
(I ignore the Daily Mail link, as Wikipedia doesn't accept this tabloid as a source for any but very minor purposes. You don't provide a link to any BBC story.)
I can't judge the notability (in the normal sense of the word) of this or that kind of modeling work. But no matter. What matters is notability as Wikipedia defines it. Has she been described or discussed in any depth? In the web pages that I've looked at, no she hasn't. -- Hoary (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I stated that I only copy/pasted articles concerning her being cast in the movie - and that I'd be appy to provide other articles for the other subjects.
As mentioned, the in-depth editorials and interviews are mainly based in Norway - but at th same time - you won't find articles about Liv Lindeland, Triana Iglesias, Lillian Müller or any of the other names I mentioned outside the Norwegian media. Which begs the question, if these individuals qualify as "notable" - why wouldn't Amalie Olufsen qualify as notable?
Ask any Norwegian if they know who "Joachim Olufsen" is, maybe 1 in 100 will say they know of him from the seven times he got capped in the Norwegian Premier Division years ago - though I'd wager there'd be even fewer than 1 in 100 that knows who he is or what he has done. How does that qualify him as notable? Is it his appereances in the Norwegian PL that qualifies? Because, if so, transferring the logic to the modeling profession - being nominated for Playmate of the Year is still one of the highest honors within the modeling profession (for the models that focus on the lingerie/bikini/artistic nudity fields).
To clarify a bit further - For a model plying her trade in those fields you could easily make a comparison regarding how notable the nomination itself is within the world of modeling by comparing it to how notable it is to be called up for the national team ahead of a World Cup in soccer. But at the World Cup, there's 735 other players in addition to the one we're specifically using in this example, as well as 31 other national teams than your own.
Norway was at the 2000 EC. There existed a "soccer fever" in the nation. When I look at the squad from back then today, I immediately recognised 14 out of 22 - but had to think to remember the remaining 8 players and their history. In the end, two of the players I actually couldn't place without checking their Wikipedia articles. This example is particularily relevant as I work as a FIFA Licensed Agent for Soccer Players - soccer is my life, yet I struggled to remember who players that have represented my home country in the largest sporting tournament on earth were.
So, with that in mind - how do we define the reference points and "rules" to ascertain "notability"?
My suggestion is as follows: Is she more well known and notable than her industry counter-parts already present on Wikipedia with their own article?
The link above shows google search trends between the persons in question. It clearly exemplifies notability, as the others have articles - within the same context regarding background and reasoning for their articles existing on here. It seems illogical that they should qualify for an article whilst a person of more interest with a more varied background and more internationally known does not. So, the question is really this: if Amalie Olufsen does not qualify as notable and being worthy of an article on Wikipedia, given her actual notability compared to her industry-peers, their articles should be listed for deletion as they, following the argument as to why Olufsen should not qualify for an article, do not qualify for their articles on Wikipedia and their articles are here by mistake? Kaizero (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kaizero, there are many articles in en:Wikipedia about people of negligible notability because people have chosen to perpetrate these articles and other people either haven't noticed the existence of the articles or haven't mustered the time or effort to have them deleted. If you believe that an article (i) shouldn't be here (as a matter of Wikipedia policy, not personal (dis)taste) and (ii) can't be improved to a state where it could rightly remain here, then you're free to call for its deletion.
(Unfortunately, requests for deletion can be very laborious, so much so that I can very rarely be bothered to initiate them. Here's my most recent effort.)
I too am puzzled by the claims of notability for many soccer players. (Ditto for baseball players, basketball players, cricket players, etc.) But there aren't enough days in the week for me to worry about the matter.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with an article based solely on sources that are in Norwegian (or French, Albanian, Hausa, or whatever), as long as these sources are reliable. However, I can't read Norwegian-language material that's available to me, let alone Norwegian-language material that's behind paywalls. Some other editors can. The draft now starts "Review waiting, please be patient." So please be patient. Although if you believe that the treatment of this draft has been and continues to be unfair, then you are free to bring up the matter at WT:WikiProject Articles for creation. -- Hoary (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of language, a reliable source is a reliable source. A reviewer uncomfortable assessing foreign-language sources should not decline a draft where they're pivotal, just go find something else to review. Discussion of WP:OTHERSTUFF is usually not helpful.
@Kaizero: if you identify the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability, I'd be happy to weigh in on this notability dispute (assuming the machine translations don't let me down). ~Kvng (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I happened across this discussion after I had reviewed this draft. I reviewed it as thoroughly as I could and found it did not step over the notability hurdle. I looked at machine translations with care, and found the content to be lacking. I was surprised at two immediate resubmissions with no intervening edits at all, and have some surprise at the length of this discussion.
@Kaizero, you are convinced the Olufsen is notable. In very few words, and with precision, please convince us by editing the draft to show it. Arguments here are pointless, as they are pointless on your own user talk page. You have not yet convinced me, and I accept borderline drafts regularly. I do not see this as anywhere near borderline. Perhaps it is too early in her career? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This type of idiotic, sassy and non-constructive answer is what I've come to expect from the Wikipedia editors after all this. You say "shoddy sources", reality says:
- The largest newspaper by circuation numbers in all of Europe. (Bild!)
- The largest newspaper by circulation numbers in Norway. (Aftenposten)
- The second and third largest newspapers by circulation in Norway. (VG and Dagbladet)
- The largest newspaper by circulation in Denmark. (Ekstra Bladet)
- The largest TV/News medium in Norway. (NRK)
- The largest commercial TV/News medium in Norway. (TV2)
- The BBC.
- The largest commercial TV/News medium in the UK. (The Daily Mail)
- The largest newspaper by circulation in Scotland. (The Scottish Sun)
- The largest newspaper by circulation in the UK. (The Daily Mail)
- She is the only official representative outside North America for the 21st largest brand (by licencing rights) in the world (Playboy).
- Her face has been on products sold in 180 out of 195 countries in the world by fronting Playboy. (PLBY Group Ltd annual earnings call)
- The Playboy brand has a 90% global recognisability rate, even amongst Gen Z. (Forbes)
- Playboy is the 31st most memorable brand, by logo recognisability, in the world. (Forbes)
I can't even be bothered to list more reasons. I've already dismantled any kind of argument from other reviewers by referencing Google Trends and comparing notability with personalities that Wikipedia Editors already have deemed notable enough for an article to be approved, yet you're all dying on this hill.
If any of the editors actually responded with actual advice on how to alter the draft before I'd resubmit it, advice I've kindly asked for multiple times, as this is (as also mentioned multiple times) my first attempt at writing an article from scratch for Wikipedia. Instead, the only response any editor gives is that they don't deem the person notable enough - with no valid reasons as to why the person is not notable enough, even when faced with irrefutable facts from Google clearly showing the person is more notable than 95% of all other Norwegians alread on here that aren't notable for historical reasons, but contemporary ones.
I get told to resubmit the article and ask for another editor to review it, so I do - only for the new editor to eny the draft immediately. To make matters even worse, the reason they give for denying the article was just a straight up lie. To me, all that says is that the editor can't even have read up on the person for ten seconds when they were "reviewing" the draft. Just straight up throwing out character assasinations about one of the most recognisable contemporory Norwegians around. Another editor being so insanely far off the mark doesn't make any sense, I can't believe anything else than that the editors here on Wikipedia might just be lazy and don't want to make an effort anymore, so it's easier to google a name, glance at the appereance of the person whose draft they are reviewing, before just spouting absolute bullshit about why the draft can't be approved by them.
If Wikipedia in any way, shape or form wants to keep thriving - you'd imagine it needs volunteers to write article drafts. However, all that its editors are doing (my subjective opinion, of course) is driving those potential volunteers away by being dismissive and talking down to them from their high horse - instead of offering a helping hand to ensure that a motivated article writer sticks around to keep writing. As I also mentioned, this was who I chose as the subject for my first article draft, as compared to the other people on my to-do list it was the obvious slam-dunk choice for an easy start given how she's literally an A-List celebrity in Norway and has achieved so much in her career already. As a matter of fact, by looking through the list of most recently approved article drafts when it comes to people that are still alive today - 1 out of 2 are in no way more notable than her, or have achieved more honors in their careers/lives at this point. It's a double standard. She broke through in Norway from being only the fifth Norwegian woman on the cover of a Playboy magazine since Playboy launched in December 1953. It is clearly how she became a notable person that seems to be the issue here, not anything rooted in fact.
If this was a newspaper I'd ask to speak with the Chief Editor to inform them of how unprofessional and downright rude his editing staff are towards a contributing writer. Alas, I have no idea if Wikipedia even has any Chief Editors.
At this stage I can't do anything else than give up. No Wikipedia Editors have so far given any form of actual advice on what should be done with the article to improve it so it meets the standards required for approval. Instead, all they take small jabs at the person that once was motivated to write for Wikipedia and laugh amongst themselves about how little the person knows about the Wikipedia editorial standards and demands - whilst knowing that the writer has owned up to being very unfamiliar with it, so much that he'd multiple times asked for guidance and assistance. I could easily have been convinced to let this draft go if any editor had actually given a logical reason as to why I should, rather than saying one reason, have that reason be proven wrong, and instead of conceding that they were in the wrong - they grab something completely irrelevant to the discussion out of thin air just to shut down the draft again.
There's no point being stuck in that loop as I don't get any constructive feedback from anyone - and they either ignore evidence that disproves their reasoning for rejecting the draft or just downright lie about the subject matter. Given how absolutely ludicrous the "porn star" reason was, I can only imagine it came from misogynistic opinions and that you'd say a female Norwegian politician or athlete would hold no relevance for an article on Wikipedia as, obviously, being female - they'd be porn stars, not notable personalities.
All that said, I have realised this is where I throw in the towel. There's no point. Instead of contributing to raising the accessability of information for the public with my time - I am wasting it trying to reason with people that made up their mind about the subject matter ages ago and won't be convinced otherwise. You've lost out on someone that wanted to be a part of this community and had both time and motivation to improve with time. Congratulations. Kaizero (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hoary! I notice you've been responding on the Help desk to the above long-time editor with details of how to correct her coding and entry errors. I applaud your efforts, but I suggest they're futile.
This editor appears to be an elderly Australian nun: she has an account (something like SisterBernadette) but no longer uses it, I surmise because of embarrassment about how often she was berated for asking for help after making trivial entry errors. Although she now only operates as an IP, her writing style, concentration on a narrow range of topics, and of course geolocation make her unmistakeable.
She apparently has some difficulties with her access devices, possibly also her sight, and certainly with filling in templates without making errors which she cannot then identify (mis-typed dates, inappropriate data in publisher fields, etc.). She has for at least a decade been unable to improve beyond her current level in this regard.
Although she is a bit obsessive about the Middleton family and related topics, and sometimes tries to add details inappropriately to barely-related subjects, she's nevertheless contributed a great deal to a narrow range of articles. We've long found on the Help Desk and Teahouse that when she balls up an edit, it's easier to just correct the mistake and maybe then tell her what she did wrong, but pointless to try to get her to correct it herself.
Well, IP, I don't know about nun-dom or age: it's hard for me to believe that the under-70s would be interested in the relationship between this Middleton and that Lupton, but Wikipedia seems to show that some people half that age are interested in such fuddy-duddy matters as "royalty and nobility", so who knows. And if she (or he, but let's say "she" for now) is indeed old, well, I am too. (And for all I know you are as well.) So? She doesn't only operate as an IP: just look in those Lupton/Middleton-related articles for their photos or other illustrations, see the username who uploaded them to Commons, and look at this username's more recent edits there. She used to blame her "device" for her difficulties, but I don't recall any identification of either the device or the difficulty. Just a stream of pleas for fixing her (usually obvious) mistakes, more often than not in edits adding more trivia about this or that Lupton, or writing up more tidbits about ancestors of some duchess. I'm underwhelmed. -- Hoary (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm over 70 and English, and I find it hard to believe that anyone is interested in the ancestry of our king's daughter-in-law. But this contributor is polite and well-meaning. Yes, she makes mistakes, but she confesses to them. I see no harm in fixing them for her, and no good to come from telling her to RTFM. Maproom (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP previously known as a different IP, and Maproom, the latest Middleton pic to be mentioned at WP:HD is this: (i) uploaded by SrB, (ii) apparently published in 1928, and yet (iii) copyleft. There's nothing new about this curious combination. And the Middleton who appears in the photo? In the article that it ornaments, we get his years of birth and death and learn that he was "an Oxford graduate" and one of several "members of the Yorkshire Ramblers' Club". And that's all. Of course, individual components of articles needn't demonstrate notability, and other WP editors may be more inclined to fix copyright information for illustrations such as this than I am. -- Hoary (talk) 05:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Hoary, old chap. Please help: I (while not a nun) am old and confused, and tried to xfd the talk page instead of the title page; I can't see how to remove the entry from the AfD page... but now I can't find it, so perhaps someone has removed it. Give up.
More generally, this page (Lisa Nakazono) has been plagued with odd stuff about photographs, and I know no-one who is likely to know more about photography and Japan than you do. Clearly there is at least a Japanese folk-belief that you need permission of the subject before you can "put a photo on the internet". Our local city concert hall now has a sign on the doors saying (from memory) 知人意外の写真を禁止します。 This appears to make street photography and the like illegal, which I find hard to believe, but can you contribute any actual up-to-date facts on this? Imaginatorium (talk) 08:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Imaginatorium, I'm guessing 知人以外. The short response is, I don't know. I wouldn't assume that a municipal concert hall isn't free to curtail freedoms that apply in public spaces outdoors. (Come to think of it, aren't such curtailments entirely normal? In the street, you may talk with your companions; in a concert hall, you are firmly dissuaded from doing so.) As for public outdoor spaces (so far as they are relevant here), I remember encountering some outdoor performance in Shibuya in what I (perhaps wrongly) believed was a public space, with conspicuous 撮影禁止 signs. I'm reliably informed that in the waning days of Asahi Camera and Nippon Camera magazines (roughly ten to five years ago), their editors were very reluctant to run street photographs unless these were taken either abroad or a long time previously: whether or not there were any laws to which they could credibly appeal, Japanese people who found that they appeared without their consent in published photographs could and sometimes did make life miserable for the editors/publishers. -- Hoary (talk) 09:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Imaginatorium, I can't comment offhand on either the reliability (or not) of most of the cited sources or the faithfulness with which the sources are summarized, but it looks to me as if she's "notable" (as understood hereabouts). That an article has attracted the time-wasting attentions of monomaniacs is not a valid reason for deletion. And if she's notable, then presumably this is for her recordings or concerts or similar, not for her (past) marriage(s). So I think that the AfD is going to fail, unless the arguments for it are made more persuasive. (I don't plan to participate in it, because I fear that I'd have to look at and evaluate some of the cited sources, and I can't be bothered.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Imaginatorium, I think I misread. You actually wanted to have the talk page deleted, and not the article? If so, first cancel the current AfD. Just strike through your nomination, add that you nominated it by sleepy (?) mistake, and you retract the nomination. As for the talk page, I don't understand why it should be deleted. Even if there were libelous, privacy-violating, or otherwise offensive comments within it, there'd be no need to delete the talk page. (Instead, the offensive comments could be removed from view.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for comments. The article just got deleted. Meanwhile, I reverted an obviously POV edit on Friuli Venezia Giulia, and the IP just put it back. I can't remember quite how to do 3-whateveritis; do I just revert a second time, then wait, or is there anything else to do? Imaginatorium (talk) 07:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've just now skimread that AfD. Extraordinary! Though I'm not tempted to give it a second, more careful look. As for edits to Friuli Venezia Giulia, wait and see what happens. If the same IP reverts (or almost-reverts), don't revert that reversion; instead, bring up the matter on the article's talk page, and, on the IP's own talk page, invite him (or possibly her) to join the discussion that you've just started. -- Hoary (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that AfD was quite odd; the fanbase totally honest about it... and then the Italian region most notable for its hyphenation debate. Another quick question: I think that template 'fact' used to mean "Is this true? Does this make sense?" but it just directs to "citation needed". When something makes no sense, it does not need a citation, it needs an explanation. Is there a template to use with this meaning? (I'm looking at Wangari Maathai, search for 'forename'.) Imaginatorium (talk) 07:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that is odd. Thank you for pointing it out, Maproom. I've no reason to think that this fellow reads anything on this website, so the choice of template hardly matters. Still, posting the wrong one is poor practice, so I've switched it. -- Hoary (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ColinFine, in retrospect that does seem gratuitously confusing. Perhaps wrongly, I didn't want links. I wanted what-should-be-pasted to be set off from the surrounding text. I suppose that I could have used the code template but this rarely occurs to me. Setting it off via quotation marks would have brought the risk that the reader would type it complete with quotation marks. And so I used a colour. True, blue wasn't such a good choice; a few moments ago, I greenified the pair. -- Hoary (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Hoary. I have just blocked the latest member of a large sock farm at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tinkubhoi. I see that you have previously protected the titles of a number of pages created by this socker. I just thought I would mention that my experience has led me to the conclusion that it is better not to protect titles in this situation. It is virtually certain that the editor will come back to re-create the deleted pages, and if they are able to do so under the same titles as before then they may well do so, as indeed they did this time. It is then easy to watch those titles, and pounce as soon as they are re-created. If, on the other hand, the titles are protected, that will not stop them from re-creating the pages, it will just make them do so under new titles, and since we can't watch every possible title that they may think up, it makes it harder for us to find the pages when they create them. JBW (talk) 10:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good point, JBW. I'll try to remember to bear it in mind in the future. (If this sounds curiously feeble and noncommittal, I'll say that I tend to notice this kind of nonsense when it's already past my bed time, which is one reason why I fail to think several moves ahead.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.
Hi there, in reply to your comment on the draft- Paradisoterrestre - I sincerely apologise for suggesting “nothing” had been improved about the draft since its last submission. That did not accurately reflect that you had made several improvements to the page!
My comment was more intended to say that the article was not sufficiently improved, but that’s not what I wrote which was an error. Apologies again. GraziePrego (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite OK, GraziePrego. I have a thick skin. But on the matter of sourcing: We (i) seem to expect that everything in a draft is referenced (to a reliable source), but (ii) have a huge (or should I say huuuuuuuuge?) number of articles that are feebly sourced. This is beyond mere "other crap exists"; more like "wherever one looks in en:Wikipedia, vast quantities of crap are on show, and for most of it, its right to be here is hardly questioned". Draft:Paradisoterrestre is a strange draft, as little about the company is cited, but the company seems to have been largely the work of one Dino Gavina, who, the draft shows, very obviously is notable according to en:WP's criteria. (Indeed, I wondered whether this draft is perhaps an attempt to get around an earlier deletion, or even salting, of Dino Gavina -- but no, en.WP has never had an article with this title. It has also never had Draft:Dino Gavina.) I thought that Paradisoterrestre was a promising subject, and nudged it a little way in the direction of acceptance. But this AFC business takes time, doesn't it? As a recent example, "Draft:Vlassis Caniaris" was already sound in the state in which I first encountered it, but promoting it as it was would have been unconscionable and so I did this: nothing at all major, but nevertheless more than an hour's work. -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello Hoary unfortunately I don't really know how everything on Wikipedia works, especially as to regards to reporting vandalism so I'm coming to you for help. I need your help on Ika language (Nigeria) there is a user by the name Autocorrectsys who keeps vandalising the page by reverting and deleting information on the page. Whenever I make an edit on the page which classifies the language as an igboid language which on the language family falls under nuclear igboid with a link citation the user deletes the information on the page reverting the page and self classifying the language directly under igbo. I have made note on the revision history page when editing that if the language directly falls under igbo and not nuclear igboid it should be cited. I have also written to Autocorrectsys on the users talk page which the user hasn't replied to but Autocorrectsys doesn’t seem to adhere to the information on the talk page or the revision history page of ika language (Nigeria). The user keeps deleting information often writing “Addition of information on the subject” while ignoring corrections. I have taken my time to edit the page again and to also add links which were made nil. It is very important to note that according to glottolog ika language is classified directly under nuclear igboid not igbo. Igbo language within the igboid language family falls under nuclear igboid just like ika language. ASJP Database also classifies ika language under nuclear igboid not directly under Igbo. Although ika is often termed igbo in terms of language classification and how it is organized in the language family the language is falls under nuclear igboid. The only igboid language which is not grouped together with nuclear igboid is ekpeye language. Bernadine okoro (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting me know, Bernadine okoro. When possible, we always avoid alleging vandalism; but for this "contributor", it's hard to come up with an alternative explanation. I chose a language-irrelevant edit and asked about it; I look forward to reading the response. -- Hoary (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Bernadine okoro, the "response" was about as bad as I feared. So he (or possibly she) is blocked. All the best working on these articles. (If such silliness restarts, don't hesitate to let me know.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely I do plan on revising the page. I for one cannot understand how beliefs and economy are on the page to the point that it must be included. I nearly deleted it at first glance but I didn't want to make any editor angry so I left it but the whole page needs a revision which I will be doing slowly as time goes by. Thank you so much for your help. Bernadine okoro (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Hoary! Further to our exchange on the above recent Help Desk query . . . . This querant is, I am 99.9% sure, long-time editor Sister Bernadette (not quite her actual User name), seemingly an elderly nun in Australia whom I and others have discussed with you previously, above. She is not very computer literate, finds it very difficult to grasp more than the simplest wikicoding, certainly can't proofread it for errors (sight problems?), and seems to have limited internet access, possibly via borrowed mobile devices.
She researches and edits frequently on a limited range of subjects, the family of Pippa Middleton and other associated and historical families, and I speculate that she herself is related to them. Although some of her efforts to shoehorn in mentions of them where they're not really warranted have to be reined in, she has added a good deal to this area of subjects, and most of us accept that it's easier to correct her usually straightforward errors when she asks than to try to teach her how to do so herself – some people just do not have that sort of aptitude.
Really, her online style* is very recognisable, so rather than repeatedly berating her wiki-ineptitude (which is probably why she has been embarrased into not using her account), I really think it would be better if you ignored her posts and left the rest of us to help her as we choose. Beating up on old nuns is not a good look :-).
* Here I used a birding term beginning with "j", with a link to its article, but the "unconstructive" filter kicked in! The term is closer than "style" to what I wanted to say.
I'm not trying to dig at you with this, we've both been active Wikipedians for around 20 years – I'm just trying to remove a source of tension on the Desks. Regards, {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.215.44 (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, four-numbers person. (And on the subject of not using an account....) I'm sorry if I came off as berating anybody. I try not to berate vandals and this person clearly is not a vandal and I've never intended to berate her (or him). Anyway, I'm up to my ears in the still rickety article on the glamorous and sexy matter of English auxiliary verbs, so I think I'll concentrate on that for a while. Though, perhaps in part because of my ignorance of birding, I'm baffled when I try to think of an apt word starting with ⟨J⟩. (Birding and spelling aside, perhaps it could be "idiosyncrasies"?) -- Hoary (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The berations (my neologism for the day) go back some years; I wasn't singling out yourself.
The birding term has an article "Xxxx (birding)" where X = J and xxx = izz: the filters seem particularly over-sensitive to it when used in Talk pages. I blame the Americans. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.215.44 (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extraordinary. I'm mildly familiar with the word where it has the sense that could upset nannyware (itself a word not yet known to wiktionary), but as a ornithophilia term it's utterly new to me. I shall apply it with pride! (Though not on WP:HD.) Thank you for expanding my vocabulary. -- Hoary (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I started an Afd for one Kento Masuda and would welcome some help. This is a curious page: full of "content", plastered with references, yet all seems to be dubious. So far it has attracted little attention, and only from a number of editors already involved in looking at articles on him in various other languages. Should I put a not on the Music project page to try to get more independant eyes on it? Assuming it is deleted (as the WP:ja article was recently), there are masses of "links here" pages, and I am not sure of the easiest way to keep a list of them before the links disappear. (Kento Masuda is not a common name, but not a rare one either.) And some of these connections are quite tortuous: for example at Order of St. Sylvester he is in the list of people notionally ennobled by the Pope, yet I am fairly confident that actually he just has a paid-for certificate from some hanger-on organisation. Because this is not a page that would, at a glance, look like a plausible deletion candidate, I am not sure if I am going about it the right way, and would welcome comments.
Just for leavening. Two ideas I have, with no idea of where to discuss them. (1) There should be an AmE/BrE infobox that clarifies the distinct terms relevant to a particular article. For example: Bar (music). (2) The current Wikipedia logo is a picture of an impossible object. (You cannot make a spherical jigsaw puzzle with pieces in a rectilinear grid. You can make one with icosahedral symmetry.) I think this is unintentional and unsatisfactory, but how to broach such a topic?
Exceptionally, jigsaw-irrelevantImaginatorium, how'm I? Suddenly sleepy. Nothing personal: this came on before I turned on the computer. By "'links here' pages", do you mean Special:WhatLinksHere/Kento_Masuda? If so, that will still work even if the article is deleted: one may look for what link to the name of any page, whether or not that page exists. Anyway, don't put up a note on any WikiProject's talk page, because that's what "Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics" blah blah is for. Your (1): Don't know. I'm not at all keen on the idea (though of course I may completely misunderstand it): the idea that Americans would be mystified or shocked by exposure to British terms, or that Brits would be mystified or shocked by exposure to American ones, seems to assume (or promote) bone-headedness or worse. Half a century ago, Brits might have mistaken an American "billion" for 10^12 (and such a misunderstanding could have been serious); now they don't. And I suppose that there somewhere exist a few actual traps in meaning. But even if they do exist, they probably don't matter. Your (2): Most of the Wikipedia logos I've seen show spheres consisting of non-planar jigsaw-ish pieces. Which logo do you have in mind? -- Hoary (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Someone just deleted it anyway... I would have preferred more eyes on it, but anyway. I copied the result of the "what links here" page, because if someone goes gound delinkifying the references it will be harder to find them by just searching. Never mind the rest for now, but can you see what I mean about spherical jigsaw puzzles? The pictures, including the watermelon, were I wager drawn by people who imagine that with a bit of ingenuity the puzzle can be completed, so each piece has four sides, and four pieces meet at each corner. But they are wrong. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Imaginatorium, what we can see of this Wikipedia logo on a sphere does indeed seem at first glance to be a partly-complete jigsaw of pieces both of whose diagonals are equal to each other and to the diagonals of each other piece. It's an illusion that surely could be realized (as an illusion) in the real world, given a particular viewpoint. The illusion couldn't be sustained, of course, at the poles. So the jigsaw could not be completed in this way -- which perhaps is a good metaphor for Wikipedia? -- Hoary (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
, I still have alot to learn from you, Thanks, I'll relocate the sources on full and understandable statements from now on, starting with this article. ANUwrites 08:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
; see Talk:Teikō Shiotani for comments about the article, and Talk:Teikō Shiotani/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
; see Talk:Morris Bishop for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of M4V3R1CK32 -- M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
_-_BEIC_6328450.jpg){kind=link}
_-_BEIC_6346632.jpg){kind=link}
_-_BEIC_6346632.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Captain._A._L._and_Mrs_Middleton_-_Page_34_-_4th_January_1928.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}