Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:34, 2 December 2024

Hello. I'm I dream of horses. My pronouns are she/her/herself. I live in the Pacific Time Zone. Please be sure that you mean to contact me and not someone else. I have a FAQ here, which you should pursue before asking me anything. Other ways to contact me are listed here. I don't review drafts on request. If you want to ask a question anyone can answer, you'll most likely receive a reply more quickly if you ask it somewhere else or click Help! If you do ask a question here, a talk page watcher might (rarely!) reply, so don't be confused about that. I'm willing to talk to members of the press, per this notice.

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles climate change the Balkans or Eastern Europe gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them COVID-19, broadly construed the Arab–Israeli conflict She should not be given alerts for those areas.

I dream of horses uses the Wikibreak Switch template, and plans to update this notice if a wikibreak is taken.

This user has opted out of talkbacks

Question from KATgeneral1900 (02:19, 26 November 2024)

Regarding the format of the cited documents, I mean, under the format of the references, how should I relate them to my content? --KATgeneral1900 (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@KATgeneral1900 With any kind of citation, it needs to relate to the subject of the article by talking about it for at least a paragraph. Maybe the links I just gave you will help you further. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I see..I mainly edit the items of biology and paleontology. Is it allowed to copy the descriptions of quoted documents on a large scale in some skeletal descriptions? For example, Madsen described the skull of Allosaurus in 1976.After that, I will summarize this information. KATgeneral1900 (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@KATgeneral1900 In the case of fully copyrighted text*, absolutely not. Summarize the text, and then fill out a {{cite}} (for example, {{cite journal}}) template well enough that someone can verify that summary if they wanted to. If you can't do it in all one edit, start filling out the cite template immediately after publishing the summary so you don't forget.

*In absence of evidence to the contrary, the creation of others are always fully copyrighted. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Another article to help review

Hey, can you help me determine if Kiana Tom is notable or not? Long story short, the article has a long history of people coming and trying to add promotional fluff to the article. While not the worst I've seen, the article was in a poor state when I came across it via another article. The sourcing is atrocious, to say the least.

I think it's likely that she passes GNG, given she's mentioned in a review and hosted a couple of TV shows, but the promotional puffery and poor sourcing has me more inclined to see her as not. I want someone with a fresh set of eyes to take a look. Offhand a quick search brings up sourcing like a thirst post from Barstool Sports, so it's definitely going to be a case of digging for sources. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I mean, one of the sources is her divorce papers. It's in a pretty sorry state. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I've posted at RS/N to see if that would be usable as a source. I'm always a little leery when it comes to using court documents unless it's paired up with a non-primary source. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@ReaderofthePack Agreed! It's in a sorry state sourcing wise. I'm getting a similar vibe that she is barely notable, and I'm certain that if this were to be sent to AfD, the people who are adding promotional fluff might get angsted about it if they're paying attention. A Google News search also brings up little. If only WikiProject Women had an active "article for improvement" type deal.

For what it's worth, primary sources are okay for verifying information like birth names; they just don't prove notability. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah.. part of why I came to you is because well, there was no other place to mention this. I would feel bad bringing it up to WikiProject Women since they're swamped as it is.

I did manage to find a mention in a Taylor & Francis book, which is heartening. I'll try to get back on after I finish with the film article (Cyber Bandits) and see if I can improve this. I was just so dismayed by how terrible the article was that a large part of me just wanted to TNT it so someone could start fresh if she was notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Huh. Apparently she is a semi-common focus with academics because her workouts tended to focus on her attractiveness.

I've done some editing to the page to remove the stuff linked to the IMDb source - I figure if I can find sourcing for that in better locations, I can re-add. I also removed the mention of her divorce and her kids' names. I don't really see the point in adding any of that since it's not really pertinent to Misplaced Pages. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Someone at BLP/N said that it wouldn't be usable per WP:BLPPRIMARY, so I'm going to remove the court document to be on the safe side. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@ReaderofthePack I was unaware of BLPPRIMARY, but it makes sense. Kiana does deserve some semblance of privacy. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@ReaderofthePack Huh. Apparently she is a semi-common focus with academics because her workouts tended to focus on her attractiveness. It would be interesting to see if this article ends up mostly commenting on how academics comment on other people commenting on her appearance. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@ReaderofthePack I was just so dismayed by how terrible the article was that a large part of me just wanted to TNT it so someone could start fresh if she was notable. Understandable impulse, but the culture of AfD seems to be that TNT should only be used in the most gray area places of notability. Though, I do use a lessened form of TNT via stubbificiation a good deal of the time. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

There definitely would be a sort of humor in the article being about the academic commentary, that's for certain.

As far as TNT goes, that's about when I realized that I needed to reach out to you. I'm lean slightly more to inclusion and a Bob the Builder mentality ("Can we fix it? Yes we can!) when it comes to articles, so I figured if I was feeling that, I needed to have a fresh set of eyes on things.

Thank you! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Recent draftification

Hello, I hope you're well. I wanted to bring up your draftification of Incognito (2025 TV series), which occured 40 minutes after the article was created. It was, and still is unsourced, but per WP:NPPHOUR we shouldn't be draftifying articles that are under an hour old. I understand and sympathize with wanting unsourced articles out of main space, but at the end of the day, we need to be considerate of how it may come across as WP:BITEY to draftify an article too quickly. Especially considering that an article doesn't need to be complete to be in main space and editors are allowed to build them there if they'd prefer to.

Thank you for your work at NPP and the effort that you put in, it's very much appreciated! Hey man im josh (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh This has been bought up to me recently. I have concerns that NPPHOUR is being applied too rigidly, which might be a policy violation onto itself. I think the "spirit" of NPPHOUR is more about allowing time for an article and evaluating things on a case-by-case basis. Honestly, I'd feel better about this if this was more about when the article creator less edited, and not when the article itself was created. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

To my understanding, NPPHOUR does apply to when the article was last edited meaningfully, rather than the time it was created. In this case, that means you draftified the article 29 minutes following the creator's most recent edit. Additionally, they edited the article again 22 minutes after you draftified it, as well as later that day. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade Why are we waiting an hour, though? 29 minutes is plenty of time to read up on policy, find online sources in the event a new editor is writing their article backwards, etc. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: The spirit of NPPHOUR is to be less bitey and more welcoming to new comers. Do you believe it's damaging to Misplaced Pages to give an editor a full hour to contribute to a work in progress article in main space? I believe it's far more likely to piss someone off and, based on old NPP habits where we waited 15 minutes instead of an hour, it leads to more community pushback against NPP and draftification as a whole if we are too quick on the trigger. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Antony King

Hola! Got to that conversation too late! One Emmy nomination, as I think you agreed, cutteth not the mustard. AfD result was correct IMHO... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)