This is an archive of past discussions with User:WhatamIdoing. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
...to respond to the "how to become a cardiology" at the WikiPoject Medicine. Your doing so, and the kindness of tone you show, is exemplary. Thank you for the good example. 98.253.16.20 (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
For your comments at RS. Fwiw, I google-peeked at the 2 McFarland books, they mentioned Shakespeare a few times but afaict there is no SAQ. On the Journal of Information Ethics article, bonadea said in the original article-talkpage discussion that there's no Shakespeare in it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi WaId, thanks for your comment at the Confederacy Rfc. You mentioned something that made me smile, and it's a bit o/t to address there. It's your comment about using all the terms, because "Didn't your English teachers tell you that a varied vocabulary, rather than harping on exactly the same word, was a sign of good writing?"
Yes, they very much did. I was persuaded, and at least for certain types of creative writing, and I adhered to it, perhaps to a fault. I only learned much later when I got to Wikipedia, that there's even a name for it, and learned that elegant variation is not always to be desired, and can even be problematic, especially in certain formal types of writing (certainly in a technical manual about how the nuclear plant control panel works, you want to use the same word every time for that big red button with the double locks on it; definitely not the time to be creative). In fact, here at Wikipedia, I think there are some articles which benefit from elegant variation, some where it's neither here nor there, and others where it could be problematic. To make an analogy to the article under consideration, if there's an article about a trans individual, say, where reliable sources have used various pronouns either pre- and post-transition, that would not be the place to use all the words, but rather to boringly, systematically, consistently stick to MOS:GENDERID and use the same gender markers and pronouns for all zillion occurrences.
With respect to the article, I have to think about your "use all the words" proposal, I'm honestly not sure what is best in this case. Is this a case more analogous to MOS:GENDERID's recommendations, in which case (after creating a successful pitch at MOS) we should start using a particular set of words and stick to them out of respect or preference of a group subject to persecution, or is this more like a contentious label with wide support among reliable sources, to which WP:DUE and WP:NOTCENSORED points towards echoing the label used in the sources? (Backing off 'contentious' a bit, my sense of how slave and similar words are used in academia isn't really "contentious" as I see it, as they use the term quite neutrally, but in the community, it's maybe more like "evolving", or "in transition", and that is probably starting to take hold in published sources in a small way; so far, anyway.)
I just made this edit to Negro, expanding the section on the evolution from the word Negro to Black in the United States, and there was definitely a transitional period involved, with the move to the new word starting with the most progressive or militant members of the community itself—no big surprise there—which eventually caught on with the larger minority community, and thence finally to society at large, but it took a while. I have a hunch that with enslaved we are roughly in 1967, transitionally speaking, and we don't know how the story will come out, although if I had to hazard a guess, I think in ten years it will be in general use, maybe even less. Anyway, wrt elegant variation at the Rfc article (and others like it), should we or shouldn't we be using it if we are in a transitional period of language use? I don't know. And how do we even know *if* we are in transition or not? Mathglot (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the link to the article. I thought about taking time to search for it, but couldn't think of any plausible search terms.
I think that one reason to think that elegant variation will be functional in this article is that the words in question are so similar. A person unfamiliar with Romance languages might not grasp the connection between Negro and Black, but should be able to grasp the connection between slave and enslaved person. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
There are certainly some differences in the language, but if you imagine someone who doesn't know these words – maybe a 12 year old, maybe someone reading English as a second or third language – they won't go far wrong if they assume that slave and enslaved person mean basically the same thing. The short word may help readers understand the longer one. You don't need to understand the subtle distinctions, or even to believe that the 21st century notions of individualism and identity apply to 18th century people, to figure out the basic information being conveyed by these variations. Therefore, I think we should feel free to use these variations, and I would think this even if we were fairly certain that the world wasn't transitioning to a new way of labeling the affected people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
WAID I realize I haven't asked for your help before however in this case should you be able (have the time I would appreciate it), Dyslexia was difficult for me to bring to GA and more difficult to publish [[1]] there's an editor that insists on merging Characteristics of dyslexia :
The first issue is Characteristics of dyslexia should have its own article (which I was trying to improve), it is not a stub
Per the editors talk [2] I tried to explain MEDRS but they dont seem to understand, and this could hurt the article
If you might have the time to help with these two points (with the editor) I would appreciate it (if you cant, do to time constraints, etc) I would undertand, thank you for your time,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for asking, @Ozzie10aaaa. I'll try to have a look at it this weekend.
Do you happen to know whether there has ever been any discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia or on the talk page about making that article a little more accessible to people with dyslexia (for example, by breaking up long paragraphs into shorter ones)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
No not to my knowledge, though it might be a good idea...I should be clear (on my original point) there have been certain additions to the text in the past, as it should be with any article. However Characteristics of dyslexia is not a stub, if it were to be included (particularly with non-MEDRS) it would be problematic at best, I want to thank you for taking interest in this, Ozzie --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Should there be a ==Risk factors== section? Is that what the ===Associated conditions=== section is meant to be? (Comorbidities is only part of the risk factors, of course.)
yes, that is what 'comorbodities' is meant to be...the problem with adding a 'risk factors' section is that Dyslexia seems to be a genetic issue (though that's not to say there aren't some risk factors in play), and while 'risk factors' would apply to Alexia that term is not covered to such an extent to warrant its' inclusion...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Should ==Causes== and ==Pathophysiology== be moved lower down the page, since they're less relevant to most readers than ==Symptoms==, ==Diagnosis==, and ==Management==?
Of course they should. But MEDMOS itself says that you're supposed to vary the order in these situations: "may be varied, particularly if that helps your article progressively develop concepts and avoid repetition. Do not discourage potential readers by placing a highly technical section near the start of your article." This order puts the most technical sections near the start. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I thought one of the newer approaches was intensive, systematic instruction in the 100 or 150 most common words in English. (Many of these are sight words, such as would, their, and know, which don't have a strong correlation with their spelling anyway. This list has a different set of words.)
The ==Assessment== section needs to be re-written so that it's not how-to instructions. Instead of "Avoid over-reliance on tests", it should say something like "Tests should not be relied on exclusively."
It says the interaction of genetic and environmental factors matter. How do these actually "interact"? Or is this just a case of you have to be genetically/neurologically susceptible, and if you're susceptible, then the environment matters? WhatamIdoing05:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
What is is about the environment that matters? Pollution? How your school teaches reading? Whether your parents are abusive? The fact that English has an irrational spelling system? WhatamIdoing05:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
same question, see above
The medical model is diagnosis first, treatment second. One of the newer school-based approaches is the opposite: all students reading poorly get extra reading instruction, using the same methods that are used for newly diagnosed children with dyslexia. Only the ones who don't improve are sent for a diagnosis. (For some of these programs, many of the kids gain about a year's reading skill in 12 weeks.) WhatamIdoing05:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
WAID I mostly agree with this statement...however if I'm not mistaken you indicated "Things I want to know" at this sections start, yet there is no query here(?)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
You're right. I apologize for the incomplete thought. This is partly a consequence of the changed definition. Should we emphasize the medical model, or should we talk more about the educational model (i.e., teachers provide extra reading instruction to struggling students, without involving a medical professional)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
no apology needed, I'm no exception,,,"Treatment consists initially of defining the disorder, advising parents, and possibly also advising teachers. Subsequent treatment depends on the severity of dyslexia and psychological symptoms or concurrent disorders... Only if a dyslexia sufferer also has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) can drug treatment for ADHD also improve learning abilities inside and outside school"...Schulte-Körne, Gerd (October 2010). "The Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Dyslexia". Deutsches Ärzteblatt International. 107 (41): 718–727. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2010.0718. ISSN1866-0452. Retrieved 2 March 2022.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
In nosological terms, is dyslexia exactly one thing (like SARS-CoV-2 infection=COVID), or is it a cluster of multiple overlapping things (like Da Costa's syndrome, which lumped together several different diseases)? Or is dyslexia a symptom (like a fever), rather than a disorder? WhatamIdoing05:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Is dyslexia really lifelong? If Alice is diagnosed with dyslexia as a child and learns excellent coping strategies, to the point that she is reading normally, would it be possible to diagnose Alice with dyslexia as an adult, assuming she didn't disclose the prior struggles? Or would the test results say that she no longer has dyslexia? If she has no symptoms as an adult, did she actually have dyslexia as a kid? WhatamIdoing05:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
What's the clinical difference between a kid who is a poor reader and a kid with dyslexia? Is there one?Julian Elliott thinks there isn't, at least for most kids who get labeled with dyslexia.How does a psychologist tell the difference between a kid with *mild* dyslexia and a kid with:
a bad teacher or inappropriate teaching methods,
limited access to school or educational opportunities (are we going to tell non-reading 7 year olds that they're all dyslexic just because the pandemic closed the schools in their country for the last two years?),
ADHD (which makes it hard to focus on learning to read),
non-education-related problems that interfere with learning (e.g., a child dealing with trauma, hunger, chronic sleep deprivation), or
low interest in reading (especially at age 5, most kids would prefer to run around on a playground or a dig through a box of Legos)?
It sounds like the "old definition" had the problem of figuring out who had dyslexia and who had other neurological problems that produced reading difficulties, but we were all pretty certain that it was neurological. The "new definition" means that it could be anything. Under the new definition, if kids in your country normally learn to read at age 6, but your parents refuse to send you to school or read books to you until you're 8 years old, then you have "new-definition dyslexia" even if you have no neurological problems whatsoever.
The reason the definition matters: The article talks a lot about related conditions (e.g., ADHD, clumsiness), but all of that is based on the idea that the kid has reading problems despite having normal access to educational opportunities. With this new definition, due to the pandemic-related school closures, there are now millions of kids who have "new-definition dyslexia" but for whom none of the comorbidities, etc., are true.
Also, if the associations with other neurological conditions are based on the old definition, then that research might be irrelevant. You can't study people with definition #1 and then claim your results apply to people with definition #2. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
yes, under those circumstances (" You can't study people with definition #1 and then claim your results apply to people with definition #2") you would be correct as well--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I'd also like to see more information about dyslexia in non-English languages. I understand that some bilingual people are dyslexic in English but not in Spanish, and I'm not sure how that would be the case for a true neurological condition. (I can easily imagine it being true for an educational situation.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I think the NOTPAPER argument is ...maybe not as relevant as it sounds? NOTPAPER encourages having a lot of articles. It does not encourage having extremely long articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Advancing towards fair and meaningful questions on WP:CORP flavoured WP:GNG compliance
At Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Clarifying the number of sources required by GNG, 20:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC), User:WhatamIdoing wrote: “I've … <stuff GNG about source count> … IMO the actual answer probably sounds more like (a) two different authors writing for two different publishers plus (b) a minimum of 500 words directly about the topic, across all [financially] independent sources, including at least 10 severable facts about the subject and at least one indication of analysis (e.g., comparison to a similar subject or classification as an instance of some larger notable subject). But I'd also ban editors from rejecting sources just because they personally feel that the source's linguistic style is insufficiently scholarly or because the newspaper reporter directly interviewed the subject (and therefore allegedly is no longer "independent"), …”
It wasn’t addressed to me, but I was pinged in the edit, so I think I was in mind.
I think our very long ongoing discussion is useful, but will be most useful if we can progress to agreeing on good questions to put to the community, probably at WT:CORP.
In the above, (b) I am soft on the the number to be stated as expected. I keep pointing to WP:100W, largely because it is a written essay with a shortcut I can remember (self mockery there). You stated “500 words”. At my softest, arguing deletionism against an enthusiastic content builder, I’ve set a line at two running sentences, but with the point being that anything less is to be firmly tossed without discussion. My question for you is whether you imagine these 500 words including primary source material repeated, or is it only the secondary source material? I suspect the first.
10 severable facts is interesting, a new idea to me. Would you agree to stipulating that these facts were written in prose? Not as a list?
At least one indication of analysis…. I think this is critical, it is implicit in everything about WP:N, as derived from WP:PSTS. But it has to be an independent analysis.
“But I'd also ban editors from rejecting sources just because they personally feel that the source's linguistic style is insufficiently scholarly”. Put like that I have to agree. What about editors rejecting a source that is presented completely non-scholarly? I am not sure there is a real question here, as this criterion is evaluated as “is the source reliable”.
“… or because the newspaper reporter directly interviewed the subject (and therefore allegedly is no longer "independent"), …”. Again, not fairly put. I want to reject as GNG-compliant a source where the author interviewed the subject, and every analysis came from the subject not the reporter. Rearranging the quotes, cutting lots of quotes, and dropping the quote marks to paraphrase into flowing prose does not change the analysis from being authored by the subject. So, trying to turn this into a question: do you agree with excluding direct quotes from the 500 word count on the subject? What about paraphrased prosified quotes?
My response on that thread included “I believe the crux is that for promotional topics, product reviews are to be presumed non-independent and GNG non-compliant. Exceptions are traditional encyclopedic topics, like the natural sciences, and distant history.”
I read your fair criticism of editors rejecting sources as non-independent based on their personal reading and personal psychoanalysis of creative input by the reporter as balanced against subject-influence (such as word suggestions or financial incentive). As an idea for a fair question, how about: Should product reviews for commercial products be presumed by default to be non-independent? The presumption is to be read as rebuttable, including by a declaration of independence, a currently growing practice. I think yes, I think you think no, but the question is: is this a fair an objective question?
whether you imagine these 500 words including primary source material repeated: 500 words about the subject, no matter what the words say, so long as the sources saying those words are part of "the world at large" and not affiliated with the subject. (To that end, I might exclude lengthy quotations, especially if the source is an interview transcript, and definitely anything that was absolutely, provably, I-have-the-link-to-prnewswire.com-right-here word-for-word written by subject, but not anything that an editor merely believes in his heart to have been written/influenced by the subject.
The problem with excluding "paraphrased prosified quotes" is that it's too open to abuse. If it offends me that someone would sully my Wikipedia with that vulgar/silly/unencyclopedic subject, then of course every single word of every single source is just paraphrased prosified quotes. Good luck proving me wrong.)
10 severable facts...stipulating that these facts were written in prose? Not as a list?: No. I have some sympathy with this, but I wouldn't, basically because video is an acceptable source. We can't say that the source has to be prose.
Also, does it matter? The goal is to write an article. If you can write that article from databases that don't contain a single grammatically complete sentence, then more power to you.
I specify 10 severable facts because some people's "500 words" contain a whole lot less information than other people's, and because if the 500-total-words amount to 50 different sources repeating the same ten words ("...said Bob Business, vice president of Big Corp's widget division"), then you can't actually write an encyclopedia article. Ten is a rather small number, at least for people and organizations, and if someone said we should aim for 12 or 15 instead, I wouldn't object. I also wouldn't object to a requirement that the said severable facts needing to be something that has practical value in writing the article. Presumably we can all agree that "Bob Business is head of Big Corp's widget division" is useful and that "Bob got quoted in the newspaper 50 times" is not.
it has to be an independent analysis: I agree, but we don't seem to agree on how to figure out when/whether every analysis came from the subject not the reporter. So far, your method is utterly opaque to me, and if I had to tell a promising newcomer how to use your method, I'd probably have to suggest that they develop mind reading skills. Presumably the instructions for my method sound like "first, you need to deeply believe that nobody in the world is a greedy, manipulative huckster".
rejecting a source that is presented completely non-scholarly? ...as this criterion is evaluated as “is the source reliable”: Think about how you would apply this to a subject that is basically famous for being famous. Completely non-scholarly sources are exactly what I'd expect, and if the goal is to prove only that "the world at large" spilled barrels of ink on the subject (as opposed to, e.g., that the world took the subject seriously), then those completely non-scholarly sources are proof of the world's attention.
Should product reviews for commercial products be presumed by default to be non-independent? Are books, films, and restaurants "commercial products"? WP:PRODUCTREV gives this answer: "editors should use reviews only from sources with well established reputation for independence and objectivity." This suggests that you should evaluate the publication (e.g., are we talking about a fashion magazine that has been revewing clothes for the last decade or two, or is this an influencer account?), not the individual review itself. It also suggests that you need to evaluate the overall reputation rather than the presence of disclaimers in the review/document itself.
I don't think we can ask a useful question until we have resolved some of these questions of implementation. Without that, we'll have a rule that says "Rebuttable presumption that commercial product reviews are guilty until proven innocent", and someone will claim that we've just banned The New York Times Book Review. Books are "commercial products", they're writing "product reviews", and they don't stick disclaimers in each review. (Worse that that, they probably received the book as an Advance copy. Who cares about a 125-year-long history and their stellar reputation when you can claim they're hopelessly entangled because they involuntarily received a copy of a book with a long-term value of compost (or recycled into cardboard egg cartons, if they're lucky).) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
On books and films: The SNGs are permissive. It has to pass one, not all. If it passes NBOOK or NFILM it doesn’t have to pass NCORP. There’ll be a boundary zone. Book writing services, and streaming companies that make and exclusively distribute their own movies, these may both be held to the higher NCORP standards, I expect, if they fail NBOOK and NFILM. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I think that within certain areas, WHYN is rejected in favor of editors' personal prejudices. NSPORTS (at least the old approach) and NPROF reject WHYN to increase the number of articles, and NCORP rejects WHYN to decrease the number of articles. In both cases, I think it harms the encyclopedia. The harm isn't equal (over-inclusion results in bad/NPOV-failing articles; over-exclusion results in readers not finding the information they need), but both extremes are harmful.
I note NSPORTS as a contentious issue. On one hand, inclusionism creates a permastub directory of brief sporting careers. On the other, it is a never-ending gateway for new editors. The permastubs are BLPs, but are not problematic BLPs.
Extra inclusivity for PROF, and less for NCORP, is good for Wikipedia. For PROF, the few NPROF-passing GNG-failing stubs are not really biographies but are about the prof’s work. Like NSPORTS, I think these will slowly become merged to parent articles. For CORP, it is a partial counter to abuse of Wikipedia by secret inclusion of native advertising.
I don’t think WHYN “applies”. It’s more an explanatory supplement. Application or enforcement happens via individual SNG. So many AfD nominators and participants develop their thinking based on an SNG. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
The problem with GNG-failing subjects is that you can't write an encyclopedia article that complies with the core content policies. A sparsely populated infobox with two sentences ("He played once. Nobody knows his last name") is not an encyclopedia article. An article written from an employer's website does not comply with the core content policies. An article that cites an academic's own research to produce a good encyclopedic description of the prof's work ("The main theme throughout his 47 years of published research was the relationship between...") probably violates NOR.
I think that all of our policies should be based on shared principles (shared = principles shared by the core community, not necessarily the same principle being used for every policy). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
You are a GNG purist. So am I, except for NPROF. I once took much that argument to WT:PROF, and engaged, mostly with DGG and David Eppstein, and after a while had to yield that the Davids won the debate against me. Also noting that NPROF wins arguments at AfD, I adjusted and rationalised. Eg: GNG-failing NPROF-passing pages are not really prof biographies but are proxy articles for their science (and I note, it is always science, not engineering, not humanities, that are these cases); or WP:PROF had consensus pre-dating the GNG and indeed the entire WP:N; or The notability guidelines are merely predictors of AfD outcomes, and that is their job, and NPROF succeeds very well on this measure.
On WP:CORP, I note that it is entirely consistent with the GNG, but it emphasises black letter reading of the fine text. NCORP also precedes WP:N chronologically.
I do think hard reading of the GNG is appropriate for currently trading and advertising companies, and soft reading for once discovered species and once-mentioned mothers of ancient Roman nobles, as long as WP:V is met.
I think that the community thinks that native advertising in Wikipedia is present and needs countering, or else the reputation of Wikipedia, of independence of sources used, will suffer. WP:UPEs are quite active, some are skilled (they write compliant article), some are not (they write hopeless and get blocked until they improve), and there’s a dangerous middle ground. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
The story about why NPROF exists, and which of the great wrongs it is meant to right, is a nice story, but I don't think it matters. It is extremely unlikely that an editor can write an decent-length article, based entirely on what Alice Expert and her employer say about herself, and end up with a fair representation of what all the significant views in the world are – including the views of people who are not Alice and not her employer. How many of those GNG-failing articles have you seen that cite the subject's academic rivals, or that point out that the subject's ideas are only one of a dozen ideas, and probably not the best? I've seen zero. Look at articles such as Robert Soost and Albert Overhauser. The articles say their work was "important", but they cite nothing written by anyone unconnected to them.
Robert Soost is a deceased academic citrus expert. The article has a lot of incoming links, but they appear to all come from the navigation templates at the bottom. Do you have influence or insight into technical issues? Navigational templates polluting whatlinkshere results is very annoying. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Everyone wants it fixed, but nobody wants to do the boring and difficult work of restructuring MediaWiki to make it convenient. This search link, which uses the insource:your keywords here format, should help you narrow down the links.
I'm not really questioning whether these men are important. I'm questioning whether you could realistically write a decent article about them – where "decent" is defined partly as "actually showing what the world at large thinks of these men". The articles we have seem to show what they think about themselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it is true, I think, that there are important researchers on whom nobody published personal comment. Maybe there are low circulation books that cover them? SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I feel our discussions point to the base question being: “Should articles on for-profit, currently-advertising companies, and their products, and CEOs, be held to a higher notability standard than other topics?” —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that's the key point for me. I think the key point for me is whether our standard for some subjects is so low that we're just repeating and endorsing the subject's own self-promotional content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
This answer was a surprise. I've been suspecting that you've been at times playing devils advocate with me, where I lean deletionist on commercial topics, but now I am feeling almost sure.
I like your ideas of "is there enough information to a write a decent article". However, this might be a bit immediatist, I like eventualism, especially how it invites random drive-by readers to add obscure content. 10 separable facts? Does that mean deleting topics with only 9 separable facts?
What sort of topics are you concerned about having low standards?
1. Do they include 18-21 year old athletes and sports players who get occasional sports journalism coverage during their brief career?
2. Do they include ancient people with one or two mere mentions as relatives or wives to someone famous?
3. Do they include newly found species of moss, described once, belonging to a single mountain?
4. Do they include 18th century American west pioneer businesses?
5. Do they include Nigerian, or Indian subcontinent topics, where Western biased editors label all their sources as unreliable?
Repeating and endorsing the subject's own self-promotional content? That sounds like a WP:NPOV-based need for multiple independent sources? SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I think that the human tendency is to assume that our own views is so rational that we must be the middle of the spectrum. Within that context, I would say that I'm neither deletionist nor inclusionist. (I do self-identify as a m:Mergeist, though in this increasingly mobile-centric world, I will add that the separatists are not completely wrong; there are limits.)
I am not consciously playing devil's advocate with you. However, I do tend to pursue a claim to its logical end, especially in the context of policy writing, and I believe that could look the same. I'm also concerned with what you might call the theoretical or philosophical basis for a rule. Wikipedia's ruleset needs to hang together. It should not be a mass of internal contradictions.
About #1, it looks like you didn't participate in the recently closed Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability. I believe it demonstrates that I am not the only person concerned about having separate articles for athletes about whom next to nothing can be written. (My concerns are not age-based, though I believe that Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, and I especially feel sorry for people who get stuck with a separate BLP when they're young, because that article is likely to plague them for life.)
For #2 and #3, I have no concerns, because those subjects do not produce self-promotional content and therefore we can write the article without being stuck repeating and endorsing anything written by the ancient dead people or various species of moss in question.
For #4 and #5, I am concerned only when the article is WP:Based upon the subject's own sources.
I do believe that we have an NPOV-based need not only for multiple independent sources to have been published somewhere in the world (which is what the GNG requires), but also for those independent sources to form the main basis for the article. It's not good enough to prove that Prof. I.M. Portant has been profiled in three magazines, using those sources to prove notability, and then tossing them out the window and writing the whole Wikipedia article on the basis of his own self-written, self-published, self-promoting CV/press releases/book/etc. This is not clear in the policy at this time. NPOV says that WP:Balancing aspects is important and that we must give WP:Due weight to all relevant viewpoints, but AFAIK it does not say that we should not have an article if the only available viewpoint is the subject's own viewpoint (e.g., weak NPROF articles) or clearly state that independent POVs should be given more weight than the subject's own viewpoint.
I think that one difference between our views is that you believe you can reliably identify which facts came from the subject but passed through the hands of independent authors/publishers, and you want to reject any information that ultimately originated from the subject and treat that information as irrelevant to the question of whether "the world at large" paid attention to the subject. I believe not only that I don't have that ability but also that even if I could do that, the fact that a reputable independent news outlet voluntarily chose to repeat a given fact is IMO evidence that "the world at large" thought that point worth paying attention to, and therefore that it is evidence of notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
On #2 and #3 I agree. The biggest concern is citogenesis.
On #4 and #5, basically we agree. No, I do not “believe you can reliably identify which facts came from the subject but passed through the hands of independent authors/publishers”, change “reliably identify” to “discern”, which I consider to be an historiographical technique of thinking about “why this writer is writing this to whom” ahead of what they actually write. Eg something gets written in stone because it is frequently disobeyed; maybe it was never true. It is subjective, “reliable” is not an applicable word. Our discussions have taught me that my explanations are not easily understood. Usually I find that my WP:SIRS analyses are loved by my deletionist friends and bewildering by my inclusionist friends. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I would be happier with SIRS if there were an agreement that it's "all or nothing" approach applied to every subject (there's that desire for a logical and coherent ruleset again), and if its examples weren't so weak.
For example, it rejects the "Profile in Forbes" because "most such posts are company-sponsored or based on company's marketing materials". Okay, but what about the ones that aren't company-sponsored? The table should probably have a Maybe rather than a red X there.
Then there's the question about whether using information from the company is an absolute bar to being independent. The authors of SIRS apparently think it is. I say it's not, especially for notability purposes. If a news organization voluntarily decides to spent the equivalent of a barrel of ink and a roll of paper saying something about someone else's business, they are indicating that this business is worthy of their readers' attention. And, of course, you think you are confident that you can "discern" when this happens, which I'm skeptical of. Even if you can do it, most editors can't. So far, the community's track record amounts to people claiming that anything that isn't negative about a company that I dislike is pure marketing materials.
Also, who says that Forbes is not reliable? RSP disagrees with the table in SIRS. Some editors would struggle to see how you could decide whether the source is "reliable" when you don't know what kind of content the source is supporting. (All sources are reliable for something.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I too would be happier if there were a formal discussion on WP:SIRS. My position is that the all or nothing approach should be applied to topics that are actively advertising commercial topics or their products or their CEOs, and not to any other topic such as not-for-profits and charity or advocacy or political topics. I know that this draws a line right through WP:CORP. I would split WP:ORG from WP:CORP.
I agree with you on Forbes. I believe that reliability (still thinking reputable is a better word) depends on the publisher, and the author, and even other things that change. I try to evaluate each source on its merits, but having installed User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter.js, I can't help but be hugely influenced by the colour coding copied from WP:RSPSOURCES. I find myself tempted to accept anything green without even reading it.
As I have tried to explain, with surprising difficulty, my considered opinion is that secondary source material from the company poisons the content as non-independent, but only on a paragraph by paragraph basis, and primary source material from the company is irrelevant to the GNG, it neither contributes evidence, not poisons what it is mixed with. Secondary sources that go to the source for fact checking is to be *encouraged*, not discouraged; and company self-promotion blubs repackaged is to be *discouraged*.
I do think I can "discern" native advertising, and articles ghost-written by the PR department. I should be more clear that when I do this it is my subjective opinion in the absence of facts, and it can be changed by new information or explanations. Perhaps instead of "discern" I mean "surmise". I am happy to provide examples of this on any real source to care to test me on. There is a process to it. What is the perspective of the writer? Who is the writer speaking to? What is the intent of the writer? What are the writer's opinions, and how did the writer come to that opinion?
"Even if you can do it, most editors can't". I get that. But many editors can, but even then they use sometimes very different explanations. To even begin, we have to agree on language and the meanings of words. Your essays on source typing, third party sources, etc, are very good and have made a positive impact.
"people claiming that anything that isn't negative about a company that I dislike is pure marketing materials". There is a large component in that that I support. A review that gives 0 or 10 out of 10 is unlikely to be critical analysis. It takes a lot more intellect to justify a score of 4 to 8 out of 10. What about it is good, and what is bad. PR employees just can't bring themselves to sign off on admitting the flaws, although they do sometimes try to introduce fake flaws (fake flaw example: the underwear are so comfortable that you don't know they are there).
There was a formal discussion on SIRS. There was a bit of "Do you support this, or are you an evil person who hopes Wikipedia will be destroyed by COI and UPE editors?" in the air at that time. What I don't remember happening was the part in which people said that there were nuances and complexities and that editors always needed to use their brains, not just trust their automatic, unthinking responses.
I think that, in terms of the practical necessities involved in writing articles, that for-profit businesses (especially publicly traded ones) are more likely to be suitable for Wikipedia articles than non-profit organizations.
Speaking of language, I think it would be good to consider formally dividing "reliable" and "reputable". How does this strike you?
Reputable source: A source that, on the basis of what we know about its contents (e.g., it's a non-fiction book), its author (e.g., not a notorious crackpot), and its publisher (e.g., their reputation for peer review or fact checking) is likely to be a useful source for writing an encyclopedia article. It may or may not be independent/secondary/reliable for any specific sentence.
Reliable source: A source that is adequate to support the specific sentence/content in question. It may or may not be independent/secondary/reputable.
Notability-conferring source: An independent reputable source. (You would add secondary to this, but I have long wondered whether the GNG should actually say secondary at all. The people who picked that word almost certainly did not know what it means. Others would add significant coverage, but that takes us back to the question of whether the significant coverage must be in a single source vs adding up smaller bits of coverage in all sources to see whether the total results in significant coverage.)
If this were established, then notability-related pages would primarily talk about reputable sources and verifiability-related pages would primarily talk about reliable sources. Of course, you know better than I how hard this would be to get adopted. Our traditions are more important than clarity.
For any "test" of your ability to identify sources that originate from a PR department, I'd have to be certain of the origin myself. Otherwise, it'd just be your opinion vs my opinion, and no way to know which of us is correct if we disagreed. I therefore don't think that such a test would be feasible.
I like your most recent description best. However, I don't think that editors want to evaluate the primary/secondary status of sources on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. Also, I don't think that they should, because separating individual sentences/paragraphs/sections doesn't seem to serve the main point. We don't need hundreds of words of analysis ("secondary"); we need hundreds of words of attention, including at least a little bit of analysis.
About anything that isn't negative about a company that I dislike is pure marketing: What I see is this:
An editor hates a company.
A newspaper says something neutral, factual, and boring about it: "Next Monday, Big Box will be opening a new store in City. With 293 locations, Big Box is one of the biggest retailers in the country. The new store has hired 50 employees from the greater City area. Mayor Morgan, whose campaign centered on bringing jobs to the county, will preside at the ribbon-cutting ceremony next Monday morning."
The editor demands the the newspaper article not be used in Wikipedia because the newspaper article "obviously" copied a press release – an alleged press release that can't be found at any of the usual press-release websites or on the corporate website, but the editor knows that it was all written by the corporate PR office. The editor knows this because the only thing that truly independent sources would write about the company is about how awful they are.
This is bad, and it's where I see us ending up if we encourage Wikipedians to guess at ghost-writing. We start off with an assumption that almost sounds reasonable ("all commercially available products have significant flaws, and all reputable sources will be quick to point out those flaws"), and we end up by excluding all sorts of sources, including sources that actually use the whole range from 0 to 10, instead of confining themselves to the middle. We also exclude all sources that only choose to publish positive reviews (e.g., glossy luxury magazines, which have some of the strongest reputations for active fact-checking and yet almost never publish anything except a glowing review, because their audience is aspirational, not trying to make a hard-nosed business decision).
I don't think your list of questions works when you are looking at a product review in something like Elite Traveler. The goal of their writers and editors is to continue to get paid for writing about luxury travel products; they are speaking to people who are willing to pay money in exchange for feeling in-the-know and feeding their aspirations (or, to put it another way, for the opportunity to stoke envy in their own hearts); and the intent of the article is to make the readers feel fancy enough, informed enough, and trusting enough that they will continue subscribing. The writers' opinions are likely formed on the basis of both direct experience (e.g., using the product, looking at the product in a store, touring a factory) and whatever indirect information they can find, including information from the product's manufacturer and sellers as well as anything posted online.
The editors at luxury magazines know that they can't meet their audiences' goals by including negative reviews or by reviewing common, widely available products. Thus if the editor decides that it's time to review suitcases, the common brands of suitcases are ignored (such magazines can endorse only a very small number of "surprising" lower-cost items before they lose their cachet). Any low-quality or poorly designed suitcases by the desirable luxury brands will be silently omitted instead of being panned. The magazine's editors also know that they need to produce an air of omniscience, infallibility, and exclusivity, so they must be correct every time (this is why glossy magazines hire all of those fact checkers), and that they must not disclose the sometimes pedestrian sources of their information through statements like "According to the manufacturer's website, this suitcase is available in four colors" or "We know it's easy to clean because one of the the interns accidentally spilled a soda at the store, and the clerk whipped out this spray bottle and cleaned it up in less than two minutes flat" or "We found 174 customer reviews across four different e-commerce sites, and several of them said that the latches feel solid". In fact, to increase the appearance that they have exclusive knowledge, they are likely to create the false appearance that they have a very close relationship with the foremost experts on the subject – namely, the manufacturer's senior management.
I suspect, though, that the end result is a product review that you would hate. They're too close to the company! They don't disclose any real flaws! You're not doing a critical analysis unless you criticize! It must have all been secretly written by the manufacturer! Except, you know, that's just the convention for that range of sources. You don't want to copy their style into an encyclopedia article, but it's still attention from the world at large, and the magazine is still not owned or controlled by any of the many products' manufacturers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
<working backwards>
I try to avoid hate words. When talking review articles as sources, I think all single-brand product reviews should be treated with scepticism.
I am not sure that high-end whatever magazines make good sources for demonstrating sufficient Wikipedia-notability for borderline notable topics. However, once the notability threshold is met, they are good-enough sources for me. I think luxury magazines should be treated the same as trade magazines.
I think Elite Traveler reviewing a notable topic that has no other notability-attesting sources is a contradiction that points to undeclared non-independence.
“Meaning life, water, island, bird in Greek, ‘AVA’ is a celebration of splendor, freedom, escapism and joy. With this new concept, we want to bring Winter Park the first multi-sensory experience in the area, a home away from home that transports guests to the beauty of the Mediterranean and the Aegeans,” Riviera Dining Group co-founder Marine Galy said. “The community has been very supportive and has inspired us to push the envelope, and we cannot wait for them to start the journey and to create amazing memories with us.”
The entire 3rd paragraph is 100% Riviera Dining Group co-founder Marine Gal and 0% article author. Bad form, lazy review, Negative. Every subsequent word is also supplied content.
Chef. I don't believe KIM AYLING wrote a word of this. Same with Menu.
Interior. Surely KIM AYLING has personal comment on the interior? Nope. It's promotional poetry, the exact same tone and style as the 3rd paragraph, and Chef and Menu sections.
The only words I can believe that the author wrote are the first two paragraphs. These two paragraphs contain 121 words that I consider worthy of consideration towards Wikipedia-notability. These two paragraphs contextualise and introduce in time and space, connecting to the previous business on the site, and is comment/opinion, and is decidedly a different style to everything after. I would accept this 121 word section as one source attesting notability, despite the next 974 words being non-independent company-sourced content. I'm unimpressed with the Restaurant owed and supplied photos, and the link to the restaurant website, but these are not killed negatives. Had've the review given prices for popular and praised menu items and cocktails, that would have killed it for me.
I think sources like Elite Traveler are very difficult for Wikipedians to assess, but it can be taught. I would barely pass it on the 121 words. I don't know about 10 separable facts. Would you count and use the facts in the 3rd paragraph onwards? If someone else called "delete" on the bases of a lack of 500 words, I would not argue back.
I think you are right about editors developing a hate to some companies. I believe that these editors are typically experienced in blocking UPEs. On one hand, one might say they are well experienced in knowing native advertising when they see it. On the other hand, they have become accustomed to blocking quick with no follow-up process that reviews them.
NB. KIM AYLING and Elite Traveler have done nothing wrong. They have written good content for their readers. The have selected a good restaurant for exposure to people who like to meet good new restaurants. They are not trying to squeeze it into Wikipedia.
RE: "identify sources that originate from a PR department, I'd have to be certain of the origin myself."
For actual evidence, I look for the same words, the same phraseology, in other output from the PR department. Old PDFs are really good for this, google doesn't scrub old PDFs from its cache like it scrubs old rewritten web pages.
I have long thought that the concept of reputable sources should be introduced as separate from reliable sources. I like you definitions of reputable and reliable. I would add that it is non-sensible to discuss the reliability of an opinion of a secondary source author.
I think secondary source belongs in the GNG, but only for cases where it matters. I didn't push it hard, largely from fear that it would be misused on ancient people and single mountain mosses.
On for-profit businesses (especially publicly traded ones) vs non-profit organizations, I have noted that non-profit organisations do not employ paid writers to add promotional content to Wikipedia. Their employees spontaneously and unilaterally sometimes do it themselves, but there is no serious concealment of what they are doing, and they already get given short enough shrift. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
> I am not sure that high-end whatever magazines make good sources for demonstrating sufficient Wikipedia-notability
Why not? (It shouldn't matter whether the subject is borderline or not; either a source supports a claim for notability, or it doesn't.)
> non-profit organisations do not employ paid writers to add promotional content to Wikipedia
> > I am not sure that high-end whatever magazines make good sources for demonstrating sufficient Wikipedia-notability
> Why not? (It shouldn't matter whether the subject is borderline or not; either a source supports a claim for notability, or it doesn't.)
Because they are prone to undeclared non-independence. Companies that supply text to journalists for the journalist to put their name to. The more I look, the more I recognise it, company PR ghost authoring. The following simple rule seems to hold: For a single-product review article, if independence is not declared, it is not independent.
> > non-profit organisations do not employ paid writers to add promotional content to Wikipedia
> I think you just don't happen to see it on your watchlist. There's an open request for many changes at Talk:Families USA#COI edit requests.
You're right. I meant, do not employ short-contract UPEs that use throwaway accounts and try to hide who they are. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
How do you prove that this specific article is an instance of "Companies that supply text to journalists for the journalist to put their name to"? It's not really good enough to say that you're skeptical of whole swathes of the industry; you'd have to show that this specific source is one of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
It's a judgement that can't be proved. So I prefer to say, in the context of GNG-notability discussion, that the source reads as not sufficiently independent. Some people have got upset at me for impugning the honour of a journalist or newspaper, and it is a good idea to honour WP:BLP in all namespaces and discussions and limit comment to the point, GNG-pass or GNG-fail.
I am convinced that this poor journalist practice occurred in the EliteTravelor article. It see it as commonplace all over journalism and magazines, associated with single-product reviews, where underwear, bags, jackets, cruises, airlines. I am convinced, but I do not believe that all have to be convinced. I'm talking to you at length because you appeared interested, and replied with challenging counter-points. In my judgement, in the EliteTravellor AVA MediterrAegean restaurant review, the first 2 paragraphs or 121 words are independent, and the 3rd paragraph onwards is non-independent. That would be part of my !vote in a hypothetical AfD discussion. It is not hard logic or mathematics, I can't prove that my reading is correct.
There are plenty of sources online that talk about this practice, so it should come as no surprise to have someone believe it as happened. I also have seen it happen in the real world. I don't blame the journalists, they are understaffed increasingly, with every year. The blame lies with the decline in classified income to newspapers. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
[28] image from a photographer whose website says he works for the business
[29] uncredited images plus one that appears in multiple sources, by a photographer who owns a studio in Bristol
If the folks at The Times aren't real, then let's try this side of the pond. I had better luck here, with photographs in restaurant reviews largely coming from staff photographers (not the restaurant critics themselves), but not exclusively:
Sending a staff photographer to get photos means that the photos are all done with the blessing of, and on the schedule approved by, the restaurant. At least here in the US, private businesses have the right to tell reporters and photographers to leave – and also to invite them back when the restaurant has been staged the way they want it to appear in the review. If you are looking at this as a marker of distance from the subject, it is flawed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Which of these reviews do you think are demonstrating Wikipedia-notability? Guardian news stories are not in the scope of this discussion, of fake independent reviews of non-notable high-end products or services, or the company or its CEO. TUI Group maybe, but it is notable, without needing to rely on a single-product review article.
The Times' reviews are what I am talking about. Generally, I don't believe they are independent and will begin skeptical.
The New York Times and The Washington Post look easily rejected as GNG-complaint.
In judging the independence of a review, the ownership of the photo is not decisive. Did you note that for EliteTravelor's AVA MediterrAegean restaurant, in the end I gave it a "yes", despite the photographs and much of the text looking like it was company-supplied? SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I want to understand how you arrive at this conclusion. What makes you believe that The Times – note that we are talking about The Times itself, which is one of the most respected newspapers in the history of the world – is not an independence source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I am not considering The Times to be a single entity, but consider each story to be a separate story, probably with one journalist, one or more key subjects interviewed, a little bit of research and talking on the street, and probably only one editor, and each story allocated only hours of journalist time.
The Times is not "a source", but is a company that publishes stories and sources. I am not so familiar with The Times, but I am a decades reader and subscriber of The New York Times. I don't respect it as an independent source, but a newspaper with journalistic integrity, and a fair number of journalists and editors still on its payroll, but this does not mean that it will not publish sponsored review articles that fall below Wikipedia's WP:GNG standard.
The Times articles that you linked, such as the one of the Carousel restaurant London in London, do not appear to even pretend to be unbiased independent coverage. I don't see any such claim. I read the article as being a collaborative publication between the newspaper and the restaurant, no pretence otherwise, and the purpose is to provide material of interest to the newspaper's readers. I doubt very much that the Times' staff would believe that their review is a sufficient basis (or half of one) for a standalone Wikipedia article on the Carousel restaraunt, London. I'm pretty sure there is no article, although there is at least one passing mention, eg at Romy Gill#Cookery demonstrations and other events.
In short, the WP:GNG standard for independence is not the same thing as a reputable newspaper's reputation for independence. The newspaper is more concerned with political bias in the news than in the source of opinions on the quality of a high end restaurant. I expect the newspaper is concerned that the opinions they published on the restaurant will be borne out when readers visit the restaurant. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Your phrase do not appear to even pretend to be unbiased independent coverage suggests that you might be associating a lack of bias with independence. I wonder whether you are actually looking for unbiased sources instead of independent sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Bias versus independence? Interesting. They have a lot of overlap, but I think it is independence that matters for the GNG inclusion criteria. Biased sources should be avoided for NPOV reasons, but independence is what is called for the GNG. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Then let's go back to your sentence: You complain that The Timesdo not appear to even pretend to be unbiased independent coverage. Where is your evidence that The Times does not pretend to provide independent coverage of the restaurants they review? I've got your reasons for thinking that it's biased, but that's a separate question. What I'm looking for is some reason to believe that the newspaper or their food editor, who is a full-time employee of the newspaper, is beholden to Carousel (and presumably the other couple hundred restaurants he's reviewed there over the years). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Beholden? Beholden is not a synonym of non-independent, it is much more extreme. “Independent” does not mean “not getting paid by the subject (directly or indirectly)”. Have we been working with different meanings of “independent”?
If the newspaper reporter and the restaurant manager worked together on the review, eg they both contributed text and both edited the text, then they have collaborated, both are authors, and the review is not independent of the restaurant. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
If they both contributed text and both edited the text, then both are authors – but where's your evidence that this actually happened? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
If it’s a topic on which Wikipedia is prone to being misused for native advertising, I think Wikipedia rightfully tends to err on excluding the source as on of the two minimum GNG-meeting sources. There is no proof, no certainty. It’s a level of suspicion.
on reflection, I don’t think the level of suspicion is high for restaurants. People don’t go to Wikipedia to help choose a restaurant.
On whether the source helps to write good content, with reviews, I am now thinking it is better to look at perspective (near is bad, far is good), and whether it includes contextualisation (broad treatment is good), or is hyperfocused on a single product/company, especially timewise. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree with you about the value of contextualization. I love compare-and-contrast sources, because they make it possible to write encyclopedia articles. You want to be able to write "Subject is more ____ than Other", regardless of whether you're writing about frogs or frogs or frogs or frogs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Negative reviews suppressed
I ran across an interview published yesterday that acknowledges the reviewers' version of Publication bias: food critics intentionally do not publish reviews on most less-than-stellar restaurants. Here's the relevant bit of the transcript:
Terry Gross: "It's a real responsibility to know that you have a restaurant's fate in your hands, depending on whether you give it a good review or a bad review. How do you deal with that responsibility?"
Frank Bruni (food critic for The New York Times for five years): "It is an enormous responsibility. And I think if you're any kind of moral person, you think about it. And one of the main ways you deal with it is if you are visiting a kind of mom-and-pop restaurant or a restaurant that not everyone's asking enormous questions about or has great curiosity about but that is more a kind of restaurant that would be a discovery if you liked it, but, you know, would just not be in anyone's consciousness if you didn't, you don't pan those restaurants. If you go to that kind of restaurant hoping to find a hidden gem and it's terrible, you move on because there's not an audience clamoring to know what that restaurant's like. Taking it down could literally shut it down. And you don't want that responsibility. And you don't want to be that kind of force.
But when it comes to the better capitalized restaurants, the ones that are advertising heavily, that are the subject of great reader curiosity, you have to remember that when you're disappointing a restaurant by giving an honest but negative review, you're also doing an important service to a lot of customers who are spending hard-earned money, you know, sometimes making decisions to spend money that's not easy to spend. You are saving them from a broken promise or an experience that they shouldn't have to have. And so the moral calculus is a little bit more complicated than just propping up or shutting down a restaurant."
From the POV of the reader, this could come across as a sign of bias: the food critic "only" or "mostly" writes positive reviews, so that's evidence that they're colluding with the restaurants, right? But the reality is closer to the critics selecting only good restaurants as being worth of getting any space in their paper at all, and leaving the rest of languish in obscurity (unless the restaurant is spending lots of money and the critics believe their readers need to be warned away).
Think, too, of the POV aspects of how a fact is framed in a review. These two descriptions communicate the same basic facts:
"Lively, energetic crowd with non-stop live music Friday and Saturday evenings"
"The crowd is so noisy you'll have to shout to be heard, especially on the weekends, when the bands play without any pause for eight solid hours"
Is the positive framing or the negative framing the "true" one? If you're working from the mindset that all reviews are promotional fluff, then you'll read the first as confirmation of your belief, and the second as proof that the reviewer is independent. But it's the same facts, and the only real difference is that the second reviewer sounds like he stayed up past his bedtime.
I think we have to give up on the idea that a positive review, including an all-positive review, is a sign of non-independence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I think it is more important to look at whether it is a “single product review”, and of whether the perspective is too close.
This reviewer feels a responsibility, and thus a kind of relationship, with the people of the restaurant, and his readers. This means the reviewer is straying into advocacy and away from independence.
I don’t feel there is a problem with restaurants’ promotion on Wikipedia. I think the problem is more with companies that sell products that are ordered online internationally. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Why do you think that feeling a moral responsibility to avoid unnecessary harm and to respect his readers is "straying into advocacy and away from independence"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
If avoiding moral harm means skipping or glossing over negatives, then I think this sounds like injecting positive bias. For context on why we are talking about this, it flows from deletion discussions where notability is in doubt, and this source is critical in getting the topic over the notability line. If the GNG minimum source is a positive spin source, then that’s a problem. For me, while not diminishing the importance of NPOV, the GNG question comes down to “is the source independent”. It may be biased, biased doesn’t mean non-independent, but it raises suspicion of non-independence. The following questions I may have overemphasised, but I consider them: Do I think the restaurant paid the reviewer, whether in cash, or by buying advertising space in the newspaper?; Do I think the restaurant ghost-wrote their own review?. But, as I mentioned before, I think I should emphasize instead the following two related questions: is the source written from a distant perspective; and does the source contextualise.
(I think that promoters like to place the reader close to their product, and keep the entire focus on their product to the exclusion of alternatives, so I think these questions are sufficiently anti-promotionalism).
That takes us back to one of our long-standing themes: independence fundamentally has nothing to do with bias. You can be independent and heavily biased, and you can be non-independent and as unbiased as humanly possible.
Also, the situation that we're talking about here is "there is a source that exists only because it was possible to say something positive about a hidden gem of a restaurant", contrasted with "there is no source for this other restaurant, because the food critic decided not to write the source". You're turning a refusal to publish dead ends in research into a sign of bias for the productive lines of inquiry. This seems false to me.
Professional reviews seem to have a positive bias because you're seeing only part of the process, and not because they are biased, much less because they are letting the restaurant ghost-write the reviews. It is similar to the fitness studio paradox: You visit a gym and mostly see very fit people there. You sign up, and you even show up and work out a couple of times a week. But you don't look like the other gym-goers there. Why? Because you are seeing a skewed selection of members, not the average. Many members do not show up at all, and most gym-goers are there for a couple of hours a week. The ones you see the most are the members who spend hours and hours and hours working out. Similarly with independent professional reviews, more information is collected than sees the light of day, and the ones that you do see are mostly positive results – the ones worth recommending.
I think editors need to be wary of using their own gut feelings about positivity to decide whether an article in an independent publication is being ghost-written. I also expect "distant perspective" to be something that most editors get wrong. It will turn into "I don't like it because it's too positive, so I'll claim that it doesn't have a distant perspective". If anything, we ought to be telling editors that if the author has written dozens of restaurant reviews, then the author definitely has a distant perspective, in the same way that we would expect any subject-matter expert to have a distant perspective on their field. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Only publishing positive stories is a bias. There are biases and signs of bias everywhere. I’m not sure why you draw attention to this. A bias is not a reason to reject a source as meeting the GNG, is it?
I think bias is natural, and a bias may be mistaken as a hint or indicator of non-independence.
I think the perspective of writing is much more objectively assessed than other things we’ve discussed and you’ve led me to back away from. Perspective of writing is a characteristic of the output, not of the mindset of the author. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Did I mention that for these restaurant topics with reviews in reputable newspapers, while I note reasons for them not being perfect sources, I was in the end leaning on a “keep” !vote at the hypothetical AfD? Bias is certainly a negative from a perfect source, but is not a reason to reject as a GNG source.
Having judged the source is biased, I consider it necessary to ask why the source is biased. Noting (not with surprise) that high profile restaurant reviews seek out quality restaurants that their readership are interested in, is quite a satisfactory explanation.
It’s possible that a restaurant may post fake independent reviews in the NewYorkT1mes.com; luckily we already agree that the reputation of the publisher matters. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
On the one hand, you tell me that being biased "raises suspicion of non-independence" and " If the GNG minimum source is a positive spin source, then that’s a problem" and that you ask yourself whether the source is non-independent – a state that you determine on the basis of whether or not it sounds biased in favor of the subject.
On the other hand, you tell me "A bias is not a reason to reject a source as meeting the GNG, is it?"
In practice, I don't see how these are compatible viewpoints. If bias doesn't impinge on independence, then why do you keep bringing up bias when you're talking about independence and the GNG? You don't bring up other irrelevant subjects (e.g., whether the author has The Right™ Qualifications to be a food critic, or whether restaurant reviews are routine coverage). If you believed bias were actually unrelated to independence, then why do you keep talking about bias? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
The GNG requires sources to be independent. Bias raises suspicion of non-independence, but doesn’t mean non-independent. I didn’t mean to focus on bias. I think I was lead into talking about bias by you. I think of bias as an NPOV issue, and I don’t think of NPOV having much input into notability.
I think I’ve lost track of what the question is, sorry.
”Negative views suppressed”. That’s a good explanation for why the reviews seem so positive, and seems a better explanation than that the reviewers are being paid or are receiving a kickback. So, I need to backtrack on “all positive reviews” being a red flag on the independence criterion. It’s just a logical bias. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Definitely agree. I’ve been talking about bias and POV as confounding attempts to infer whether the source is independent. I had been straying into thinking that pro-bias or pro-POV is an indicator of non-independence, but I am now convinced that this is a poor method, both for it being subjective, and because there can be many other reasons for a pro-bias or pro-POV. Bias and POV are not reasons to exclude a source from meeting the GNG.
I am now inclined, in close call cases, to look at whether the source contextualises (with which you agree), and whether the source is distant-perspective (with which I think you have not agreed, and for which I am not aware of any written guidelines or essays). SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to identify near- vs distant-perspective descriptions in a product/restaurant review. I therefore can't decide whether it's a practical idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
@Moxy, I suspect that the clause "that would require monitoring that the markup is sustained" has a grammar problem.
Do you mean "section title" (not sure what that is) or "section heading" (e.g., a ==Section heading==)?
I assume that the overall goal is to say that while this is technically possible, that it's almost always more work than is either necessary or desirable. You might consider just saying that. Also, splitting this into more than one paragraph (or bulleted lists with summary points, e.g., * '''Extra work:''' or * '''Coordination problems:''') might be more readable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, WhatamIdoing. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
[32] I like to think that our ongoing discussions are not arguments, but digging into contentious differences, and that these differences are not personal, but entrenched in the community. I was criticised for my WP:SIRS hardline presentation of an argument, and I came here to discuss. And it has certainly been interesting and helpful. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate your willingness to keep talking to me about this subject. I have been thinking that parts of the conversation may be hampered by the communication format. It may be easier for me, in plain text without tone of voice or facial expression, to focus on the minutiae and miss the big picture. Thank you for holding on to those bigger points through all of this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks.
I think the big picture goal is deletion policy, deletion arguments at AfD, and how to better communicate to others. The bigger picture for that is to make WP:N SNGs useful for editors in making wise choices for what new topics to attempt to write. I find AfD heart-breaking when I see a newcomer has invested months into an article attempt that gets deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps I am more hard-hearted than you. I don't feel bad when impossible subjects get deleted. I do some times encourage newcomers to contribute in more appropriate ways. (I don't know whether they ever take my advice.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Update #2: Tryptofish has been uber busy, so I went ahead and replaced the current lead paragraph with the consensus-based paragraph Tryptofish crafted (diff). I retained most of the citations present in the previous paragraph, even if I disagreed with their relevance. A couple of citations no longer supported a statement in the lead because the sentence no longer exists. I omitted one instance of a reference that had been cited three times in the lead paragraph. - Mark D Worthen PsyD(talk)[he/him]04:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
This is an attempt to address perceived disruptive editing of the biography for Martin Kulldorff. The diffs provided below indicate to me a pattern of disruptive and uncivil editing. Together the quotes seem to be a campaign to drive away productive contributors.
I would like you to consider voluntarily leaving this article to editors who do not seem to be as unwilling to include all the information. — diff
and...
I do wonder whether we need to consider a TBAN — diff
I do hope that we can continue to have constructive discussions and even constructive disagreements about content and policy and that we can, moving forward conduct ourselves in a more civil manner.
If I have misunderstood your intentions with the above quotes, please let me know.
Unfortunately, I can no longer agree that you are a productive contributor at this article. In fact, I suspect that if you were a brand-new editor, people would probably be wondering whether Kulldorff or his political allies were paying you to whitewash his image on Wikipedia and dropping messages like Template:Uw-paid1 on your talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
You are all among Wikipedia's most active editors, and you created an article in the Draft: namespace today. Because of a question from another editor, I am curious:
@WhatamIdoing: Thank you for the ping. I'm aware of creating articles directly in the mainspace (and skipping the AfC altogether). But, if you want to know my personal opinion, I would not recommend that. Why? Because "draft-to-AfC-to-namespace" brings "checks and balances" and guarantees the quality (to a large degree). It is more important for editors like us (holding AfC and NPP rights) to adopt this route as it brings desired consensus, discipline, and team coordination (in working with other AfC reviewers, New Page Patrollers, and Admins). Also, it provides a level-playing field to new editors and institutes a culture of "healthy editing." - Hatchens (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing hmmmm... you're quite correct. And, if it brings in desired consensus and boost the quality of articles, then why not? But, at the same time, there is a certain disadvantage also if everyone adopts it. The drafts will start piling up and many of us might keep on disagreeing with each other. So, I would rather suggest it to be adopted at individual level with discretion (as a choice). Mass roll out and adoption is neither feasible nor justifiable. - Hatchens (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree. If you (any individual editor) feel like you get value from this process, then I think you should use it. If you don't (and you are a reasonably successful editor), then I think you should not use it. I am mostly curious whether the people who use it are already aware that they are not required to use it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I knew I wasn't going to finish the article in one sitting, so I used Draft space to begin. I like that articles begun in draft as have a time limit. I also like that other editors (who search draft) can see if there's one underway. My articles don't go through AfC though, since I've got whatever level that avoids that. Sometimes I use my sandbox to start a draft, sometimes I copy and paste from the sandbox, just depends. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I remember now why I worked from Draftspace near exclusively...
Hi there WhatamIdoing,
So now I remember why I work from the Draftspace near exclusively, back in October, when I first started working on building some new articles, I put them right in the main space (even with several sources, written from a NPOV standpoint, etc. etc. but they got quickly shot down. Anyway, I tried again per your suggestion of first doing some cleanup and then moving a small stub-like article to the mainspace, and within moments, it was nominated for deletion by user Bbb23. If you want to take a look and let me know what you think, please do so here. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥23:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I see. Thank you for letting me know, and for your comment. I'll try and see if I can incorporate the sources that you mentioned into it. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥02:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Question also for you. Are all the results from Wikipedia Library citable? Or is it a real smorgasbord? I just signed up! It looks like a really great resource for more senior editors! Thanks again! ♥Th78blue (talk)♥
Related to that AFD situation, I've wondered whether a List of US ammunition manufacturers would be feasible. If you decide to explore that, read WP:LSC. Many editors don't read it, so they think that lists must only include items for which a WIkipedia article already exists (the optional "blue links only" rule). You can look through Wikipedia:Featured lists to get an idea of what the ideal list looks like. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I spent a lot of time today digging and adding more RS'es. Apparently though the group seems to still keep pushing for "Delete" though. If you'd like to have a say on the current and more recent AfD for the article, feel free to do so here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Underwood Ammo. I think you are more aware of what should pass muster or not than I given your long term tenure working on the encyclopedia. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥00:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
If you need a copy of your work, you can ask for a WP:REFUND. I think you should consider working on the "integration" aspects of editing. Start a list, or mention different subjects/details in existing articles. So, e.g., you said in the AFD that they make "solid-copper-monolithic-fluted projectile rounds with lead free components". What are the most closely related articles? There's an article on Monolithic bullet. Should any individual company's version(s) be mentioned in that article? (Also, that article looks like it needs more links to other articles. Just at a glance, it feels like it doesn't have as much "blue links" as a typical article.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Help please
Hi there Waid, I hope all is well with you. Not so much for me (Gandydancer). I was in an accident and lost my computer and my pass word, and was even unable to type for some time. I had to start all over with this name but I really miss Gandy! Surprisingly, I'm really quite fond of her after 15 years of working here. Anyway, I am slowly getting back into working on some of the political articles that I used to work on and monitor. But my new account does not have a visual editor option and no matter what I tried I cant add it. Can you help me? It seems to me that the instructions said to uncheck something...but actually it was already unchecked on my page.
Waid, I don't think that I've ever kept it a secret that I think so highly of you. After I get my visual editor I plan to work on the Elizabeth Warren articles that really do need trimming, updating, etc. I really do admire that woman. I've actually come to see you in that same class of exceptional women. Very sharp and able to put their thoughts into words, very quick and able to see through to the heart of the question, up to date rather than stubbornly attached to old thinking, and all of that and more and yet able to come across never harsh and always without fear of ego harm...meaning a very good grip of their own ego strength... or however I would put that.
@Sectionworker, I'm sorry to hear about your computer problems. You need to go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-editor. First, make sure that "Disable the visual editor" is un-checked. That reveals a dropdown menu called "Editing mode". I prefer the option for always showing two tabs, but pick the one that you like best.
While you're there, scroll down to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion and turn on everything except maybe the auto-signing "Quick topic adding" (which takes away the regular toolbar if you click 'Add section' on a talk page) and the "Automatically subscribe" option (Subscribing basically pings you for every new comment, even if the person doesn't ping you; automatically subscribing sets you up for this if you use the [reply] tool). If you don't see an "everything" (five options?), then you might need to go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures to turn on Discussion Tools first. Also, I warn you that they're planning to change the appearance of talk pages. It might be a good thing overall, but you know how it is when someone changes the appearance: Even if you are convinced that it's a good thing, it can take a couple of weeks to get used to it. You can take a semi-secret sneak-peek at the design here (that page's content is in Vietnamese). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
At long last I got around to doing this and much to my surprise it worked! Now I will try and get some housekeeping done on some of my articles. Waid, is there any way on earth to get my old passwork back? I really do miss being Gandydancer. BTW, did you ever figure out how to make round cake balls? If not here is a hint. Think about what happens to the moon each month. Best, GandySectionworker (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The two ways to recover a password are to have a working e-mail address attached to your old account, and to be personal friends with one of the devs (and I think only certain devs can do it). Is there any chance of recovering any part of your old system? A backup somewhere? Passwords unexpectedly saved to the cloud?
I haven't tried to make cake balls for a while. My next cake might feature freeze-dried strawberries. I need to use some up, and the library had a cookbook that said you can crush them to make pink, strawberry-flavored powdered sugar glaze.
Looking at your recent contributions, you might be interested in the table I added to Pregnancy#Timeline recently. We need to double-check the numbers, which are all taken from other parts of that article and/or the linked articles, but not yet cited in the table itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC) s
Well I don't even know what a dev is so I doubt I know any of them. I will say this, if one of them would look at my password I am almost certain that I could take a pretty good guess that would convince them of my identity.
Waid, as you know there is presently a baby formula shortage going on here. On TV someone made a smart ass comment about maybe those mothers will now have to start nursing their babies. So here we are in the U.S. the only developed nation in the world that does not give new mothers paid time off - a period in which to establish breastfeeding. In fact, in the U.S. even at unpaid they still get only 12 weeks off but most new mothers cannot afford to take even that as they need to return to their minimum wage jobs (and once again we come out almost on top - biggest gap between richest and poorest people) just to try to make ends meet. So here these mothers are with the determined ones even just barely having established nursing every 2 1/2 to 3 hours, including at night and they are supposed to have figured out how to pump every 3 hours at work at Burger King, for 30 - 40 minutes per session. [33] As if that wasn't enough to worry about, the babies may well refuse the breast preferring the easy sucking from a bottle. My second daughter went on a nursing strike after her first bottle and absolutely refused any thing but after that. And so what do we in the U.S. do to help these mothers? We tell them that an accidental pregnancy will be paid for for the next 20 years and don't expect any help though you can barely manage to pay for the ones you've got...
Waid, this all leaves me feeling like such a hypocrite. The entire article says babies deserve breast milk when it will be next to impossible for poor and even many other women to manage it. It is very good to have known you for so long and I know how smart and kind you are. Do you have any thoughts on this? Could we add something to the article, perhaps not so much for new mothers than to be used by someone using our article for information. Could a new article be worth the effort? Or whatever...what do you think? Sectionworker (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't think anyone can see the passwords.
The thing that struck me about the unkind comments is that it's all well and good to say "breastfeed" when the baby isn't here yet, but what about the ones who stopped breastfeeding six months ago? Milk supplies do not reestablish the moment you need them (which has always been unfortunate, given how many families run out of money before they run out of month), but which now leaves thoughtless people effectively telling families that months beforehand, they should have magically known that infant formula would not be readily available for sale, and either stocked up back then or continued breastfeeding, instead of making the best choices they could with the information and resources they had at the time. Also, if we're going to suspend reality here, mothers should never need to be separated from their babies for more than a couple of hours – no more "selfish choices" like earning money for food and housing or having major medical problems – and all of them should have ample milk supplies, and babies healthy enough to breastfeed.
I have hoped that the unnecessary "toddler formulas" would stop being produced during this time, but I haven't dared to look, for fear that I would learn that they're churning out more of that less-regulated, simpler, nutritionally worse artificial milk instead of focusing all available facilities on infant formula.
Another useful public health message might be to encourage the parents of healthy toddlers (including healthy-but-picky toddlers) to quit buying infant formula, or at least to reduce their use of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Pointless essay and granite
You would be well advised to do a WP:BEFORE search before declaring certain subjects have only one point of view. There are a fair number of hits in gbooks for the search term "granite controversy". Admittedly, the argument is largely resolved today. SpinningSpark14:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that's long since been resolved, and there is realistically only one viewpoint on the formation of granite during the current century. Of course, a new controversy could appear in the future, for any subject, and there are tangential controversies for others. There is basically one POV about Algebra, for example, but there are multiple POVs about the specific detail of whether all teenagers should be required to take a class in school about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
My point was that there are often differing POVs in science/technical subjects and one can easily look silly when the opposition points this out in a specific example. I largely agree with what you said in the discussion. Nevertheless, relying on a single source is risky unless you are absolutely sure it is mainstream. SpinningSpark16:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't think I would want to write a long article from a single source. I think the closest I've come to that was Cancer-related fatigue, which had two sources at the time of creation – one excellent, and one that was basically redundant. A stub would be feasible with a good source, but I can't imagine it working out in practice for a longer article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
It sometimes happens that editors actually know things. That's the best comment in that whole rambling discussion. SpinningSpark09:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Naming screenshots of localised GUI
Hi, can you please have a look on -> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:Wx2a3bcx0gohhgjt when you have time ; I wonder how to name the screenshots of localised interfaces described in MediaWiki pages and if rules are already defined somewhere and I would like to have your point of view. Thanks
I remember that back in 2016, you were able to talk to Tim riley (Gustav Holst, still on the talk). Perhaps you could do it again. Cosima Wagner, - there was no such thing in years, and I'm not up to it with my little English. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Everybody tells me that. Brian was my friend, and being told that I don't respect his wish hurts, on a deep personal level. "rotten idea", I don't care, being told "clutter by a campaigner", I don't care, but both have nothing to do with the quality of that article, of course. - We had no discussion like this since early 2020, and I really hoped this giant waste of time was over. An IP added an infobox, it could have been formatted, and all done. The Brian I know would have done that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually standardized on infoboxes everywhere – even infoboxes handled separately in the software as an editable but non-removable item, the way that a File: page stores the image and the description separately. But until that day, which I estimate as happening sometime after I'm dead, I don't think your time is best spent proposing infoboxes for articles about classical composers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, - I missed your precious date by a month. - I would not suggest an infobox for a classical composer. Cosima Wagner is not a classical composer, and I didn't suggest an infobox ;) - What happened is that an IP added just the information of birth and death, below the image, and was reverted. The times changed, Jean Sibelius had an infobox last year, for example. Brian Bouldton added an infobox to Percy Grainger (in 2013) and to Imogen Holst, also featured articles. He tried in 2013 with the compromise of the identibox, which was used for Beethoven in 2015. He would have liked the conflict to end, I am sure. But how? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I think this dispute will end when newer editors agree among themselves that every article should have an infobox, even if almost nothing can be put in the infobox. The old guard will someday be outvoted. It may be years from now, and it will probably happen at other Wikipedias first, but the only thing we need to do is to wait. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
WamID, I can't help but notice that you seem to try to argue your ONUS talk page points... get this... using simplified logical examples. That's crazy. What ever it is is DUE/UNDUE based on who is better at edit warring. The sooner you understand that the happier you will be. :D
But seriously, while I haven't participated too much in the ONUS discussion, I've really appreciated the way you have approached the issue both with examples of how the policy seems to apply as well as through the creation of simplified examples of editorial questions (if an article is 1 hour old who is to say which version has consensus). My feeling is many editors tend to approach questions based on gut feelings. Those feelings may well be based on solid instincts but it's really nice to see someone take the time to translate these questions into simplified logical questions. It might also help that I tend to agree with your ONUS views :D Anyway, hats off to you. Springee (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I have been wondering whether we need more "gut feelings" in this discussion. When it's impossible to decide (at this time; there's always hope for future discussions), should we default to inclusion or exclusion of a disputed paragraph?
It would actually be helpful if someone would say "Look, I just think that we should have as much information as possible" or "I don't care if the pop culture articles are stuffed full of trivia, but if it's a dispute about whether to mention Alternative cancer treatments, then it needs to be killed with fire". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
It's too bad we can't get some well calibrated guts around here. It's a whole lot easier than trying to craft a bunch of rules that work reliably! I try to think about it as what would an overly formal historian with a British accent include in the article. I just haven't figured out how to make that a policy. Springee (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
I suspect that your hypothetical historian would be utterly lost in disease-focused articles. We give both the past and future short shrift and are hyper-focused on the present. If you see information about the state-of-the-art treatment from 2005 in an article, it usually means that we haven't updated the article since then.
Although we often seem to have minor differences, I consider WhatamIdoing to to be one of the most immensely valuable people at the policy articles, a calm, careful, experienced and expert hand in all discussions. North8000 (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, it's very kind of you to say so. I would actually be sorry if we always agreed. Some of the best moments in policy discussions are when people point out that a proposed rule will screw up a whole class of articles or that it will unexpectedly break some useful process. We need to be able to have these conversations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
At the risk of this thread becoming a praisefest, and with the caveat that I have not worked in the medical topic area: WAID I see you all over projectspace — with or without your official regalia — and you always seem to be kind, level-headed, and engaging. I've never seen you make an intemperate or haughty remark, nor make a fallacious argument, nor avoid good faith communication no matter how tedious it appears to become. You have an aura of imperturbability, and in a way that few others do, you see through the edifice: all the bureaucracy, all the politics, all the ego. You seem consistent in dedication to reader and editor alike. You truly are an asset to the project. I appreciate you. Folly Mox (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Aww, y'all are sweet. I suspect that if you look hard enough, you will find more than a few intemperate remarks, and I've made my fair share of mistakes. I am also aware that I once needed to apologize to an editor for saying something that even my most biased friends might be forced to count as haughty – something I did about six years too late, but also, I'm very grateful to be able to to say, a couple of years before her untimely death.
@Folly Mox, I smile when I see you in a discussion. You seem to bring a certain gentle cheerfulness with you. This is a valuable thing for the community, because we can lose perspective and end up in protracted disputes about whether to describe something as "X and Y" or "Y and X", as if the fate of the world depends on which thing gets mentioned first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
just to join in here before this beautiful discussion gets too old...though I do feel a little shy to join in when I see so much brilliance and professionalism around me... Many years ago I was a fly on the wall on Eric's page. Sandy, for one, would post, and others...but I was too shy to say much of anything. So the years went by and eventually I could comfortably explain to Eric that we Americans felt that the Brits were snobbish and that Americans thought we were number one in everything just because that's the way we were brought up to believe. And, Eric was so kind and helpful as I made my first important article. And then again work with me on the white cliffs of Dover article years later. It was like you, North, when you helped me through the Minnesota copper mining on the shores of the Boundary Waters article. You seemed to trust me to put it together and so I could manage it with your faith in me. Now then, about that dearly beloved one that we lost from our circle, I did have the privilege to see Slim and Waid down on the mat one time. I wish I could remember the occasion so I could read it again, but I've lost it. But I do remember that it ended with all the wisdom and graciousness in which it was conducted--Waid stepped away but with no ending words as one sometimes sees to suggest, "OK, I'm right but we'll let it go..." sort of snarkie comment. She just stepped away and they both accepted it at that. Beautiful. In my fantasy the future of WP is not on this almost fanatical push for more and more articles but on a push to improve what we've already got. And I'm not talking about a bunch of totally misguided college students working on the Wikipedia Editing 101 that only care about their grade. Sectionworker (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Gandydancer, you might be thinking about our multi-year disagreement over whether today's news is a secondary source. She clung to the idea of secondhand=secondary, and to her credit, she did find one book written by a professor that said he believed a newspaper was a secondary source. (But: only one.) She and I disagreed on more than one occasion, but that was the most memorable for me.
I think it's valuable to know the other editors' strengths. If you have a fiddly question about MOS, call Sandy (not me). If you need someone to figure out how a written rule can be misunderstood or abused, call me (not Sandy). SV and I partially disagreed about primary/secondary classifications, but I was happy to defer to her expertise around the NPOV policy. Wikipedia works best when we can take advantage of others' strengths.
Related to that, I think the "traffic cop" role is really important in a community of this size. You don't really need to know that Springee is willing to edit articles about conservative/right-wing politicians or that Iridescent's talk page is a good place if you've got a question about 19th-century European art and architecture or that DGG is willing to help clean up new articles about people; you really just need to know someone who can tell you that. I think the work done by editors like Redrose64, who spends a lot of the day pointing editors to the relevant informational or process pages, is incredibly important. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Can we please just stop going back and forth about debated terminology?
I am so far beyond exhausted, and all I want is to go to sleep and know that this is over. I’ve been so stressed the past few days over what that talk page has become. I’m under so much stress and I’m in so much pain every day because my human rights have been taken away from me, because I’m being threatened with what has been my absolute worst fear ever since I first started learning about it as a child, and I’ve always hated any sort of conflict—it just drains me, terribly—and there’s just no reason for our discussion to continue. It was never meant to be about what it’s become (which seems to be every single possible topic on earth at this point), anyway. Please. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Have you considered taking that page off your watchlist? Or even taking a Wikibreak for a while? There is no need to put yourself through any stress over any discussions about articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
There is a need, though. Unfortunately, my human rights are up for debate, and Wikipedia is an extremely important source of information for so many people, and what is said here is replicated elsewhere, and I can’t think of any better way to clarify things in a debate which has so much false information plaguing it. It seems to me extremely important that Wikipedia reflects the physical reality rather than only the feelings of whatever group of people happens to currently be the majority.
Please consider how important the information that conception will most likely lead to a natural abortion is, what the implications are for the people who proclaim that “life begins at conception” and are also pushing against contraception and encouraging people to produce more children. More children being born equals more abortions. Do you see how that completely changes the debate? This scientific fact seems to me like it would be a very potent weapon against the terrifying phenomenon of governments around the world that are taking away women’s rights in order to attempt to force them to bear more children.
Also, I’ve cleaned up a lot of vandalism and misinformation that somehow got missed by other editors over the years. I feel like the work I’ve done here has really made a difference. And taking a break wouldn’t make me feel better, it would make me feel worse, because I’d just be worrying about what might be happening in my absence, what real-world consequences there could be for me and others because of false information that someone might’ve put on Wikipedia having an effect on the views of people, and feeling guilty and regretting that I stopped putting the work in, even though I do feel like I deserve to be able to just stop caring and focus only on making myself as happy as I can be as revenge against those who are trying so hard to harm me (and very much succeeding at harming me in so many ways). Unfortunately, what makes me feel better is something that’s outside of my control: seeing that this isn’t happening, or that I or other editors can at least catch it quickly and revert it if it does. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
There is a need for someone to improve articles. There is no need for you to be the one who does it. In fact, I have found over the years that editors will usually step up when the need becomes apparent, and not when you seem to be handling things by yourself. If you want help with a set of articles or with a Wikipedia process, it's sometimes necessary to walk off the job for a while, or to cut back dramatically. Imagine what your life would be like if you made one edit per day, or posted only one comment to any given talk page per day. You might discover that you made space for others to participate.
I am uncomfortable with setting a goal of manipulating people's views or otherwise pushing any viewpoint. When we begin to think things like "this will completely change the debate" or "this information is a potent weapon", that should be a signal to us that we are engaging in Wikipedia:Advocacy and that we are not in a good place to support Wikipedia's goals.
If you can't shake the feeling that this is an emergency and you're the only person who can or will respond to it, then I suggest that you spend a few weeks contemplating the first rule of emergency responders: Put your own mask on first, before assisting others. It's bad enough to have one person in trouble; it's worse to have that person plus the would-be rescuer in trouble. Any licensed therapist (and many adults who have survived middle age) can help you understand and apply this principle. I suggest that you find someone off-wiki that you can talk to about how to care for yourself without delay. (And if you happen to inspire a therapist to clean up our fairly pathetic articles on psychology, then so much the better. ;-) ) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I don’t think that I’m the only one who can do it. I already mentioned other editors helping and the fact that it doesn’t matter if it’s me or others helping, that the response just needs to be as quick as possible. Everyone has different knowledge and skills and abilities and a limited amount of time, so it’s important to have as many good editors on the job as possible, and that’s why I and all of the others need to keep working.
I don’t understand how you can say that you’re “uncomfortable with setting a goal of manipulating people's views or otherwise pushing any viewpoint” when that was precisely what you were trying to do and what I was trying to stop with the changing terminology debate. I was saying that Wikipedia should avoid using terms that cater to the feelings of any one particular group over other groups and just refer to the physical reality: What percentage of zygotes fail to implant, lack the necessary genetic structure to continue developing, etc.
There is a push from anti-abortion people to change the medical terms that have always been used in order to redefine any abortion that is not induced or any abortion that is induced because of major medical issues and not simply for the reason of the woman not wanting to carry the pregnancy to term as “not an abortion”, and you cited those people. Their goal is to “make abortion unthinkable”, to take away women’s rights and stigmatize the vulnerable minority of women who would never want their bodies to be put through the hells of pregnancy and childbirth and the permanent damage that those things cause.
I don’t see how you could see any issue with me thinking that the truth and physical reality is a potent weapon against lying propaganda designed to mislead people and cause harm. And information that demonstrates that common beliefs are actually false is important to share, simply for the sake of educating people, as an encyclopedia is supposed to do... It’s not advocacy, it’s just simple statistics from scientific studies.
Also, your suggestions are offensive. I am an adult, and I know how to care for myself. The problem is that I am no longer legally allowed to care for myself. And a therapist can’t change the law. What might be helpful for my mental health is getting to talk to someone skilled in moving abortion pills and painkillers and avoiding law-enforcement bodies who can help me formulate an emergency plan... But, unfortunately, what might work today might not work tomorrow, as the situation is constantly changing. But please let me know if you know anyone who fits that description, anyway. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 05:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
After giving it some more thought, your statement that other editors will often step up in the absence of an editor who previously seemed to have things handled is compelling. And I think that my quality of life might improve from not having to deal with the feeling of dread that makes my stomach drop every time I’m about to check my watchlist, and not having to deal with the risk of needing to do so much research into things that aren’t important to me and spend so much of my time typing up comments like this one. I’d like to spend more time trying to have fun, in spite of everything. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
The Dawn of the Black Hearts FAQ
Just letting you know that I have added a dispute template to your FAQ for The Dawn of the Black Hearts album in which you claim the image to be a "copyright violation" and you also claim that Dead's family "own the copyright" to the image. You provided no evidence for either claim and your claims would contradict how copyright law usually works hence the need for some kind of reliable source. As Euronymous took the image he would be the copyright holder by default. As he is now deceased and did not legally pass the copyright onto anyone the image would be without a copyright holder therefore public domain. What evidence do you have that Dead's family have earned exclusive copyright to the image? People don't own images of themselves or family members that were taken by somebody else unless the rights are given to them. You need to provide evidence that it was given to them before you can make the claim. 209.93.94.108 (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Euronymous's family legally transferred the copyright of these images to Dead's family when they settled Euronymous's estate.
Copyright does not magically evaporate when you die. These images are not public domain. I suggest that you learn something about at least the basics of copyright before discussing this further. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Lol you've just proven yourself to be a liar. Euronymous died in 1993 and his father destroyed any images of Dead that were in his apartment along with most other things related to Mayhem. There was no "transferring of copyright". You can't copyright a series of images that's been destroyed. The image used on The Dawn of the Black Hearts did not surface until 1995, two years after Euronymous's death and it was an image Euronymous sent to Mauricio "Bull Metal" Botero which would not have been the same images found at Euronymous's apartment as they were taken with a film camera meaning each image would be a different take. They would not have been able to "transfer the copyright" to the particular copy on Dawn because they would have never had that particular image in their possession as there would have only been a single copy of the specific take. The Dawn photo is the last known surviving photograph taken from the photoset. It has never been in either family's possession. Euronymous took multiple images at different angles that night and sent them to multiple people one of which used the one he received for an album cover. You're a liar. You STILL have not provided a single shred of evidence of any of your claims that the family have a copyright on the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.94.108 (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I suggest that you learn more about copyright law. It sounds like you need to start with the difference between "possessing a copy" and "owning the copyright". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Transclusion messy
Clever idea but your transclusion is breaking the page and the reply links. I recommend not doing that. Andre🚐23:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
It shouldn't break the [reply] links, or the page.
I think a lot of the commenters need to see a typical article, and the iron law of the internet is that every click costs you readers. If it's not on the page in front of them, many will just trust that the comments about "one- or two-sentence substubs" has some relevance to these particular articles. I don't think that a simple link is sufficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't know why it was breaking them, but I think we could probably reproduce it on a fresh page and file a bug report. Not right now though. I have to go to my real job in the morning.
I wasn't the one who removed the transclusion, but I think it's just a little heavy handed move so that's probably why it was removed. I don't disagree with you that many commenters are lazy, but why not try engaging with the good faith commenters who did see all the fish substubs and still think the process could use a few improvements. Also, assuming good faith. I know that the internet is a cynical place, but this is Wikipedia. It's not proper to accuse people of not reading (even if probably accurate in many cases), and the village pump is a big public forum with all manner of random visits and comments. Andre🚐04:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I can't reproduce it actually breaking anything. Here's a link to that revision. The [reply] button is right there at the bottom of the page, and it looks like it's working. There are no complaints posted about it interfering with any software, only a comment that "I found it very confusing reading through the page only to encounter an article". As it's from the person who started the complaint, there will probably be somebody snarking about this actually meaning "I found it very inconvenient for my argument that these are all terrible to have everyone see that this is actually a kind of nice little article", but that's a risk he decided to take, and most of those comments will probably be posted off wiki where he won't see them anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
On the rest: Lazy people are good-faith people, too. I clicked on a bunch of articles and found zero that were just one or two sentences. Did you find any that short?
I think what happened there is that a couple of people said something as a general principle (e.g., that one-sentence substubs are usually unwanted) and others misinterpreted that comment as being a report on this specific situation (e.g., that this editor is creating a bunch of one-sentence substubs). In that kind of situation, sometimes what we need is the literally "in front of your nose" approach to showing people what's in the articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
You're right, the revision linked works fine, no sign of the issue I was running into. I'll try to reproduce it later. I can't really disagree about people needing to see stuff but I also can see that transcluding even a small article is messy. Anyway, if I find out what was wrong earlier, I'll let you know. Thanks. Andre🚐14:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Work-me files those bugs, so please do let me know if you run into problems with the Reply tool (or any of the editing tools, really). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Makes sense, I thought it might not exactly be a bug, but it does go to prove the point that you broke my ability to [reply] to you when you transcluded in. Andre🚐19:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
This article gives information about type (catfish), location in some detail (South America > Tocantins > Araguaia River), size (typically no more than 8 inches), respiration (Airbreathing), and former name (in the infobox). That sounds like a lot of "meaningful context" to me.
For example, just from this, I can tell you that it's unlikely to be a commercially/agriculturally important species (it's the size of an anchovy, but it's a catfish, so you'd have to catch each one individually, which is not efficient), and that there are people who won't eat it for religious reasons. Maybe the problem is less with the article, and more with it being judged by a couple of editors who don't know enough about fish or biology to realize what those words mean? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Responding in good faith but if this dialogue becomes unwelcome at any time, please let me know and I'll drop it, since we're now talking on your talk page about fish page things, and I know you are not the sole driver of fish things. Also have no intention of hassling or hectoring you on this topic. I find it interesting from an abstract standpoint but lack a stake in it, and am very open to an idea that lets us create as many good fish articles as there are fish.
I assume you know much more about fish than I do, but a general audience should be able to look at the article, and get a bit more context than they did at least in that version with 3 sentences, even if you add in the additional interpretation on its size and usage/purpose. A lot of people, not just me, are complaining about these articles, and here is what I see as the reason why. Articles need to explain to the general audience their claim or assertion of notability.
Hypostomus atropinnis is a species of catfish in the family Loricariidae.
This is pretty much how all similar articles start. Perfectly good first sentence. I don't have a problem with it, but it also doesn't tell me yet why the fish is notable. It just says what categorization and family the fish is in. Good sentence, but not sufficient for the article's burden. This just tells me the "what" of the fish.
It is native to South America, where it occurs in the Araguaia River basin, which itself is part of the Tocantins River drainage.
Tells me where the fish is located. Again, not bad, not wrong, but not sufficient. This is basic table stakes background information. Most articles, even non-notable deletable articles, have a what and a where.
The species reaches 21 cm (8.3 inches) in total length and is believed to be a facultative air-breather.
The size of the fish is just an attribute, probably suitable for an infobox. It's a statistic. It's relatively trivial.
I wondered about this facultative (spellchecker is underlining this word) and air-breather (not linked to airbreathing catfish and hyphenated differently) but I didn't even have the benefit of your wikilink to learn more about what this means. I assumed it meant that they breathe air. But I still don't know why and how. Had it been linked I would have followed it.
When I go there it basically tells me that a lot of catfish are the same way, so it doesn't really tell me why this particular species is distinct from any other in the similar families. The article doesn't need to give general biology or general ichthyology context, but that's not what I'm asking for.
I finished reading the new fish article and the airbreathing article and it didn't tell me why I cared, what was notable, what was special or significant or unique. How do I know if I have this particular species and not a sibling species.
Not saying the article couldn't improve beyond this or that it should be deleted out of hand if we think it can. The references don't give me any basis to expand the article. Both are just simple database entries with statistical data or taxonomical data. Maybe there's more there but I don't know how to find it. Google has 86 results and they all appear to be similar machine-generated CMSCRUD type a pages. Andre🚐20:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
When you complain that the first version of the article "doesn't tell me yet why the fish is notable" above, and that you want to know how it is "special or significant or unique", I wonder if you mean that it "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant", rather than why it is WP:Notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that's the right way to consider this set of articles.
First, every validly named animal species has an original, non-database-style description. This is a requirement for getting it named, so we know that at least one full, detailed description exists, even if it's not already cited in the article. You can't have a International Code of Zoological Nomenclature-accepted name without a description published in a reputable academic journal that is detailed enough that experts can differentiate your species from a closely related species. These are ICZN-registered names (that's how they get in the cited databases...), so we know that source exists. (Also, we know that if it was named before 2012, the description was published in a dead-tree journal, as electronic-only journals were not accepted by the ZooBank registry until the start of that year, and getting registered is a Very Big Deal™, so the descriptions were all submitted to paper-based journals.) Notability, as I'm sure you will recall, isn't determined by what's already cited in the article; it's determined by what sources exist in the world, including the ones that aren't already cited in the article.
As I said before, the problem might be more with the articles being judged by a couple of editors who don't know much about fish or biology than with whether non-database sources actually exist. I know those exist, because I know something about how the bureaucratic side of species works. Maybe that's specialist knowledge, but I think it's safe for editors to assume the existence of those original sources, just like they'd assume the existence of sources for a list of elected officials in a country that they weren't sure they could find reliably on a map.
Second, notability doesn't require subjects to be special or important or significant. Absolutely bog-standard, boring, uninteresting subjects can be notable, and every human that ever existed is "special or significant or unique" in some way, even though 99% of them are non-notable. I think it is actually harmful for experienced editors to misrepresent our rules around notability as being for "important" subjects, because many "important" subjects are excluded and many other "unimportant" subjects (we each have our own idea of what that is) technically do qualify for separate, stand-alone articles. It's better to avoid talking about importance when people are trying to decide whether articles should exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I take your word for it that every species is supposed to have an original description, and maybe every species will describe itself encyclopedically and to demonstrated-notability or demonstrated-significance standard in the future, I am all in favor if it does. I wonder why some descriptions are difficult to source adequately. The only reason why every fish, for which for whatever reason we can't find their meaningful descriptions to show significance, isn't a {{db-animal}}, is because WP:A7specifically carves out species. I was there when that carve-out was created, though I can't remember if I took a position on it, but I wouldn't be surprised if I supported it, because I was a big inclusionist at the time. I agree with you that many articles are notable that haven't yet demonstrated their notability, but articles that don't demonstrate notability, may be listed at AFD, and will very likely be deleted if they look like that article did. That's in no way a statement of intent to AFD some fish articles, but I bet you someone whom we've interacted with on talk pages does want to, and they're not entirely wrong according to a sizeable contingent of the community. Trust me, I'm not anti-fish or anti-stub, I've created plenty of weird stubs and some of them, I miss existing. You shouldn't really create an article in 2022 that doesn't demonstrate its notability. That should be a Draft. Andre🚐01:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Species were presumably exempted from A7 because some editors know something about the sources available for species (and maybe something about the level of science education you could expect from teenagers wielding CSD templates against any subject that didn't seem "important" to them).
You're probably right that editors knew a little something about science education when they created A7 to exempt species. I don't agree that articles can't be deleted for lacking verifiable evidence of notability. WP:FAILN, If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, try merging (to a genus article perhaps they should just be created on initially to begin with), prodding, and then AFD. Posting a merge proposal or AFD which remains as Hypostomus atropinnis is, is exactly what the policy says to do if you can't find any meaningful sources of significant coverage to demonstrate notability. Notability is not simply "the existence" of sources per se, it's the content of those sources as well - WP:SIGCOV. Frankly, while there's an argument that H. atropinnis or the other similar 3 sentence+fishbase+another db site articles might one day grow and improve, but there's also an argument that they may not.
I do think the Draft namespace is a good idea. It lets me work on things like borderline notable political candidates such as Draft:Will Boyd that aren't going to pass an AFC review (another new thing that wasn't around in 2006 or whenever it was when species got their significance exception). "Die of neglect" is probably a fine outcome for a lot of self-promotional company and recording artist articles that are created by new SPAs. But things do make it out of draft. I don't have statistics on the conversion rate of a draft to an article, but if 10 or 20% make it out, that seems like it's acting as a good filter. Andre🚐16:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for adding this word; it's exactly what the word I wanted but couldn't come up with on the spot.
The WMF folks who proposed the Draft: namespace (it wasn't a community-led initiative) did some follow-up research. They concluded that it was a failure because articles in the Draft: namespace get far fewer edits and far less attention than the equivalent articles in the main namespace.
I personally think the Draft: namespace is worse than that, because it leads to quality standards ratcheting ever higher. Look back at the VPPR discussion, and notice the people complaining specifically about the first revision of these articles. Notice that a few people are saying these articles shouldn't be created with "only" two reliable sources in the first revision. Is that reasonable? Well, someone I know used to create articles that didn't even contain a complete sentence in the first revision, and he turned out to be an okay contributor. In fact, last week he created an article with just two sentences and two badly formatted sources, and earlier this summer he created one with just a single sentence and two Wikipedia:Bare URLs – and I don't actually see any problem with that. (Speaking of articles you created, I wish you could add a simple example of the gameplay to Ghost (game) – which is the first article you created with any sort of citation at all. I can't figure out from the description how it works, and I think a sidebox showing Alice and Bob playing a round would be illuminating.)
The OP in that dispute, by the way, recently created an article whose first revision contained two sentences, and infobox, and two sources – one of which was a database. That's not the only example, either, so we basically have an editor here who uses a database to create multiple two-sentence, two-source stubs complaining about another editor using databases to create three-sentence, two-source stubs. There's probably something to be said here about sauce for the goose.
The old options, if you judged an article to be inadequate were to fix it up yourself (the community didn't accept you demanding that the other WP:VOLUNTEER come back and meet your standards on penalty of the article being removed, without you having to lift a finger to do any work yourself), to tag it and hope that would inspire another editor, to get it deleted (not realistic in this subject area), or to move it to User: space, although in that case (a) anyone could disagree with you and move it right back, without review and (b) this felt rather like telling someone to take their garbage and go away, so it was rarely done, and especially not done frequently and unilaterally by non-admins to articles whose only fault was needing some more work.
Now we have the Draft: space, and the emotional dynamic has changed. I can hide any article merely by deciding that it's not up to my personal standards and clicking the move button. I'm no longer have to tell you it's garbage and that only you would want it; I just have to say it's not finished (you will probably agree) and that I think it should be hidden away until it's "done".
The path back out means convincing other editors (usually one at AFC and one at NPP) that this article will likely survive AFD. In practice, you have to convince both of them that it will definitely survive AFD, because those editors are punished if they accept "bad" articles – and a "bad" article means one that looks good to editors, not just one that is about a subject that qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article. And then if AFC is a little slow, or if you are not following it closely, then – Oops! Six months has passed, and the article has been deleted without any discussion of whether the subject is notable. The only thing that was ever determined is that I thought the article was embarrassing, aka somewhere below GA level.
(Also, AFC did exist back then; AIUI it was created because WMF Legal required an alternative method for IPs to create pages when the English Wikipedia required people to register before creating articles, and I think that happened in late 2005.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Masem has reverted your changes to the WP:N page, so my wordsmithing has met the abyss for today.
I still think the Draft namespace has the right idea for dealing with promotional articles, but I'll check out the WMF research. Drafts might not be a good place for articles to go to get love and attention, but it might be a good filter for keeping out low-quality and promotional content. Maybe it should be easier to get "real" articles out of Draft.
I'll take "okay contributor" as a compliment, I'm sure the community viewed me as worse than that at one point. Sadly, the List of Star Control races that Ilwrath was on, seems to have been deleted along with all of the individual articles except Ur-Quan, which was a Main Page FA somehow. Go figure. Anyway, your examples, aside from giving a few scraps to my ego, do prove the point I made earlier that I'm not anti-stub. Though I will take exception on Wagner Park, that had proper references within minutes of that diff. [34] But I agree with your point overall. Having incomplete, or partially written, or bareURL-laden article stubs is not a bad thing at all. The question, is whether it will be possible to expand the article and will the non-trivial references be attainable.
For some articles, we can in good faith do WP:BEFORE and try to expand them, and if nothing can be found, it's proper to merge/AFD the article. It can always be created again later if new sources come up, which is something I've done before.
I tend to think "non-notable location articles in New Zealand" should probably, also be merged or deleted.
I'll take a look at Ghost (game) and see if there's a non-SYNTH/OR way to describe the gameplay. But it's something like this:
Alice: D
Bob: I
Alice: S
Bob: T
Alice: R
Bob: challenge!
Alice: distribution
Bob: ah crap, I lost.
If Alice said "K" she'd lose on "disk." If Alice said X or Z or something, and Bob challenged and Alice was bluffing, Bob wins.)
One of us can start a discussion at WT:N about the box.
On the question of Draft: space, why do you think it's better for a promotional article to be moved to the Draft: namespace than to be moved to the creating editor's User: namespace? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I think there are 2 advantages to the draft approach 1) it's more "public" so other users can see it and work on it (theoretically), 2) it has a time limit so it'll be deleted after 6 months. They can always be created again if sources are found. Andre🚐23:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
1) rarely happens in practice, and 2) does not seem like an advantage to me.
Have you spent much time in the draftspace? Click Special:Random/Draft to see a few. I find some unsourced articles like Draft:Aming (Indonesian politician), but I also find articles like Draft:Chronicles (Fall River EP) and Draft:Dog Home Foundation and Draft:Reflections (Studio Album) and Draft:Clean Air Fund, all of which cite multiple sources. The challenge for getting an article out of the Draft: space doesn't seem to be "if the sources are found"; it seems to be "if you can convince the gatekeepers that this is a notable subject". For these, I have no idea what the notability standards are for music albums, so I have no idea if this is wanted content. But I have seen editors decline articles for reasons like using WP:NONENG sources, which shouldn't ever happen.
The article about the Dog Home was last edited in mid-July. That means that it will likely be deleted in mid-January. Imagine that this non-profit turns out to be not merely "notable" but suddenly the subject of major media attention. If that happens in December of this year, then we can quickly move the article to the mainspace, and say "See? We started an article on this months ago". If that happens in February of next year, the page will have been deleted and another round of recriminations might begin. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I think this exercise is actually a really great example. Of the 3 examples you gave for sourced articles, I think Clean Air Fund one looks like it should make it out of draft. I don't think the AFC rationale is invalid though. It should be possible to address that rationale. This might be because it's a relatively recent development. I may take a swag at it.
The music ones don't look like they have a lot of coverage in reliable mainstream music publications. The former is a hardcore punk album from 2005 with some possible coverage that is probably WP:ROUTINE trivial coverage - listing in music databases and album sales sites. It'd likely fail both the music-specific notability tests and the general one. If we could find an article from a magazine contemporaneous to the time, which could very well be something that existed, we could have a case, but probably the band itself would need an article to be built first, which I can't seem to find. The latter album has even less - a soundcloud link and another band-social-network-promotional type link - and is likely promotional.
For WP:NONENG, I think it's proper to ask the creator for some translated quotes to establish what the NONENG material says.
I'm on the fence on the Dog Home one since it combines the NONENG issue, recency, and my lack of familiarity with veterinary NGOs in India. But I don't really see why we couldn't spend some more time making the case more clear before the article makes it to namespace, if it is indeed notable, and if it's not, it should rightly be deleted.
I think some of this is "quality of gatekeepers" and not "inherently bad idea" territory. But I think it feels like a productive and useful discussion and analysis. Andre🚐20:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I have no idea what the standards are for albums. I can guess that there will be something at WP:NALBUM, but I would not necessarily expect to be able to apply that advice myself. I'm not even sure what punk music sounds like; I definitely don't know what websites about it are considered desirable by editors. What I can tell you is that albums with little more than track listings are all over the place, and I have no idea what makes one notable and another non-notable. Do these AFC reviewers know the standards? I have no idea. Maybe they're as lost as I am.
I wonder what you mean when you say that one of the albums is "likely promotional". Are you commenting on the contents of the article, or on your guess at the creator's motivation?
I don't think that AFC is meant to do the level of review that you suggest in your NONENG comment. If AFC folks need to request quotations for a website in a common foreign language, do they also need to request quotations for offline and paywalled sources?
More generally, why should we have to "make the case" for an article's existence, but not have to "make the case" for its removal? Consider the articles about those two non-profits. Thinking about it not from a "how to improve" POV, but simply from what you currently know about the subject – the real world, not the state of the article. Imagine that I sent both of them to AFD tomorrow. What odds do you give them for being deleted? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
NALBUM offers brighter lines so you can more easily distinguish what a notable album is, but is generally additive to the regular notability policies, not exception-forming. It shouldn't require special musical knowledge or understanding of what punk sounds like (in case you want to hear Fall River, which might be offensive and insulting to your ears so put the volume low, they have a few tunes on Youtube(WARNING:LOUD AND BAD MUSIC)[35][36]) They were undoubtedly a real band, and I bet if we dig in some more on archive.org we can find some old issues of NME or something. FWIW, some famous punk bands that are good and popular, that you probably have heard of, are The Clash, The Sex Pistols, The Ramones, Joy Division, Green Day, blink-182, The New York Dolls, The Replacements, The Stooges. There are a TON of non-notable punk bands though. Fall River might be one of those, or it's possible an article could be written about them, but we should probably write their band article before the album article. Fall River happens to be hardcore punk or even what could be called screamo, so personally, not my cup of tea or most peoples', and they're not even a notable example of those genres.
The 2nd one with "(Studio Album)" (which tips you off a bit) was created by what looks to be a WP:SPA, for starters, and the rapper is also in a draft that probably shouldn't be created. It's sourced to a soundcloud and an instagram post.Draft:Sebbie Johal. It was probably created by him, his friends, his promoter, or his biggest fan. Either way, we don't need to speculate on their motivation - it's likely promotional on the face of it. Neither source is WP:INDEPENDENT.
I agree that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but it doesn't persuade me at all. There's a lot of junk that should go to AFD, there are also great articles that haven't been created. I still think these 2 albums were right to be declined. I don't know if that's due to the AFC reviewers' knowledge of the policy, but it seems a reasonable good faith assumption.
I can't answer the question about the AFDing of the nonprofits. I'd say the Clean Air Fund would be kept assuming it can be improved, and I intend to take a look over it and see if I can help it along. The Dog one I don't know, probably would be deleted, if I had to guess, but I don't know my own position on that one yet. I'm not entirely sure that it's a bad thing that as Wikipedia has become older and more mature, that it is harder to create certain articles.
I do think it'd be a good thing that AFC reviewers be required to know the policy for notability in topic areas that they decline, if they aren't already. Andre🚐22:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I was inexact when I said "assuming it can be improved," by "improved," I meant, sufficient references provided that are WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:SIGCOV. Looking at the sources on Draft:Clean Air Fund, there's at least one press release/own org site thing, a trivial The Times mention, a The Times mention that doesn't actually mention it, a trivial Guardian mention, a trivial NYTimes mention, a database entry for registration of English charities, a trivial mention in the Standard, two-non mentions in unclear sources, and then some fairly substantive coverage in India Express (of unknown reliability to me), and substantive mention in Air Quality News. If India Express and Air Quality News are reliable, it meets GNG and should be kept, but I can see there being debate on whether it is. However if we could find just 1 or 2 more substantive mentions of Clean Air Fund, it should definitely be created and kept. Andre🚐23:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
(Buttinsky) I initially stopped by to ask WAID if she planned to participate in this discussion since it involves a topic we have been actively involved in over at WT:V. But now that I've seen this discussion about species, it begs the question why aren't we using WikiSpecies and grouping into lists in lieu of creating individual stubs. Just look at this category. And since catfish was mentioned above, I'm not sure how 3 or 4+/- "taxosentences" in numerous standalone stubs, as demonstrated in Glyptothorax, serve our readers better than a categorized list with the same information located in an easy-to-find list or as an addition to WikiSpecies instead of stubbies scattered all over the place? Just curious...Atsme💬📧18:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Wikispecies was brought up in the discussion but someone said it is not frequently used anymore, and most has moved to Wikidata. Andre🚐18:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Eventually, I think that all the basic information about species, for both Wikispecies and all the languages of Wikipedias, will be replaced by Wikidata and m:Abstract Wikipedia. We'll "code" something like $species is a $type in the $family. It is found in $organism-range. and end up with something like what Rambot wrote from the US Census database back in the day (example). There have been similar things happening for years, e.g., the list of facts at https://ht.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espesyal:AboutTopic/Q13 because there's no article on Triskaidekaphobia at that wiki, but we could make it look more like an encyclopedia article. (Abstract Wikipedia is meant to be language-agnostic, so you'd probably have to code something like "$species = (indefinite pronoun) $type (containing preposition) (definite pronoun) $family (end of sentence punctuation)" – but you get the idea.)
If there were something interesting to add beyond the basic information, then you'd probably take the automatic bits and add the interesting parts, rather than duplicating them locally. This could save a lot of editors' time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree that in the very long term, something like Wikidata+Abstract Wikipedia combined with some kind of GPT-3-ish algorithm could write better articles than humans do, but I think we still have a little ways to go until the old-school human-written encyclopedia is obsolete. I also agree (presumably) that a future state of more semantic and automated article-writing, shouldn't stop enterprising fish editors from expanding fish articles in 2022. Andre🚐18:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I believe that the point of Abstract Wikipedia is to avoid unsupervised systems like GPT-3 algorithms. The idea is that I, a thoughtful, educated human with a clear idea of what an encyclopedia article should look like, decide that these are the most important facts to know about fish, and that they are best placed in this order, and I create the code that will make this happen for all ~35,000 known fish species (or at least for the subset of fish species whose information is in Wikidata). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Makes sense - I expect the Abstract Wikipedia will become very useful and maybe even more useful than then non-abstract version within a couple years. Andre🚐23:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I think that a couple of years is optimistic, but whether it's more useful depends on the use that you have in mind. It will be more complete, but it will be somewhat less customized. Sometimes the joy of Wikipedia is reading what enwiki writes about (e.g.,) WWII and then comparing it to what dewiki writes about the same thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Tying into our other thread: I think that Abstract Wikipedia would be an excellent way to handle the routine information for album articles (e.g., track listings). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Promotional on the face of it
Where is the promotionalism in that article? Is says:
_____ is the debut studio album by <ethnicity> <occupation> First Lastname under Music Label.
Track 7 leaked in 2020 using an unreleased instrumental by the late producer _____.
If promotionalism means that the Wikipedia editor is trying to get people to buy/support the subject, then I would expect it to sound more like "best album ever" or "unique sound". Instead, we have a page that seems to have foregone every opportunity to say anything positive or subjective at all, which doesn't sound like a "promotional" article at all.
Do you think that a page like https://reasonator.toolforge.org/?&q=Q173643 is "promotionalism"? It also contains some basic facts and a track listing. If not, how would you tell the difference between a page with a track listing (and not much else) that is promotional and another page with a track listing (and not much else) that isn't promotional? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
So, you're absolutely right, that I was a little sloppy with linking my premises in the prior argument. I said the Draft:Reflections (Studio Album) article was prima facie promotional, but what I should have said was that the Draft:Sebbie Johal article was. You're right that there's nothing inherently promotional about the album article, it is, as you say, a generic database entry.
The artist article, though, has text like this: his close pals began producing songs, and he became well-known for his freestyle ability in social settings....experimenting with developing his talents and recording songs....Gurdas began to return with his interests in music talents for quite some time in 2016, till commencing concept ideas for a mixtape - a normal article wouldn't talk about his "talents." It sounds like it's being written by him or his close friends or his "manager," who is also probably a friend of his. Maybe like a kid wrote it, too. and of course, all the statements aren't sourced to anywhere. Andre🚐23:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
The BLP doesn't strike me as "promotional" so much as "unencyclopedic".
Normal articles do talk about "talents"; the quoted phrase "his talents" appears in 2,500 articles, and I doubt that any good editor would think it always out of place in articles about established artists or other people. About Leonardo da Vinci, we say that "his artistic talents were recognised early". Jimi Hendrix formed "a band designed to highlight his talents". Venus Williams says "Her talents were apparent at the age of seven". Real Madrid CF "added the budding young talents of" a variety of players. Winston Churchill "sensed his political talents being wasted". Paul Newman "developed his talents" on a tour.
I'd re-write the end of that paragraph in our house style as something like this:
"He started producing songs with friends in 2010, at the age of 13. He became well-known for his freestyle ability in social settings, and he was interested in generating remixes."
The first claim need clarification, because there's "people producing music", which has happened approximately since humans existed, and Music Production, which is a money-making business. The middle claim is fine if it can be sourced, but I wonder if the facts support only a claim that he was "well-known locally" or "well-known among his friends". I'm uncertain whether the qualifier "in social settings" is material.
Here's a dispute that I encountered a few years back.
Agreed-upon facts:
A very boring multinational company (bulk construction materials?) already operated in 26 countries and was in the process of expanding to two more.
It was unlikely that any non-COI editor would update this article frequently.
Options:
_____ has offices in more than 25 countries.
_____ has offices in 26 countries.
I argued for the first sentence, because the second sentence was expected to be out of date by the end of the then-current calendar year.
Other editors were concerned primarily about whether this was "promotional". Do you think that either of these sentences is promotional? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
The difference is that all those people you just named are huge luminaries and extremely significant. Many reliable sources describe da Vinci, Paul Newman, Venus Williams and Jimi Hendrix as talented. Because they're among the top in their field historically and hugely groundbreaking. Sebbie Johal has 40 Google results and 8 monthly listeners on Spotify. He has 51 likes on Facebook. I'm not sure that the facts support Sebbie Johal being well-known, period, let alone talented. The "in social settings" is a tipoff that this is being written by him or a close friend or top fan, because how would they even know?
I agree with you that the offices in countries is not promotional, at least not based on the details you're giving me, but it's not similar to this case. Andre🚐18:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
If that language is promotional, then it's promotional for everyone – huge luminaries included.
If that language isn't promotional for some people, then it's not promotional – close friends included.
Think about it with a much more clearcut case, when "promotionalism" is an actual promotional campaign: "This is such a great artist that everyone should buy his recordings. Use the discount code WIKIFOREVER to get 10% off".
That's pure promotionalism, right? And it doesn't matter whether we're talking about Jimi Hendrix or a newcomer, right? IMO that's what promotionalism is.
I think what editors usually mean, when they talk about promotionalism, is "I think there's a WP:PEACOCK problem here, plus I can't imagine anyone without a COI bothering writing an article about this, so it must be part of a marketing campaign. Now that I magically know that this is marketing material, anything that isn't a borderline attack is 'promotionalism'." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't agree, or at least, the distinction is largely semantic. The article and the attempt to create is likely promotional, which means it was likely created to promote the subject beyond what the subject would be merited by their coverage in sources. Puffery and peacockery, when not merited, are an indication of promotional articles. It's not puffery to say Jimi Hendrix was talented and developed his talents etc, but it would be for a relative unknown. Your last framing is an uncharitable straw man. The fact remains the article shouldn't be created, and there are good reasons why, and it's not some kind of bad faith or unfair prejudice to discuss it as an attempt to promote the subject. It's a well-known and easy to show fact that many people create material on Wikipedia that doesn't have adequate reason to be there, simply to try to help the subject get free publicity. Andre🚐04:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
It sounds like you are thinking about "promotionalism" in ways that have nothing to do with the language of the article, and is really about whether the subject is worthy of an article. If the subject is unworthy, then it must have been created to promote/advertise the subject (assuming it's a subject that can be promoted in any commercial-like sense). Promotionalism, in this sense, cannot be solved through editing. Template:Promotional tone is either impossible or irrelevant; the only cure is deletion.
Other editors use the same word to complain about sentences like "_____ has offices in more than 25 countries", for subjects whose notability they are willing to grant (if perhaps grudgingly). This is a problem that can be solved through editing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I disagree - I explicitly tied the peacock/puffery language to promotionalism, so it does have to do with the language of the article. I'm not sure why you're straw manning my argument again. Wikipedia says I should use {{advert}} and not {{promotional tone}}, but that's arguing semantics.
Puffery might be an indication of promotionalism, but do you think it's possible to improve that article to the point that it isn't promotional? It sounds to me like you believe (given, e.g., that there appear to be very few independent reliable sources about the artist) the existence of the article, even if it says nothing more than "____ is a musician", would still be promotional in nature. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
The article can be rewritten to sound less promotional and have a neutral tone - it's possible that a promotional article with bad sourcing can be improved to a fair article with sourcing to meet notability requirements. This one though, might not be possible today given what exists for sourcing - and it's not like we can go to the special library or archive to find more info on Sebbie Johal. He's probably just some kid that doesn't deserve a wiki entry. Maybe he hits the big time in the future, the article can be recreated. Andre🚐20:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
"Probably promotional" is a description of both the article and the activity of the creator based on the circumstances, one of which is the tone of the article text, but it's totally possible for article that was promotional to become a good article. Is the article still promotional? Not in the case where the new version is better, even though you could say that it was created promotionally and the old version was promotional. However, the creation of the article, the event of its creation, I guess you can never make that not have been promotional. Andre🚐20:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
So the event of its creation is irredeemably promotional, assuming that our guess about its 'origin story' has some positive correlation with the facts.
It really depends. It is certainly possible to write a bad article about something you're a fan of, due to an overly positive and laudatory tone, that I suppose you could call promotional - but it's a different case than "obvious/likely self- or close-connection COI promotion." I recently left a comment on Heinz Tomato Ketchup and removed an {{advert}} tag. IMO, it's not promotional if you're just adding some stuff to an article about a ketchup you like. But there are an awful lot of articles that get created for non-notable fan content. The old version of Heinz ketchup was a little too detailed and "in popular culture" heavy, but I doubt that Heinz PR was intentionally promoting it on Wikipedia. Andre🚐22:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Do we have three cases now?
It's promotional because it sounds overly positive and laudatory (to me).
It's promotional because it was created by someone with a COI.
It's promotional because it's a non-notable subject, and we think someone could benefit (e.g., financially) from the subject becoming more well-known.
The first is subject to whims and eventually cynicism, which leads to the silliness around "more than 25 countries". The second would encompass attack articles (e.g., if you and the subject are embroiled in a lawsuit). The third would encompass articles created by editors who, as a public service, create basic stubs about businesses/government agencies they know about. It's not my idea of fun, but just like some reference librarians add citations related to the questions they get from library patrons, some editors add basic stubs about organizations they encounter at work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
In the case where someone is just creating an article about an obscure organization or company, that they found out about at work, that is not promotional. If sources exist to demonstrate notability, and they can write neutrally about the company, they can do it even if they have a COI. It's only promotional if enough of the evidence is met. Think of it as less of a bright-line test and more of a differential diagnosis. You can have one or more things, or it could be borderline, or none of the things. Many people are either paid editors or working to advance their own organization or project or product or art, and so they create puffery articles sourced to press releases. If the company is notable enough to get real press, it should be kept, even if someone created it as a promotional article. Andre🚐00:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Have you read WP:COI since SlimVirgin re-wrote it years ago? It changed a lot. I don't think most editors even remember that it used to say that you can write an article when you have a COI, as long as you can make it appear to be neutral. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Regardless, if people with COI write good neutral articles, and we never find out they had a COI, that's the complete opposite of this hypothetical situation we were discussing. I am aware that there are disclosure requirements for COI and strong discouragement of direct editing that didn't exist years ago, but it's pretty much besides the point. Promotional editing doesn't require disclosure of a COI or the existence of a definitive COI at all, but a common form of COI promotional editing is self-promotion of an artist or business. Andre🚐01:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
If this BLP's article creation is an irredeemably promotional act because of COI, then any COI article creation is an irredeemably promotional act, even if we are unaware of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, I don't agree, but we can drop it. I think I've laid out that there are promotional articles and acts, but that it is not promotional by default simply because of the COI alone, there needs to be a reasonable assumption or intent to promote the subject's accomplishments. There should be some indication of exaggerating the subject's importance, through the article's language. If an article is borderline notable and someone with a COI creates a neutral article, that's not necessarily promotional. Andre🚐15:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
So you believe that if there is (unknown to you) a document titled "Advertising Promotion Campaign" that says "Step 2: Create Wikipedia article, so this will look legitimate – make sure it says very little for the first several months, all dry and boring, so it doesn't get deleted as spam", then I'm not actually engaged in promotion, just because you didn't know about it?
But if a kid whose writing style we might think is better suited for gushing on fansites than for a stiff-upper-lip encyclopedia (i.e., using a style that is considered desirable, legitimate, and appropriate in some cultures; using a style that mimics the available independent reliable sources) writes an article in their usual style, in the hope of sharing a few facts about a subject we've never heard of, then we declare that we know their motivation, and therefore it's promotional.
End result: My actual, paid-for-work promotional effort is declared "not promotional", and the other person's genuine volunteer effort is declared "promotional".
Maybe we shouldn't be trying to guess people's motivations? I strongly suspect that we're bad at it. I support deleting that BLP draft as non-notable; I support not having that kind of puffery in any article. But I doubt that we should be declaring that we know the motivations of the person who created it, and I'm certain that we don't need to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Good point - if there is an unknown fact of promotion, that is still a promotional act, but the article isn't apparently promotional if it is "all dry and boring" and meets guidelines. So we don't need to speculate as to the cui bono of the article because it is not apparent that it's hyping the subject. It would still technically be promotional, but crypto-promotional (meaning, hidden, not some bitcoin thing).
If a fansite kid writes a promotional article for something non-notable but he's just a sincere fan of - well, yeah, it's not quite on the same level as someone promoting their own business, or paid editing, but it is equally correct to draftify and/or delete the article. No need to penalize the editor, of course.
I don't think we're unfairly speculating on the mental state of an unknown editor by concluding by the smell test that something is likely promotional. Sure, there are edge cases, but there are also a huge volume of typical cases. A heuristic test isn't treading, IMHO, into the territory of speculating on bad faith motives. The rapper we were discussing earlier, it's possible that the article was just a fan, but it's still apparently promoting the subject, beyond what would be merited by the sources and coverage. There are definitely scenarios that break this neat analysis, but since this is a differential diagnosis, not a strict hard-and-fast rule, we simply conclude that it is inconclusive if that is indeed the case. Andre🚐16:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Gender neutral language at the pregnancy article
Hi there Waid, could you take a look at the Pregnancy article talk page and comment at the latest section re using gender neutral language. It seems that perhaps a class instructor either has advised the students to use it or has not advised them not to use it in some places. I for one don't like it at the pregnancy article. What do you think? Sectionworker (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
I think that there is no "perfect" answer, and that if you want to read more one of the longest talk pages in the entire wiki – longer than most novels – then User talk:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox 4 is there for you to weep over. You could also save yourself a lot of time and just read this summary: All the available options have problems. There is a somewhat longer, set of notes at User:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox 4 that might be useful (e.g., if you want to know what all the available options are. N.B. that some of the ideas noted there are very likely to be bad ideas).
I think we're also seeing a generation gap, because non-binary folks are a lot more common in the generation that has just become fertile than in the generation that's written the last several decades of gynecology textbooks. I say this because in our age cohort, the number of non-cis women planning a pregnancy is basically zero, but if you're about 20 years old, then you probably know several non-binary students whom you kind of expect to have children at some point (to the extent that college students ever expect anyone to have children). As a result, in our own personal experience, non-erasing language like "pregnant women and other pregnant people" appears to vastly over-emphasize the very small number of non-women who are pregnant, but a younger person taking an LGBTQ class (who will, thereby, come into regular contact with even more LGBTQ people than average) might realistically expect non-women to make up a relatively large fraction of their friends and acquaintances who will have children. The two generations might differ in their estimates of the number of births to non-cis women by a hundredfold. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Maybe rather than a red X there.
01:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Buttinsky) I initially stopped by to ask WAID if she planned to participate in this discussion since it involves a topic we have been actively involved in over at WT:V. But now that I've seen this discussion about species, it begs the question why aren't we using WikiSpecies and grouping into lists in lieu of creating individual stubs. Just look at this category. And since catfish was mentioned above, I'm not sure how 3 or 4+/- "taxosentences" in numerous standalone stubs, as demonstrated in Glyptothorax, serve our readers better than a categorized list with the same information located in an easy-to-find list or as an addition to WikiSpecies instead of stubbies scattered all over the place? 
Just curious... Atsme 💬 📧 18:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
