User talk:Toploftical/Archive 1

Speedy deletion declined: Institute for Advanced Study (Berlin)

Hello Toploftical. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Institute for Advanced Study (Berlin), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: this isn't a disambiguation page, and the only speedy reasons for redirects are WP:CSD#R2 and WP:CSD#R3, neither of which applies. In fact, ut seems to me a useful redirect. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• The same applies to Institute for Advanced Study Berlin and Institute for Advanced Study in Berlin. There is advice at WP:RFD#HARMFUL about what redirects to keep or delete. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I used the wrong deletion template. I wanted to indicate that these are orphaned redirect pages. I used the disambiguation tag by mistake.--Toploftical (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "orphaned". They may not have incoming links, but that's not what redirects are for. Redirects only get speedied if they are from the mainspace to somewhere like draft or user pages (R2), or if they are "implausible typos or misnomers" (R3); and even the latter are not speedied unless they are recent (because there may be incoming links from outside that we don't now about). Others get discussed at WP:RFD (where there are some interesting debates), but the general approach is that "redirects are cheap", and if they might be useful they are kept. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

OK--Toploftical (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

List of Brouwer medalists affiliated with the Institute for Advanced Study

I question whether List of Brouwer medalists affiliated with the Institute for Advanced Study meets notability guidelines for stand-alone lists, or is even warranted: it appears merely promotional content for the Institute for Advanced Study: one could in theory create "List of Nobel Laureates associated with X institute" (oh, I see you've already created one). Since there appears to be substantial overlap with the list at Brouwer Medal (your list is merely a subset of that list), a more neutral presentation might be to simply list name and nationality of all recipients in a single article. The source you cite does not explicitly verify "nine are mathematicians who have been affiliated with the IAS at some point in their career", and your definition of associated begs the question "who cares?" (in terms of reliable, independent sources). Given your creation of List of Wolf Prize winners affiliated with the Institute for Advanced Study, List of Fields medalists affiliated with the Institute for Advanced Study, and the two already mentioned, as well as other IAS-related edits, I must ask, are you associated with the IAS? Could you have a Conflict of interest when writing about the IAS? Are any of these lists of subsets of winners routinely discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources per notability guidelines? Since there is an near infinite number of possible things that can be listed, please seek to demonstrate with non-affiliated sources that the lists themselves are not simply for the promotion or aggrandizement of institutions, even if verifiable. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not associated with the IAS. I have been working on that article lately because I am interested in math and science generally (and theatre and Charlotte NC and mathematicians and a few other topics). Part of the point of listing these prizewinners was to illustrate the importance, notability, and impact of the IAS in that it has taken more such prizes than any other institution I know of. You mention the list of Fields Medalists. I find it astonishing that forty-one out of fifty-seven Fields Medalists have worked at the IAS. Similarly for Nobel Prizes. As far as cross referencing citations, I believe the IAS web pages do confirm the figures for Nobel and Fields medal winners. It is true that I have been doing a lot of work on the IAS article. But if you look at my history you will see that I have devoted a most of my time to theatre and also to various other mathematical subjects. The IAS article mentioned that there have been a lot of Nobel prizes and I thought it would be worthwhile to list who at the IAS won these prizes (It is of more than passing historical interest). As far as citations, a check of the IAS page A Community of Scholars and the nobelprize.org: All Nobel Prizes in Physics will verify that the figures are correct. All of my sources are non-affiliated except for the fact that I need to cite IAS affiliated pages to show who is officially associated with that institution.

The article about Pixar studios is a similar case. In that article we find The studio has earned fifteen Academy Awards, seven Golden Globe Awards, and eleven Grammy Awards, among many other awards and acknowledgments. Most of Pixar's films have been nominated for the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature, since its inauguration in 2001, with seven winning. Is this self-promotion or just a plain (and notable) fact? I do not know where the line is.

Some editors wrap list of awards and such right into the article about the main subject. For example, see Terrence_McNally#Awards. But in the case of a multi-headed institution like the IAS, this seems messy to me and would make the article look bloated, So I chose to split award information into other articles. BTW, the only other institution I know of that could possibly rival the IAS for awards would be the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques in France. Nobody has listed their Nobel prizes; but I think it would be a good idea for somebody (not me) to do so.

People at the IAS have won lots and lots of other prizes (Pulitzers for instance); but I believe I listed only the really important ones. If The Yankees won 75% of all the pennant races, wouldn't that be notable enough to mention in an article about the Yankees? Doesn't it say a lot about who the Yankees are? Thank you for your thoughtful input. If you feel that this information is not notable, feel free to delete it.--Toploftical (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning that an institution has several prize-winning members in an article is quite different than creating multiple stand-alone articles that merely list said winners, which can introduce undue emphasis or bias by omission. Thus we have a single List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films), but not List of Academy Awards won by Pixar and List of Grammy Awards won by Pixar, etc. Almost any institution has several notable members affiliated: my own alma matter has or has had several Nobel laureates on its faculty–and believe me the school trumpets that juicy fact on its website and its recruitment publications–but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should have specific "Lists of X winners associated with Y institution" for every institution, especially if winning an award is entirely independent from place of employment (with the IAS, it may be expected and even unremarkable that a prestigious facility will attract esteemed scholars). The concept of notability is that Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, is a lagging indicator of notability: we shouldn't promote or arbitrarily listify things we feel should be given more emphasis. Do reliable third-party sources commonly discuss IAS award-winners as a notable group or set, per WP:LISTN? Is affiliation with the IAS intrinsic to the individuals' awards, or merely incidental? I admit I am not very familiar with the IAS or mathematics, but as general guidelines, we as editors should try to avoid listing non-notable intersections of data, even if verifiable, to avoid proliferation of indiscriminate info. An alternate approach may be to combine all these lists into a single list with multiple sections, which makes information easier for readers to view. I myself will not nominate any of these lists for deletion or merging, but just wanted to give you guidelines on how to best keep the information in lines with policies and guidelines (e.g. WP:NPOV, WP:PROMO). See also guidelines on Appropriate topics for lists and list selection criteria, at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. All the best, --Animalparty! (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Terrence McNally

Thanks! I like working on the less well known plays/musicals, and I like researching. And I think McNally is really important. I don't do anything special, I just use google. Oh, I also have access to the New York Times and a few other papers through a school link. I need to take a break from working on the articles for a few days, and truthfully I don't know how much more I can do on them. I'll take a look at the plays with no articles, see what I can find. (By the way, I agree with you about the notability issue.) Flami72 (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Format for authorlinks

Re this diff and the related changes you've been doing: Thanks for linking to the article on Cipra, but that is the wrong format for making the link. Rather than putting a wikilink into the |last2= parameter, the correct way would have been to add an |author2-link=Barry A. Cipra parameter. This would have the better effects of linking Cipra's whole name and of not creating broken metadata for the citation. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:The Hot Sardines Jazz Band close up.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:The Hot Sardines Jazz Band close up.jpg, which you've attributed to The manager of the Hot Sardines. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Majora (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Please note that the image does not qualify for fair-use as it would fail WP:NFCCP #1. This is because the band is still touring and together so a free use image can reasonably be made. If permission is not received to make this image free use it will have to be deleted. If you have further questions please feel free to ask me. Thanks. --Majora (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)