Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Is the art collector Cornelius Gurlitt notable?

Cornelius Gurlitt (art collector) was turned into a redirect to 2012 Munich artworks discovery, referencing WP:BLP1E. Now that Gurlitt has passed away, it would seem that this policy does not apply anymore. Is the subject notable enough for his own article? On German Wikipedia, which does not exactly have a reputation for inclusionism, the same question was essentially answered with "absolutely!", so I'm quite a bit surprised that the typically significantly more inclusionist English-speaking Wikipedians appear to disagree. I also have to say that I find the situation where Cornelius Gurlitt (art collector) and Cornelius Gurlitt (art dealer) are both redirects rather unsatisfying and unfortunate for the reader who seeks information specifically on the man himself, which is now spread throughout the article 2012 Munich artworks discovery, even where it does not really belong. Another possibility would be the creation of a subsection specifically on Gurlitt. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I think WP:1E covers notability situations involving people known for only one event, living or dead. WP:BLP1E to my understanding is more an extension on that which allows deletion when the outcome of an AfD is "no consensus". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I got it somewhat wrong there. But WP:BIO1E is the guideline you're looking for. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

And on the subject of people expecting to hear about Gurlitt being confronted with an article about the artworks discovery, the principle that governs is discussed in WP:SURPRISE. Generally speaking, it is allowable to have related topics redirect to one another, particularly where one isn't notable. It's not necessarily ideal, but it's often used to help people find at least some information about the related topic rather than finding nothing at all. And indeed, when individuals are searching for WP:BIO1E/WP:BLP1E cases, 99% of the time they'll be searching for information about the event anyway (and often might not know the name by which Wikipedia calls the event). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Given that Gurlitt is linked from Deaths in 2014, the chance of users looking for biographical info is non-negligible. Since Gurlitt's family background and date of birth are well-known and widely publicised, I wonder how WP:PSEUDO applies here. If the German(ophone)s can write a full bio of the man, why can't the Anglophones? (Also, if Gurlitt were not notable, why can he be on Recent deaths in the first place?) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to either, I'm just saying that if the article were restored and then sent to AfD on the same argument you're making here, you can fully expect WP:BIO1E to be cited. I will say that since the redirect wasn't done following an AfD (and seems to have been done unilaterally), there's nothing really precluding you from starting a discussion to restore the article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Where should I start such a discussion? Specifically some place a lot of Wikipedians are watching who are interested in the topic would be nice. Many WikiProjects are not particularly active. Is there some more centralised discussion? My question on the talk page received little reaction ... Perhaps the help desk would be a better idea? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest trying the WikiProject on Germany or the Village Pump. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The article (before being made a redirect) was 16 November 2013. Reviewing that shows that there is nothing to say about the person except that he was involved in the 2012 Munich artworks discovery. The November 2013 page has a couple of extra lines which are merely editorial comment intended to denigrate the person. There is nothing there to support WP:N. Wikipedia is not a place to settle scores by erecting memorials with praise or censure. Johnuniq (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think Cornelius Gurlitt, unlike his father Hildebrand Gurlitt and his inherited art collector, is not notable on his own. Just leave the redirects, and that should be good. --bender235 (talk) 07:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Article expansion request

Hello,

I would like to expand this section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Harvard_Advocate#Notable_past_members into its own article titled List of Harvard Advocate people. Is there an inline procedure for expanding sections into articles or should I go through the create new article window? 2hayden2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2hayden2 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I can see no great merit in separating the list from the article at this point. Instead, I'd suggest that it might be better to work on the article itself. It is almost entirely lacking in inline citations, and fails to demonstrate, through third-party published reliable sources that it meets our notability guidelines - without which, it risks deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

As for Andy's point about failing WP:N, I'm not too worried about that. But I agree with Andy about not splitting out a list page; better to expand the main page. I'd be happy to help with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Editor marking a lot of major edits as minor, apparently refusing to discuss

Hi, I am not sure what to do here. Glevum (talk · contribs) is doing edits with a very substantial amount of copyediting, like this, this and this. As far as I can see, the copyediting is good. The little thing that irks me is that he marks all these edits as minor, while they clearly are not. I tried to raise the issue very politely on his talk page, but he removed my post -it means he's read it, but hmm, doesn't strike me as collaborative. What should be done? It is a minor issue, but I don't know what to do in these cases. Thanks! --cyclopia^speak! 16:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, removal of such notices is understood to mean acknowledgement of the notice. Since Glevum's most recent contribution was to remove that notice, let's assume for now that he's acknowledging it and will endeavor to use the minor edit feature correctly from here on out. If there is continued misuse of the minor edits feature, we can cross that bridge when we come to it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"New York Documentary"

New York: A Documentary Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello,

I noticed in the entry for "New York a Documentary" by Ric Burns credit for a participating Historian,"Craig Steven Wilder" was omitted in your entry...I believe he his contribution was informative and extensive.

Thank you,

John Richardson (Redacted)

(Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.247.224 (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there has been no discussion of this at Talk:New York: A Documentary Film. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi

The Ribbon International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am having a problem with an editor changing a word in a sentence. After the second change, I provided a link to information for the proper use of the word, on his talk page. I then again, changed the word back to the original. The editor then made another change incorporating the information I had posted concerning the word, but it was still wrong. I then changed his word back to the original. The editor has now changed the word again, two times. The sentence would have to be totally rearranged for the word to work right in the sentence. The following are the word changes in the sentence.

Original - The Ribbon International is a world wide art project comprised of 36 x 18" cloth panels, promoting abolition of nuclear weapons, disarmament, peace, care and protection of the earth and its inhabitants.

Frist and second edit - The Ribbon International is a world wide art project composed of 36 x 18" cloth panels, promoting abolition of nuclear weapons, disarmament, peace, care and protection of the earth and its inhabitants.

Third and fourth edit - The Ribbon International is a world wide art project comprising 36 x 18" cloth panels, promoting abolition of nuclear weapons, disarmament, peace, care and protection of the earth and its inhabitants.

The word comprising should reflect to The Ribbon International, as the panels being the basis of The Ribbon International and NOT being the basis of the panels. In order for the sentence to read correctly:

A world wide art project of 36 x 18" cloth panels comprising The Ribbon International, promotes the abolition of nuclear weapons, disarmament, peace, care and protection of the earth and its inhabitants.

Apparently this editor was more concerned with making his 100 edits that I read about on his talk page. Thank you Susan Macafee (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no clue what edits or editors you're talking about, though from the look of things there's quite a bit more wrong with that article than simple wording. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I surrendered after seeing "batiking" in the second sentence. That's gruesome. Is there more of that standard? HiLo48 (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Apparently batiking is actually something. Anyway, I've warned Susan Macafee about edit warring; there's definitely a slow edit war happening. I'm also concerned that there seem to be at least three COI-afflicted editors involved with the page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Batik is real. It's the Indonesian/Malay word for form of fabirc treatment. But batiking isn't a word in those languages or Engliah. HiLo48 (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

"Batiking" in this context means "making a piece of fabric art with the batik process" and is perfectly good word formation by the usual process in the English language. I wikilinked to "batik" for that purpose. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

At best, it's an ugly, unnecessary neologism, probably used out of ignorance of correct English and an inability to say what's needed using existing, accepted language. It doesn't belong in a quality encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I dunno. As far back as the 1960s I used to hear the term routinely employed by my sister, who developed an early interest in fabric art and design. My sense is that it's a very common term within a small community. Anyhow it doesn't land funny on my ear. (The subject article however seems to need a lot of work.) JohnInDC (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

That being said, while it may be a perfectly cromulent word, it is a bit slangy and informal, and for that reason probably not suited to a Wikipedia article. JohnInDC (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

As a linguist, I think it's an entirely straightforward and sensible gerunding (see what I did there?) of the word "batik". We can scoff at neologisms all we want (and in most cases do so correctly), but the -ing suffix in English is so productive that you can more or less assume it's acceptable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep - Talk:The Ribbon International. I've tried to keep the most egregious examples of puffery out but still have to go through the article sentence by sentence. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Biopower assistance

Hello, I'm new to wikipedia editing and tried to make a minor edit to the entry "Biopower." It did not seem to be working apparently because someone else was immediately changing it back (took me a while to figure this out). My change put the definition at the front so that if someone googled the term, they would get the definition on the search page without having to open the article. A definition would give the meaning of the term rather than the originator of the term (though of course "Foucault" has a particular meaning for anyone who has read him--not necessarily the audience for the definition). I found the responses of the other editor to be aggressive and made the experience pretty unpleasant. I'm still not entirely clear on how editing wikipedia works. I'm a graduate student with interest in knowledge claims but don't have a lot of time. Is there a simple tutorial to guide people through the process? Again, that my edits were so immediately and summarily dismissed made me think the program wasn't working. Assistance would be much appreciated. Thanks! Eburg Editor (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand it is frustrating when your edits are reverted. The best way to solve this is to follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle. You were bold and made changes to the article, someone did not believe your edits were helpful to the article and reverted them. The next step is to go to the article's talk page, Talk:Biopower and discuss why you believe your changes improve the article. Then when there is consensus to make changes, make them GB fan 13:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Completing WikiProject assessments for articles you've written yourself

UE Boom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(see previous thread at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 120#Minor dispute over product article)

The creator of this article insists on assessing it as mid-importance for one WikiProject, as well as marking it as C-class, despite some ongoing disputes as to the appropriate depth of coverage, neutrality, and other issues. Is this appropriate? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: I believe importance should be assessed irrespective of content. Quality should be judged on content. C-class states, "The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup." If it has adequate reliable sources then C-class is probably appropriate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Image captions and wikilinks

An editor has removed a wikilink to the subject identified in an image because they say there is already a link in the article text (in this case the opening paragraphs). My understanding is that image captions should include wikilinks even if these links duplicate links in the article text (the logic being that readers looking at the image are not reading the article and should not have to search out the link in the text in order to link). I skimmed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions, but I can't find a clear statement regarding our standards for captions and wikilinks. Any ideas? Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Candleabracadabra: WP:OVERLINK: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Unfortunately that does not seem definitive to either preference. I guess the next step would be dispute resolution if there is not agreement? Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything definitive, and really, most MOS/content type things aren't here. With stuff like this there's usually freedom to come up with a local consensus that an extra link would be helpful. And honestly... if you're talking about a longer article, there's always this situation that bugs me when I'm reading a subsection, notice a name for the first time... and it's not linked. Then I have to backtrack and see if it's linked earlier (and hopefully it'll be a bluelink). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Candleabracadabra: I would use some common sense here. If the original wikilink is some distance away from the image, then wikilinking the caption is helpful to readers. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

My understanding was that we were pretty consistent in including wikilinks in image captions (at least on a significant term's first appearance) because an image is always distinct (ie. some distance) from the text where the term may be linked. In other words, if you're reading the caption and looking at the image you aren't reading the article, so it doesn't make sense to have to go look there for the link, but if that's just a convention.. well? I dunno. RfC? Groan. I am open to suggestions on how to resolve the difference in opinion in the instance I'm dealing with. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:3O, or just informally ask for more input? RfC seems a bit far to go for something like this... but on the other hand, since it's a pretty cut-and-dried question it might be something that gets answered easily (rather than the mountain of opinions that more amorphous RfCs tend to generate). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks so much for the input! This is a great place to get help. Since in this instance the image is in the opening section and the link is in the lead I am going to let it slide.. at least for now. I think we serve our readers and it would be appropriate to include a link for a relevant subject (especially for such a prominent photo), but as the manual of style doesn't offer usable guidance on this issue I guess there isn't a right answer. Thanks again. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to say... if the case were that the bluelink and the caption were spatially very close to one another, I would be less inclined to link the caption too. But, I think there are situations where it could be helpful anyway (like when the bluelink is buried in an infobox). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Redirect of a notable subject

I'm back! An editor has redirected an article on an obviously notable subject. It's part of a pattern of going after me, so I want to avoid the conflict entirely and get a clear community consensus on the subject. I would like a wide hearing of it. I am familiar with the AfD process and I would like to use that, but I have taken some criticism for nominating an article to determine whether it's a legitimate subject when I don't want it deleted. I think that's silly, AfD is where it's decided whether we include an article subject, but if that's a problem.. What are my other options? I am wary of RFC. Will that draw a wide audience to actually look into the subject and determine notability? I don't want drive by "I don't like it" votes. I want the sources and coverage to be assessed fairly. What is best way to deal with this situation? Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources, reliable sources and ... well you know. Also your kinda vague, you open your statement about a redirect and all of a sudden your talking about AfD,RfC & nobility (which has nothing to do with redirects) Mlpearc (open channel) 19:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

If it's a longstanding article WP:BRD suggests reverting the redirect and starting a discussion. Did one take place before the redirect was done? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

New article. I will discuss on talk page. Sometimes jumping through hoops for the sake of jumping through hoops when the outcome is easily predicted doesn't seem useful, but okay. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually it looks like it was an article was redirected, was an article again and was redirected (I think). Anyway. I initiated a discussion, but as I indicated the outcome is predictable so I would like to seek wider input for a consensus. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• The article in question is, I suppose, Climate variability; it was created by {{User:ChildofMidnight]], who left us this version, which was restored by Candleabracabra here, and since expanded a bit. ChildofMidnight's version was reverted to a redirect by (admin) Father Goose in this edit, with the explanation that it duplicates content, and Candleabracabra's version was reverted to a redirect by Viriditas, who was subsequently reverted by Candleabracadabra. There are some sources given in the latest version, but only two of those appear to be peer-reviewed publications. Drmies (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• To respond to NeilN's comment, neither version I mentioned was a "longstanding article", having been (substantially) edited only by ChildofMidnight and Candleabracadabra, respectively. But there is a bit more to it: there was a stub before ChildofMidnight edited it--a rather POV stub with the claim that "The term is a more neutral counterpart of climate change." This stub was redirected as a "POV/redundant article to climate change" by (admin) Neutrality, before it was restored and expanded by ChildofMidnight. The claim that it "is a more neutral counterpart" is still in the article, though now rephrased: "The phrase climate variability is a more neutral and less politically charged phrase than climate change which includes the assumption that a particular change of the climate is taking place."

  Since the article is under discretionary sanctions (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Final_decision), and given that "the assumption that a particular change of the climate is taking place" is the consensus view among scientists", and since two administrators have reverted what they deemed to be POV versions of the article, and since the article in its current state still preserves the original spirit of the "more neutral terminology" view, I suggest that extraordinary care be taken here. Drmies (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have notified Candleabracadabra of the discretionary sanctions, and was alerted that they had previously been notified of discretionary sanctions in pseudoscience and fringe science by JzG. Drmies (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

If you object to something in the article why not simply remove that content? I changed the article a great deal from what was there before. I also initiated talk page discussion (yesterday) as was suggested above and listed additional sources on the article's talk page. It's a pretty basic aspect of climate science and I can't think of a good reason why we don't have an article on it. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I removed the assertion you mentioned as it is unsourced. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you can also remove the assertion, above, "It's part of a pattern of going after me", as it is likewise unsourced, and a personal attack to boot, lest I be forced to pursue disciplinary measures. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I answered in general terms because the question was couched in generalities. I'm ambivalent in getting into specifics here as it seems splitting the discussion between the article talk page (where it belongs) and here would be of limited use. To be honest, I'm here on this page to help editors with lightly watched articles example and not get involved with spillover from discretionary sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I asked my question as more of a general question about the principles involved. Thanks for your assitance and also user:Mlpearc. Hopefully if Drmies thinks it isn't an independently notable subject he will take it to an articles for deletion discussion so we can get a wider community consensus. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anything of it. It strikes me as valid in its own right, but I merely note that it has been a POV creation and recreation from the get-go, and last time that was by you, after you restored ChildofMidnight's POV text. I noted also that the article was under discretionary sanctions, and reverted to a redirect twice by administrators, with arguments and all, so I don't see why you would blast the latest redirecter while you essentially restored what had been undone with valid arguments, twice in a row. In other words, you could have known better just from the history, and I wonder if this entire thread isn't to hurl some insult at poor Viriditas, who merely did to the same content what admins Neutrality and Father Goose had done twice before. But please go ahead and write it up anew, and in the spirit of collaborative editing, please apologize to Viriditas for your personal attack, with which you started this thread, though without naming them. I just know you probably didn't mean to insult them. Have a great weekend, Drmies (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, if there's inappropriate point of view in it please point it out (in the appropriate venue) and I'll get rid of it or better yet, take it out yourself! I posted a generalized question and was seeking generalized answers. My choice to exclude a focus on any particular article or editor(s) was intentional and for good reason. I was asking how to handle a situation generally speaking. I got some good suggestions and I followed them. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, this, "It's part of a pattern of going after me", directed at Viriditas, no doubt, is hardly a generalized question. You could show your good faith by striking it. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Some edit disputes and my concern for NPOV

This is my first time posting here, so forgive and appropriately redirect me for any mistakes. Basically, I've been editing the page K'naan (Somali-Canadian rapper) for language/structure and adding newer information (with references). As is the case with articles sometimes, you come across disputes with other users, who may disagree with your edits and prefer to make their own edits/reverts. Recently, I have come across a certain user who has done so a number of times, I don't feel its time for "dispute resolution" since we have just begun to take it to the Talk Page. I would mainly like consultation to observe some of my concerns and whether they are valid or not. Since I don't feel it would be right for me to press my angle, if it were to be in the wrong.

1) I added a disambiguation header linking to Knaanic language, since "Knaan" redirects to the artist. This was removed by the user.

2) A section titled "Feud with k-os" (another Canadian rapper), was replaced with "Musical disputes". I object to this because, its only one "dispute/feud" so no point added a plural/nondescriptive header. Furthermore, "Musical disputes" implies creative differences a rapper has with a producer/writer/artist he's working with, not a feud with a rival/competing rapper (k-os) as is the case. The concept of "rap feud" is common in the Hip Hop world, and commonly mentioned as such in most Wikipedia articles on rappers.

3) A section entitled "Activism and views" made mention of K'naan's activism work, as well as his "view" a comment he made on Somalian piracy. The user renamed the section "Philanthropy", and removed any mention of the Somali piracy comment, citing it to be irrelevant or unimportant. I beg to differ, since the artist is Somalian closely connected to Somali culture/issues, and Piracy is a big issue related to Somalia. This is where i noticed there seems to be a deliberate attempt at POV or whitewashing the subject article. 'Philanthropy' has positive connotations whereas 'Activism' has neutral/variable connotations; this seems to be against the spirit of NPOV. Outright removal of a controversial section like his view on piracy seemed to fit in with that line of thought. His editing of "feud" to "musical dispute" also seemed to be an indicator of the deliberate toning-down of language in the article.

This is the Talk Page section where I've brought some of these concerns to the user directly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:K%27naan#Philanthropy // DA1 (talk) 05:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the dablink has (rightly) been restored. No opinion on the other issues. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Brady Dougan Early Life

Early Life of Brady Dougan has been removed and replaced by career.178.197.227.241 (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Requesting an editorial review of Council_of_Graduate_Schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Requesting an editorial review of Council_of_Graduate_Schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am a paid editor for the Council of Graduate Schools. We would like to request some help with updating, expanding, and providing external sources for this page. We have drafted content at the article's Talk page that we would like to request a third-party review and post if s/he feels it is within Wikipedia's guidelines for neutrality and documentation. Thank you for any help you provide.

Nwt007 (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)nwt007