Robert McClenon (talk | contribs) →Film Notability: new section |
Tecumseh*1301 (talk | contribs) →Astana: new section Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
||
Line 148: | Line 148: | ||
At [[Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)/November 2021 Draft RFC]], I suggested on 29 October that someone who supports Option 3, such as you, could provide the language for Option 3. I have taken out the language that is a copy of the Option 2 language. Could you possibly either provide draft language, or identify someone who can provide draft language, so that we can try to get this issue closer to resolution? |
At [[Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)/November 2021 Draft RFC]], I suggested on 29 October that someone who supports Option 3, such as you, could provide the language for Option 3. I have taken out the language that is a copy of the Option 2 language. Could you possibly either provide draft language, or identify someone who can provide draft language, so that we can try to get this issue closer to resolution? |
||
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 23:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC) |
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 23:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC) |
||
== Astana == |
|||
Hi there, Smokey, regarding the move review. If [[Astana]] is used more commonly, than the Argument, how it is called, is less important, generally speaking, isnt it? |
|||
--[[User:Tecumseh*1301|Tecumseh*1301]] ([[User talk:Tecumseh*1301|talk]]) 19:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:21, 4 November 2021
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present. |
Wikipedia:Numbers
Sorry for the late reply. Feel free to reuse that title for Wikipedia: Notability (numbers), or a redirect to it. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2007-10-08 20:49 Z
Help Project newsletter : Issue 4
The Help Project Newsletter Issue IV - September 2012 | |
|
Hi, and welcome to the fourth issue of the Help Project newsletter. It's been another busy month in the world of Wikipedia help. The results from the in-person usability tests conducted as part of the help pages fellowship have been released. There are no great surprises here, the tests confirmed that people have trouble with the existing help system, and people looking for help on the same topic often end up at wildly different pages. Editors who experienced a tutorial and/or edited a sandbox as part of their learning were noticeably more confident when editing a real article. Drawing on that, three new "Introduction to" tutorials for new users have been created: referencing, uploading images and navigating Wikipedia. These join the popular existing introductions to policies and guidelines and talk pages. Feel free to edit them, but please do remember that the idea is to keep them simple and as free from extraneous details as possible. All three have been added to Help:Getting started, which is intended to be the new focal point for new editors, and will also be seeing a redesign soon. In other news, the Article Feedback Tool (AFT) can now be used to collect feedback on help pages. By default it has been deployed to all pages in the Help: namespace. It can be disabled on any page by adding Category:Article Feedback Blacklist, or enabled for pages in other namespaces by adding Category:Article Feedback 5 Additional Articles. Once a page has AFT applied, you can add feedback using the form which appears at the bottom of it. Feedback can be reviewed by clicking "View feedback" in the sidebar, or the "Feedback from my watched pages" link at the top of your watchlist. I'm now entering the final month of my fellowship, and will be focusing my efforts on making much needed improvements to Help:Contents, the main entrance point to our help system. It's been a pleasure working as a fellow, and I just want to thank all the people who have helped me or offered advice over the past months. That definitely won't be the end of my involvement in the Help Project though, I'll be sticking around as a volunteer and continuing to write this newsletter. Any comments or suggestions for future issues are welcome at Wikipedia:Help Project/Newsletter. If you don't wish to receive this newsletter on your talk page in future then just edit the participants page and add "no newsletter" next to your name. |
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Help Project newsletter : Issue 5
The Help Project Newsletter Issue V - January 2013 | |
|
Hello again from the Help Project! In the last newsletter (which was quite a while ago sorry!) I talked about my fellowship and the plans for improving the main portal page, Help:Contents. Well I'm sad to say that my fellowship is now over, but very happy to say that the proposed improvements to that page have been completed and implemented. Do check it out if you haven't already. Another important and frequently used help page, Wikipedia:Contact us, has also seen a significant revamp. You may recognise the design inspiration from the new tutorial pages. In project news, we now have a subscription to the "article alerts" service. Any deletion nominations, move discussions, or requests for comments on pages within the Help Project's scope will now show up at Wikipedia:Help Project/Article alerts. So that's definitely a page which project members might want to watch. Any comments or suggestions for future issues are welcome at Wikipedia:Help Project/Newsletter. If you don't wish to receive this newsletter on your talk page in future then just edit the participants page and add "no newsletter" next to your name. |
WikiProject:REHAB update
You signed up for WikiProject User Rehab
Hi there, I'm RDN1F. It's come to my attention that you've signed up for WikiProject Rehab, but since that time the project has retired. I've decided to take it upon myself to rejuvenate the project - but I could do with your help. If you are still willing to help mentor (or even give me a hand in bringing this project back!) leave a message on my talk page
RDN1F TALK 16:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Help Project newsletter : Issue 6
The Help Project Newsletter |
Issue VI - April 2013 |
Open Help Conference The Open Help Conference will be taking place June 15-19 in Cincinnati Ohio, USA. The conference includes two days of presentations and open discussions, followed by team "sprints" - collaborative efforts to write and improve documentation. It has been suggested to send a team from Wikipedia/Wikimedia: to share our own knowledge about help, learn from others in the open source community working on similar problems, and to carry out a sprint to improve some aspect of Wikipedia's help. There may be support available for volunteers to attend from the Participation Support program (and your editor is certainly hoping to be there!) Please join the discussion in Meta's IdeaLab if you're interested, and/or have suggestions about what we could work on. |
Other news
|
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter on your talk page in future then just edit the participants page and add "no newsletter" next to your name. Suggestions for future issues are welcome at Wikipedia:Help Project/Newsletter. |
Check this out: Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia Strategy 2017#Wikimedia data is at the heart of AI research, but the Wikimedia community is not
Hi Jc
Hi Jc. I am pleased to see you are active again. I missed you. I hope you are well. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hey there. Thank you for the note : )
- And doing alright, I hope you are as well : )
- (And now you have me wondering which of my eclectic edits alerted you that I was sneaking out from under my rock lol
- Thanks again, and I hope you are having an awesome day : ) - jc37 06:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- User:Jc37, I saw you here. And then I found myself reading Wikipedia:We are all Wikipedians here. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, lol. That made me chuckle. It was nice of him to correct out of the blue like that.
- As for WAWH, if you don't mind my asking, what did you think after reading? - jc37 06:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- User:Jc37, I saw you here. And then I found myself reading Wikipedia:We are all Wikipedians here. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Deletion/redirection
Hey SJ, sorry I was not able to respond at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography of the United Arab Emirates before it was closed. Happy to participate in further broader discussion of the principles, if you want to open one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council or elsewhere. Best, UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Question about sourcing
Hi there, I found your feedback on Draft:Manscaped a little confusing. You mention a lack of sources discussing "the product line" when the piece makes no mention of the product line. The article only defines the company itself, as clearly presented in independent, secondary sources. This includes two dedicated Bloomberg stories, a WSJ piece, a CNBC article, and even if you consider them less reliable, two Forbes pieces - clear proof, I continue to imagine, of the veracity of the company's existence as a definable and notable entity. Conversely, no detailed "product line" information has been written or sourced, as I had assumed this would be considered promotional and not appropriate subject matter. Commercial products are typically referenced in products reviews and listicles that have less than stellar editorial credentials. Take, for example, the products section for Philips - there the only source for this information is the company's own website. However, company websites have no place in establishing notability. This leaves me confused as to what information you want about products, and how you expect it to be sourced. Are you saying you want information on products to be included? And if so, what type of sources do you imagine might support this? -- Iskandar_323 Talk 8:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- User:Iskandar_323, thanks for asking.
- Do you understand that this company/production is engaged in saturation promotion? Do you have any incentive to create this article?
- The Boomsberg, Forbes, and WSJ sources look good superficially only, but they are one-eyed all glowing promotion, close perspective. I expect to see dis at the perspective writing, contextualisation of the product, comparison with other products, and all couched in the general topic.
- There are existing articles that could use improvement. Have you looked at Hair removal or Male grooming? These are the general topic, and they don’t mention specific commercial products.
- Why should this specific product be covered, as a WP:Orphan, when according to independent user reviews it is not even a particularly good product? The only thing special about this product is that it is being commercially promoted at saturation levels.
- If you would like me to discuss specific sources in detail, please follow the advice at WP:THREE. The draft has 12 references. Only two sources are needed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- I do understand that the company engages in considerable amounts of promotion - that is even mentioned in the article - but I don't see how that is relevant when the page itself is based on reliable WP:RS/PS sources independent of such promotion that I have gone out of my way (sifting through that very promotion) in order to find. I still don't understand your perspective on some of the sources - both the Bloomberg pieces are straight and narrow financial news story reporting: the second states clearly that Manscaped was not available for comment, so how can you consider this promotion? The WSJ piece, meanwhile, is the perfect example of contextualisation - the article is pegged on an advert that ran featuring a sports celebrity, sure, but the article goes on to explore the subject far more broadly, citing a university professor and a study published in the American Journal of Men’s Health, i.e.: heavily couched in the general topic.
- On the subject of whether the product is 'good', I don't really see this as relevant. A company could be considered notable while selling entirely terrible products. It might even be notable precisely because it sold such terrible products. However, even so, your statements on the product seem more opinion that self-obvious fact - here are just three examples of articles that list Manscaped products among the best in their categories: this permalinkthis permalinkthis permalink ... again, I really don't think any of this is relevant to notability, but one tool has a 4.5 star rating on Amazon based on 55,000 reviews: this permalink - all of which hardly points to products that, while not referenced in the article, can hardly be outright referred to as 'not particularly good'.
- Finally, addressing your point about linkage, this company is only an WP:Orphan because the link to it was removed after the page was returned to draft (see: Draft_talk:Manscaped) - as a company that was features on the ABC series Shark Tank, there is an obvious route for it to be listed as one of the Notable companies to have emerged out of that series. -- Iskandar_323 Talk 10:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- User:Iskandar 323, do you have any incentive to create this article?User:Iskandar 323 SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm only motivated the desire to get to the bottom of what it actually takes to pass notability criteria as per WP:CORP - I originally uploaded this page very casually, but since then, it's become something of a mission for me to understand the requirements for such a page, hence the questions. -- Iskandar_323 Talk 10:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- User:Iskandar 323, I looked at the three examples that list Manscaped. They match my opinion that this company is not head and shoulders above the others, and so I am disbelieving that it should be covered and others not. The Amazon reviews … I am very suspicious that most of the five star reviews are fake, I’d read these reviews before. I start reading at 4 stars and move down. Yes, I think Amazon is polluted with robot reviews.
- I personally have no opinion, I just don’t trust commercial products being subject to company promotion, that just happen to have all positive articles about them
- What would you think of revisiting Manscaping. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manscaping. I see a lot of new sources on the neologism, I think that would be an easy rescue. It think it should precede articles on products that are used for manscaping. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, Manscaping has already been folded in the wider article on hair removal, after considerable debate. On the subject of product reviews as a basis for notability, my broader point was that just because a product is good, that does not make it notable, and vice versa. I shared the Amazon link, because regardless of any bot interference, 55k reviews is a substantial burden of evidence, and without being bias, you can no more discount every 5-star review than you can every 1-star review, which could equally be bot-spammed reviews by a competitor. Ultimately, any assumptions along these lines are deeply speculative. But moving on, is there any form of review that would pass muster in your view? Take this article for example: this permalink has all the trappings of an independent, secondary source from a website that clearly stakes its reputation on its ability to review things. It even discusses other reviews. Regardless of the impact of notability one way or another, would this, from your perspective, present itself a reliable source of input on product quality? Iskandar 323 (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi User:Iskandar 323.
- I suggest revising manscaping because I can see a lot of new sourced comment on it since it was redirect many years ago. It was a neologism that seems a joke, but not anymore.
- 55k reviews is a large number, but no number of user reviews will demonstrate Wikipedia-notability. It is my impression that many of the reviews are fake bot reviews, but that is not a relevant argument.
- This does not impress me. An independent review will not list prices or link to sale sites.
- This is not about me. I have already gone out on a limb to argue against deletion of the draft. I recommend that you instead go to Draft talk:Manscaped and give WP:THREE sources. No more. Read WP:CORP again. Focus on the meaning of “independent”, and know that many Wikipedians do not trust positive coverage of commercial products. Many see Wikipedia fighting native advertising and WP:UPE.
- I will be surprised if an article on a commercial product (Manscaped) is allowed without there being an article on the concept (manscaping). How many products are listed at hair removal? SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- I know it is not about you, and I will go and list the WP:THREE best sources as suggested.
- But I am left wondering what if any, review-type articles are accepted as independent sources by Wikipedia. Looking at pricing is a basic part of reviewing, and reviews can result in both positive and negative outcomes. It seems quite skewed if reviews are disqualified just for discussing pricing or the positive aspects of a product. I would expect any reviews, for example for a car, to look at both pricing and positive and negative aspects of the product. The example review I shared notably mentions the pricing, and includes criticism of that pricing as part of its negative analysis of the product. If even reviews with negative input are too positive, presumably all but outright condemnation is too positive!
- However, having read back over your comment, I actually wonder whether I'm getting confused over semantics. You mentioned a lack of sources about the product line, but I'm wondering if, rather than looking for product reviews, you mean product line simply as in the company as a whole, i.e., you were re-iterating the general criticisms over lack of notable sourcing ... Iskandar 323 (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- When you have your choice of WP:THREE sources, if you want my opinion, WP:PING me.
- An encyclopedic review will not talk prices and where to buy, but will take a much more distance perspective and even an historical approach. Imagine a comparison of grooming products from the 1990s with those from the 1890s. Prices and availability is about right now and short term promotion.
- An enclopedic review will not be “positive” or “negative” A Wikipedia article about a product must not be “positive” or “negative”.
- We could well be discussing unimportant semantics. If you want to get quickly to the meat, follow WP:THREE, and let’s argue about why I say “no” to a source. Then, if you think I’m wrong, and if you do not have a WP:COI, you may BOLDly move the draft to mainspace, and fight the real battle at AfD. I would probably stay out of the AfD, preferring to see if I am right about what would happen at AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, Manscaping has already been folded in the wider article on hair removal, after considerable debate. On the subject of product reviews as a basis for notability, my broader point was that just because a product is good, that does not make it notable, and vice versa. I shared the Amazon link, because regardless of any bot interference, 55k reviews is a substantial burden of evidence, and without being bias, you can no more discount every 5-star review than you can every 1-star review, which could equally be bot-spammed reviews by a competitor. Ultimately, any assumptions along these lines are deeply speculative. But moving on, is there any form of review that would pass muster in your view? Take this article for example: this permalink has all the trappings of an independent, secondary source from a website that clearly stakes its reputation on its ability to review things. It even discusses other reviews. Regardless of the impact of notability one way or another, would this, from your perspective, present itself a reliable source of input on product quality? Iskandar 323 (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- User:Iskandar 323, do you have any incentive to create this article?User:Iskandar 323 SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021
Hello SmokeyJoe,
Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.
Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.
At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.
There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.
Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Advice
Hey User:SmokeyJoe, I appreciate the discourse over at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Lana Rhoades. I feel I have slightly derailed that conversation - I hope my genuine confusion surrounding some of the intricacies of AfC doesn't come off as bad faith. I've pared down the draft to retain only generally reliable sources that may lend notability to the subject, several of which have not been previously discussed. I would value input about the reliability of non-English sources such as SE og HØR ([1]) Ekstra Bladet ([2]) and G1 ([3]). Is the MfD page an appropriate place to address the validity of these sources? Would going to the AfC help desk be more appropriate? Mbdfar (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 3. No. It begins promising, appearing to be comment about the industry, i.e. not straight focused on the pornstar, but it only repeats where quotes elsewhere, which is not secondary source content, and then from paragraph 5 onwards, all the content is straight interview quotes from the subject. Not independent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
smoke
smoke — Preceding unsigned comment added by The redirect creator (talk • contribs) 17:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
November 2021 backlog drive
New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
At Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)/November 2021 Draft RFC, I suggested on 29 October that someone who supports Option 3, such as you, could provide the language for Option 3. I have taken out the language that is a copy of the Option 2 language. Could you possibly either provide draft language, or identify someone who can provide draft language, so that we can try to get this issue closer to resolution? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Astana
Hi there, Smokey, regarding the move review. If Astana is used more commonly, than the Argument, how it is called, is less important, generally speaking, isnt it?
--Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)