Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2019 July 13

= July 13 =

Category confusion - Australian Indigenous v Aboriginal Artists
I'm a bit confused about who goes in which category here, lacking any guidance on the Category pages for Australian Aboriginal artists and Indigenous Australian artists. Not sure where the best place to discuss this is, but the talk page directed me here. I'm guessing that there may be Aboriginal artists in either category who may better be grouped in the same one. My understanding is that Indigenous includes Torres Strait Islanders, but all of those I randomly selected in that category were Aboriginal. I'm about to add a few more to the former category. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Later... Which talk page directed you here? It would be better to take this discussion up at Category talk:Australian Aboriginal artists, leaving a note also at Category talk:Indigenous Australian artists about the original discussion. If you don't get many responses, convert the discussion into an RfC subsequently. Thanks, Lourdes 05:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi - thanks for responding. That is what I was going to do, but when you open the edit box on one of those pages, there is a warning, thus: "Attention Talk pages in this namespace are generally not watched by many users. Please consider visiting the Help desk for a more prompt response or reviewing the Categorization FAQ for quick tips.", with blue link behind "Help desk" to this page. Oh well, I'll give it a try, and/or wait and see if one of the Category experts objects to my putting people into both categories at some point, and/or raise an RfC if no response (and I remember!). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Can't get flickr2commons to load. Is it down?
Pauses on "loading...."

https://tools.wmflabs.org/flickr2commons/#

- Scarpy (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a problem we've been facing since the past few months. Will be resolved when it is resolved. Don't expect it to happen soon. It'll keep coming up and going down intermittently. Lourdes  05:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Question about WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED
At User talk:CVasil, the user has written "I want to be an extended confirmed protected editor. I need 500 edits to do that. I have 100 edits. So, I'll revert this sentence 400 times." (I'm evidently watching this talk page because I issued a welcome to the user at some point). The user is currently following through on their plan to revert the edit on their talk page 400 times in order to gain WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED. Is this allowable? Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Resolution on proposed article for deletion
I'm editor on an article where I have COI, but have since ceased to edit and wish to follow guidelines. My experience on WP is minimal. Another user has nominated the article for deletion (disputing notability of the subject), created a discussion page (see ) and summoned other editors that they have worked with in the past to briefly rule for "delete". I submitted a couple of lengthy arguments in defense of the article and the subject's notability. The nominating user dismissed these points immediately, labeled me as "disruptive" for submitting lengthy content, and collapsed my posts so that they are not immediately visible. My impression was that a deletion discussion page was precisely to list pros and cons for deletion. If my posts are being diminished as disruptive, I'm concerned the "rough consensus" will fall to the nominator, resulting in article deletion. This nominator has used a disrespectful tone throughout their edits, and clearly is strongly in favor of deletion, without consideration of support for the contrary. Though the profile for the nominator is hidden, the profiles of the other editors do not reflect any association with, or expertise in, the subject matter (the arts), making this blanket disregard of evidence disputing the nominator's opinions troubling.

My questions:
 * Is my participation in this process outside of WP policy or protocol?
 * How are the assertions of a potentially biased editor/user balanced if not by someone who believes in the content?
 * If there are no other supporters for the article, do my own arguments to Keep get any consideration, or can the nominator simply delete at the 7-day mark (which is 7/14/2019)?

Thank you for your help, Pdtompkins (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Pdtompkins:


 * Is my participation in this process outside of WP policy or protocol? No.
 * How are the assertions of a potentially biased editor/user balanced if not by someone who believes in the content? You need to keep focused on providing only those reliable sources that confirm that the artist meets our notability guidelines. Back of the envelope summary is, please show at least two news or scholarly articles that have reviewed the artist's work neutrally. Whatever you have exhibited till date, seem to be either connected to the artist or primary, that is, connected to the museum or exhibition space. Even the one news report within the article is clearly a press release (see the website link of the artist provided below the La Italiano news report).
 * If there are no other supporters for the article, do my own arguments to Keep get any consideration, or can the nominator simply delete at the 7-day mark (which is 7/14/2019)? Nominator can't delete it. Administrators can. And right now, in my neutral opinion, this is run-of-the-mill PR puff piece. Sorry for that.
 * Thanks, Lourdes 06:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Lourdes covered this better than I could. I will expand on only one point. "notabity" has a general English definition and a Wikipedia technical definition. You attempted to apply the general definition, but we do not use it and we do not care about it. This caused your comment to be considered to be too long and irrelevant. -Arch dude (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The evidence I provided was directed at the technical definition and standard of WP:ARTIST Part 4c "The person's works have (c) won significant critical attention." The evidence I provided is, in my mind, the result of neutral review (jury selection) by reliable sources (conducted by reputable organizations). The idea being that a long record of jury selection into exhibitions, conducted by multiple/disparate/unrelated and reputable organizations, should meet the 4c standard. Admittedly, WP:Reliable sources does not include such a class of reliable sources. But if scholarly/academic or media attention is the only means by which an artist can meet WP:N, there seems to hole in detecting/recording highly successful, yet relatively unnoticed, artists. Is relative fame the primary measure that WP is after?  Thanks again,

Pdtompkins (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * AFD nominator here. Pdtompkins, one thing you may not be aware of is that our standards for inclusion are quite high. There is a bar that has to be met, and Ocean Rain Stuart, while she has had some accomplishments, does not meet hat bar. If you look at Sigalit Landau for example (a page you suggested as comparable on the Ocean Rain Talk page), you might begin to see that there is a big difference between her and Stuart. WP:ARTIST 4d is for artists like Landau, who have attracted very significant recognition by institutions, writers, art magazines and critics. For Landau there is no question she meets 4d because of the mass of coverage and recognition; the bar is passed. The article on Oceana Rain Stuart, by contrast, has about two good references going for it, because the art world beyond private art clubs and open-call exhibitions has not really taken much notice of her. I hope that helps to explain why she is not notable by our standards. if you still think she is notable, read the Landau article again and visit some of its sources for comparison to Oceana Rain Stuart's sources. Another thing that might help you on Wikipedia is if you edit some other articles beyond Oceana Rain Stuart; good editors are here to improve the encyclopedia, not just to promote one subject or person.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You are arguing for a change in a long-standing Wikipedia policy. The RfD for a particular article is not the place to argue for a policy change. Take your issue to the talk page of the appropriate policy page. This will be Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) or possibly Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, depending on you specific argument. Note that WP:RS has been refined over the course of the last 18 years and applies to all 5.5 million articles on the English Wikipedia. WP:ARTIST has a bit less history but is still fairly venerable. In any case, the help desk is here to help you find the correct venue. It is not itself the correct venue. -Arch dude (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Lupton family
There is   a  funny  gap  between  references  22  and  12  please  fix  if  you  can  Thanks 175.32.82.245 (talk) 06:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There was a space between a and the following, which I have removed. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Found page title in italics for no reason
Specifically, the page "Northern Paiute people", which I'm pretty sure shouldn't be in italics. Could anyone please tell me for sure if this is an error, and also please fix it if it is?--Thylacine24 (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the italics. A change to the "italic title" code in Module:Infobox was installed and then undone just now, so that might have been the cause. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for telling me. And thanks to whoever fixed it.--Thylacine24 (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment At the time Thylacine24 posted the title was in italics, but I wasn't able to check the template at the time. Eagleash (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Published page
How to get your page published which you just created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arooj A Bhatti (talk • contribs) 20:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Writing a new Wikipedia article is one of the most difficult tasks for an editor, and I always advise new editors to spend a few weeks or months improving some of our six million existing articles before they try it, in order to learn how we do things on Wikipedia. Trying to create a new article before you understand what the issues are usually leads to frustration and often time wasting for you and for others. But whenever you decide to try, please start by studying your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)