Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:07, 5 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)

29 minutes may be enough time for some editors to read up on policy and find sources but certainly not for all, especially for editors (such as newbies) who don't know where to look for relevant policy and/or may find themselves confused by the policies. Overall, the question is whether it's potentially more harmful for an article to be in main space (unreviewed and thus unindexed) for an extra 30 minutes or is it more harmful to bite a newbie. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, my understanding is "an hour from last edit" as well, though I'd probably only come after someone for getting in under an hour of the initial page creation, since those are highlighted on the page curation list so they're easy to avoid. Though I'm of the opinion that we should be waiting more than an hour, especially for draftifications, unless there's some obvious fuckery going on (like someone moving a page to mainspace after it was draftified via AfD).

I remember NPP driving me completely crazy as a new editor, so I went back and looked at my early articles. I had MB swing through literally minutes after my last edits in a few cases, which I do remember finding annoying, since it caused me edit conflicts. Much worse, though, was the NPPers who, sometimes following NPPHOUR and sometimes not (I'm not sure when it first became "best practices" anyway), tagged the articles as needing more footnotes when they clearly met WP:MINREF/WP:WHEN, which I had very carefully followed. I don't think it bothered me any less when I had my articles mistagged hours later or minutes later. Which is all to say, I don't think it's any more or less bitey to draftify something in 30 minutes or 3 hours. But a lot of new editors don't break their edits up into smaller chunks like experienced editors tend to, often doing a whole dump of several new paragraphs at a time. My initial edits took me ages - I remember looking at the 500-edit bar for XC and thinking "evidently I've got this wrong, since no one would ever expect someone to be able to make 500 edits like this in a month".

All of that is to say, I think draftification isn't going to be a positive experience for an editor no matter when it's done, but I do think we should be waiting for longer than an hour, just in case. Most of the time it won't make a difference, but every so often you'll save an editor (newbie or otherwise) from pressing "publish" only to find the article's been moved out from under them. -- asilvering (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering I actually agree that edit conflicts can be pretty BITE-y. I mean, we don't agree on how much time it should take vefore an edit conflict because no longer a reasonable expectation, but we agree on that. And yeah, it's odd, isn't it, how clean up tags are apparently exempt from NPPHOUR, given how upset I've seen a few people get over them, just inferring from how often they're removed without fixing the issues. Also, I swear, I remember a few newcomers from #wikipedia-en-help getting confused/upset over them; that might've been paid editors having an upset boss, though. It does make you reflect on how the subject of the article view the tags. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:53, 3 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)

@Hey man im josh, @Significa liberdade: First of all, let's acknowledge that the article that started this discussion was written by someone who has had 586 edits since 2017. They've created 13 articles in total. We were assuming they were a newcomer all along, but they aren't.

Let's also acknowledge that there's a risk of a low-quality article being abandoned the longer we wait, and such articles vary in the amount of risk they pose. It could range from anyting from a non-blatant hoax (embarrassing, but mostly to entirely harmless) to potentially defaming a living person.

I think the pushback from the community is from a fear of confusing newcomers more than anything. Does waiting reduce that confusion? I'm not sure about that. Perhaps there should be some sort of welcome template that states "Hey, can you source the article you just created? Because otherwise, we're going to have to draftify it. Here's a list of resources you can turn to for help." Talking to them would probably help out a newcomer more than avoiding them. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 09:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

First of all, let's acknowledge that the article that started this discussion was written by someone who has had 586 edits since 2017. They've created 13 articles in total. We were assuming they were a newcomer all along, but they aren't. – I do actually still think of that user as a relative newcomer, but I also believe the NPPHOUR courtesy should be extended to all users. As mentioned, you're explicitly allowed to draft your articles in main space if you so wish.

Let's also acknowledge that there's a risk of a low-quality article being abandoned the longer we wait, and such articles vary in the amount of risk they pose. It could range from anyting from a non-blatant hoax (embarrassing, but mostly to entirely harmless) to potentially defaming a living person. – Yes, and it was a work in progress, and not a hoax in this case.

I think the pushback from the community is from a fear of confusing newcomers more than anything. – It's that, and being unnecessarily disruptive by moving to draft space while people are working on things.

Does waiting reduce that confusion? I'm not sure about that. – Does waiting a full hour negatively impact Misplaced Pages in any way?

Perhaps there should be some sort of welcome template that states "Hey, can you source the article you just created? Because otherwise, we're going to have to draftify it. Here's a list of resources you can turn to for help." Talking to them would probably help out a newcomer more than avoiding them. – Nobody is advocating for avoiding users. We're advocating for ACTUALLY giving people a chance to work on what they're working on.

Seriously, what harm is there to leaving an article for a full hour when it's not a hoax? It's not indexed until marked as reviewed. NPPers just come off as assholes when we immediately jump the gun and move to draft space and it's the type of behaviour that pushes people away. We want to foster a more positive environment to help with editor retention, not immediately move something to draft space, and thus, take away our option to do so after they're done working at it and it's still not fit for main space. Then, instead of re-draftifying it, which we shouldn't do because we shouldn't draftify more than once, we're forced to send the article(s) to AfD or let them stand in main space in a poor state. Neither of those options is ideal. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh, I'm with you about how we shouldn't be jumping the gun and it pushes people away, but from my experience at least, I'm not sure waiting an hour is the thing that makes the difference. I say that as someone who thinks we really, really ought to observe NPPHOUR, and actually would prefer that we extended it. I know we all see draftspace as a chance to work on what they're working on, but that's because we know that often the alternative is a CSD tag (which will be honoured, unless one of the kinder CSD patrollers has mercy and declines it in favour of draftification). I think @I dream of horses's idea of a template that says "hey can you do this thing? if you don't do this thing within an hour, fyi, it might be draftified or maybe even deleted at any time" is a good idea. The maintenance templates don't really get the urgency across, or feel like an opportunity for dialogue between patroller and author. It would be really convenient if we could have some kind of "draftification warning" in the page curation toolbar. We could even have it set an alert (like the "this might be copyvio" etc ones) to show later patrollers that such a message has already been received. I wonder if this could cut down some of the community angst about draftification. -- asilvering (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh I'm totally fine with a template @Asilvering. My issue is that we should, at least, honour NPPHOUR. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh, Asilvering is correct; newcomers don't have the perspective that we do, but we do realize that often, draftification is an alternative to deletion. Hence my idea of some sort of template. I'm trying to come up with a solution that makes NPPHOUR make some sort of sensee while giving newcomers a kick in the pants. Heck, some of them will likely even ask for draftification if it's explained to them. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't care if it's someone with six figures of edits or someone making their first article, it still doesn't make sense to disruptively move a work in progress that's being worked on to draft space. Again, I support a template if someone wants to make one, but it does not benefit Misplaced Pages to draftify too quickly, it actively hurts it. That's the main/entire point of this discussion. If you think something else can be improved upon, fantastic. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh I don't care if it's someone with six figures of edits or someone making their first article, it still doesn't make sense to disruptively move a work in progress that's being worked on to draft space. I'm a new page patroller who has six figures of edits. I have a decent idea of how to write an article, having evaluated quite a few. I'd probably write a decent article...but, alas, I'm among a niche few who has gotten to my level of edit count without having written an article. I'd be a gray-area 'newcomer' to article writing, if I decided to write one. /NotMad, just introducing myself.

I think the crux of the disagreement is determining if an article is being actively worked on, not whether or not it's disruptive to move an article that is being actively worked to draftspace. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Sigh. Honestly, at this point, I'm banging my head against a brick wall, so I'm going to drop it after this message. It is disruptive to do so before the article is an hour old, plain and simple. Just remember that I tried to stop you from getting dragged to ANI, which is inevitable if you continue to draftify articles less than an hour old, as you seem to routinely do. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh And, again, my concern is that NPPHOUR is being rigidly applied. There eems to be little guidance as to where gray areas or nuance applies besides "blatant content issues." I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

(Also, maybe we can actually concentrate on that welcome template now.) I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:07, 5 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)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Expand language on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)