Jump to content

User talk:Alpha3031/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

"Environmental Analysis of Computing" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Environmental Analysis of Computing has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 13 § Environmental Analysis of Computing until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
  • On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Question from Tehinterwebz (talk) 01:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The page Buildkite is my first, and I've edited and found more sources from another folk's feedback. I've pulled a lot of what are my definition of notable sources where the company or the service is the focus of the article (edited for clarity), supported by the company documentation where relevant. When you have the time, can you share or direct me the right place to go to purge and replace the ones that aren't considered notable? I've yet to find a directory or filtered list or something that says hey this is a source we don't trust, etc. And Australian media is a bit of a different landscape than the US, sometimes. Appreciate the help, when you have the chance.-- Tehinterwebz (talk) 01:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Tehinterwebz, thanks for reaching out. The usual guideline we use to assess "notability" of an article topic is primarily based on what we call "significant coverage". Reliable sources are required of course, but notability is a bit different, and it requires meeting the other criteria as well. For organisations and companies, the relevant guidance is found at WP:ORGCRIT, and the part specifically about depth of coverage is WP:ORGDEPTH, but to sum it up a bit: "significant coverage" means the source should address the subject of the article directly and in depth (more on that later); "independent" means any content directly from the company (most often interviews or press kits) are excluded; "reliable" is usually not a issue if you're sticking to ordinary, reputable news organisations, though some caveats apply (you can find a list that has been previously discussed at WP:RSP for some examples, but it's hardly exhaustive); "secondary" is about the distinction between fact and analysis, a secondary source has analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources (see also WP:PSTS and WP:USEPRIMARY).
For organisations and companies, there is a list of coverage types (at WP:ORGTRIV) that we would not normally consider "significant coverage", for example, funding announcements or product launches. These is, otherwise, no bright line rule on what is clearly "significant coverage" and what is not, but in general looking for a paragraph or two of detailed analysis clearly not from the company from 3 separate publications and authors is a good target to aim for. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
@Alpha3031 yup, okay, that's everything I had in mind when reviewing sources for Buildkite, though I obvs couldn't find this documentation, so I'll review that. I'll do a second sweep though as given the tag it seems like I missed some, or misinterpreted some of the guidelines. While not looking at my reference list directly, I feel like there were at least 3 non-funding or PR pieces from separate publications — were there any sources in particular that stood out to you as particularly questionable? (I'm not sure if you're using a bot or if you remember any specifics with Buildkite). I did pull a few press releases, though only for secondary support and did occasionally pull directly from their documentation for how the platform worked. ((Also newbie sidebar question — should I remove the secondary sourcing with press releases full stop? I included them to have another source of validation, but are they doing more harm than good being there at all?)) TIA! ~~~ Tehinterwebz (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Regarding your sidebar question, there isn't too much harm in the occasional citation to press releases or the company website, but it can delay reviews if there are too many of them. I wouldn't consider 10 out of 36 refs being to the company website to be too much, for example, but it does make it harder when a lot of the other sources are to interviews or otherwise also non-independent. There is also a minor readability concern when there are an excessive number of footnotes in the same place, which seems fine for much of the article, but the paragraph ending in Pipelines has a web application to handle user authentication, build orchestration, store logs and metrics. has 9 refs, which is definitely too much. You can spread the refs around a bit, move some of them closer to the statements they verify, but I would definitely look at cutting a few of the refs here as well. Rule of thumb I would recommend, 2 footnotes in the same place is fine, 3 if you have to, but try not to go above that.
As for a specific review of the sources against the criteria, looking at the revision I added the tag to:
  • 1 to 6 are funding announcements (skipping over one ref to the company website);
  • 7 is an interview;
  • 9 is not really what we would normally consider an RS, and it's hard to extract significant amounts of content from a "how we do this" blog post in any case;
  • 12 (dev.to) is a blogging platform; 13 is "added a new feature", which typically falls under the product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance of ORGTRIV (I probably should have just said "product announcement" instead of "product launch");
  • 14 is an interview;
  • 15 is a single sentence mentioning the acquisition;
  • 17, funding announcement and does not appear to be clearly independent;
  • 18, interview;
  • 19, funding announcement, with most of the content evidently from an interview;
  • 20, blogs aren't typically considered RS, and I'm not seeing an editorial policy or much WP:USEBYOTHERS to distinguish it from other ones;
  • 21, we may consider the Pinterest core platform team SMEs for the purpose of verifying uncontroversial facts, but the usual exception requires work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publication and rules are typically stricter when applied to establishing notability;
  • 22, I can't tell what it's being used for, did you mean to link to the profile page instead? In any case, an investor in the company is not considered independent;
  • 23, 24, group blog;
  • 25, Uber, same comments as Pinterest;
  • 26 to 30, another issue with citing these blogs, as I mentioned in 9, is that it's hard to extract significant content — "We're using BuildKite for this now" is not really considered "significant coverage" — in any case, they're useful sources to verify some ancillary facts, and you shouldn't remove them if used, but they don't contribute to notability;
  • 33 does not seem to fit the usual definition of RS, but I would be willing to chuck it at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if there were two other clearly qualifying sources.
That's pretty much it. Let me know if you have any further questions.
​ Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
oh wow! that was a *lot* more detail than I expected — massively appreciated. Seems I have work to do. Thanking you, I'll be tackling this over the next while. Tehinterwebz (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 62

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 62, March – April 2024

  • IEEE and Haaretz now available
  • Let's Connect Clinics about The Wikipedia Library
  • Spotlight and Wikipedia Library tips

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Draftified pages

Hi, I'm just writing regarding some pages you draftified recently:

All the new copies were created by a new user, MeltPees. I already asked the user in question about whether they are being paid for their contributions, but meanwhile I wanted to ask your input on how to deal with these new pages. Broc (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Broc, Thank You. I am not a paid user. Still doubt on my editing, please put these on afd as Alpha did. MeltPees (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Broc, thanks for reaching out. I am aware of those disputed/reversed draftifications and intend to nominate (or not) most of them at AFD after completing a BEFORE (except NextDNS if Todette's G4 on that goes through). Hopefully they will at least stop doing copy and paste moves... If I choose not to nominate, I will tag with {{sources exist}}. Obviously that would be a far more time consuming process, so I would not necessarily prioritise it over other work. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm more concerned that BoyTheKingCanDance marked two of those as reviewed. I will be prioritising nominating those ones as they will be indexed. Not a huge deal, but still. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi dear Alpha3031, which two articles are you refering to? I'll take a second look. Best wishes, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi BoyTheKingCanDance, thanks for the offer. The specific articles are Gayathri Vivekanandan, which is tagged {{notability}} by someone else, and PropertyLimBrothers, which I have nominated. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Of Adam Ethan Crow

Hello,

I think I replied to this somewhere, but can't find it, thus Im replying again,

I built the Adam Ethan Crow (Film Director) page literally by copying the format of other Filom directors pages, but being careful to make sure everything was cited correctly.

my original plan was to pop the directors page up, then add three pages for his commercailly released movies, linking them to his directorial page.

would it be better to just put up the movie pages, then add him as a director, but only list the movies on the site?

It took me quite a while to build the page up (it still lives in my sandbox), so seems a shame to lose the work I put into it..

Rhian Rhiandorothybell (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Answered on other talk page. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Question from Petefoxdk (04:29, 9 May 2024)

Oh... I don't actually have a question. I just right now saw that I have a mentor, and thought that was pretty cool, so I figured I'd say hi... Hi! --Peter Schroeder (talk) 04:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Peter, welcome to Wikipedia! And feel free to pop in at any time, even if it's just for a chat, I'll be happy to have you. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Of Davinder Pal Singh

Hi Alpha3031,

I noticed that you tagged the article on Davinder Pal Singh for deletion, stating that it seems to be promotional rather than an encyclopedia article. I appreciate your feedback and understand the importance of maintaining Wikipedia's standards.

I am committed to improving the article and ensuring it meets the necessary guidelines for neutrality and notability. Could you please provide me with specific suggestions on how to make the article more neutral and less promotional? Your guidance would be incredibly valuable in helping me to make the necessary adjustments.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Best regards, EditpediaPro

Answered on other talk page. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Redirection of Piwik PRO Analytics Suite (May 16th, 2024)

Hi Alpha3031. I just wanted to discuss a redirection of Piwik PRO Analytics Suite into Matomo. Those organizations indeed has a common past but it ended in 2016. Now those organizations are completely separate, both in terms of legal and business, but also in terms of software. Piwik PRO Analytics Suite is a more advanced platform with increasing visibility - it is used among others by governments, public services or banks. The history part is only a small one and it is not correct to just simply redirect users to another vendor's page. Thanks for understanding. Szymon

Will answer on User talk:Szymongrzesiak. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Please do not remove notability tags

Please leave the notability tag alone on Data-driven astronomy. Due to the Wikipedia anonymity I do not know what your experience is in academia. That article is currently identical to one (or more) of:

  • A Part III or MS proposal by a student in Oxford.
  • A writeup for a position -- add "Students/Postdocs are sought to work on..." in front.
  • A summary of a funded proposal, also recruiting.
  • The summary for a PhD prelim, although it would be weak for that.

None of the above are material that should be on Wikipedia. The notability tag is a soft first step rather than AfD which many would do. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alpha3031/Archive_11&oldid=1240483920"