User talk:Dmehus/Archives/2019/October

WP:CORPSPAM

You might have read this essay I wrote - but if not, take a look, I think you'll like it :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, Piotrus. Will try and read it on the weekend as it looks interesting. I used to think every company should have a Wikipedia article, but I don't think that's the case anymore. People treat Wikipedia articles as some sort of imperative because Google uses the data in their infoboxes in search results, but unless people want to take the time to write articles that are at least 1 page single-spaced, I tend to think you're right. I appreciate your supporting my Canadian-focused AfDs. Interesting no one proposed these deletions till now. I see you added a redirect WP:CORPSPAM to your essay...I didn't know that (a) we were allowed to do that (guess we just use the Wikipedia namespace?) and (b) write essays, but that's cool. Doug Mehus (talk) 04:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

We are allowed to do pretty much everything that's not forbidden. You can write Wikipedia:User essays, through the one I linked to is actually something I published in the Wikipedia 'newspaper' Wikipedia:Signpost, lots of interesting material in it. And we can create Wikipedia-namespace redirects just like normal ones. Worst case they end up in WP:RFD :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. How do you get published in the Signpost? Have a look at my Rogers Bank proposed deletion. Delete or merge? Also, I used the Wikipedia:PROD process to delete two some implausible redirects someone created (DirectCash Bank and General Bank of Canada). They literally just redirect to a Wikipedia template page. Did I cite the right reasons? Doug Mehus (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions. Also, for prods, I recommend making sure you have an edit summary with "article prodded because [reason]" or just prodded even. The point is, few months later you can use the tool you have at the bottom of your contributions page to check your edits for things with a particular edit summary and see what wasn't deleted (deleted entries want show in search). I have recently begun the project of reviewing 1000+ entries I prodded in my 10+ years here that survived, to see what needs to be AfDed. Sometime the creator will just deprod things and you wont realize it until you check. FYI to speed things up I have my own standardized copy and paste prod and AfD templates you can see here: User:Piotrus/Templates. You can create such pages as you want in your sandbox (userspace), also there are many gadgets and tools to make various technical things easier (check Preferences / Gadgets for example, and there's a ton of other stuff at Wikipedia:User scripts if you like 'customizing' your account'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus, Ah, good idea, I've been copying and pasting into the address bar of a new web browser tab, but it's kind of cumbersome. Very useful. I just realized that I added a WP:Notability tag to the Langara College page. As a distance education student, would that be considered a conflict, no, or would it be very minor? On the one hand, I'm trying to objectively note that the article needs major improvement. Also, from my initial look, it and most of the B.C. public colleges seem to fail WP:NORG. I see schools are except from WP:CSD, so that's a no go, but wondering how often you've seen public colleges have their pages deleted? Am I off-base here, or no? It just reads like blatant spam. Doug Mehus (talk) 03:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus, Re PRODs, yeah, I don't usually use them because people will remove them often. But if they're successful, do they count to your deletion track record? What about AfDs, who gets "credit" for the deletion, the proposer or the admin/non-admin closer? Doug Mehus (talk) 03:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry about such WP:COI, as long as you are not being paid for what you edit, it's a non-issue. Seriously, should (for example) Christian editors declare COI when editing Christianity-related pages? As for schools and such, recommended reading is WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and the entire page it is on, for a nice overview of some topics. I am not aware of any good way to track 'successful' prods, if you ever find about it do let me know (could as at WP:VP somewhere, or at WT:PROD). I am honestly not sure what you mean by credit for AFDs. I think there are some tools that keep stats for those but I am also not aware of them off the top of my hand, again, let me know if you find out and you can ask about it at VP again or at WT:DELETE or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Colin Basran

Please do not unlink articles while they are at AFD, as you did with this one. This should only be done if/when the AFD closes as delete. (If the AFD closes as keep, you ought to revert your edits.) SD0001 (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

SD0001, Okay, thanks. I strongly suspect it will pass with a delete or strong delete, but I take your point. I jumped the gun. Sorry about that. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hello. Thanks very much for the Barnstar that you posted on my Talk Page! Much appreciated! Thanks, also, for your kind words. I also appreciate your input at the Talk Page of the Tate murders article, where I had proposed renaming the article to the Tate-LaBianca murders. Finally, thanks for fixing that reference error message. It was driving me crazy. I tried to find the source of the error, but I was unable to. It really drove me nuts. I am glad that you were able to find it and to fix it. Thanks so much! Best, Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadaro, No problem for the Editor's Barnstar, for commenting on your previously unaddressed merger proposal at Tate murders, and for fixing the named reference error. :) Doug Mehus (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Bank of America Canada

Thought I'd take this to your talk page. Something has to be done with the business articles on Wikipedia. A lot of them are just ads for the business in question. Listing products they make and how wonderful they are. I could just start doing mass prods and deletions but I've done that in the past with computer games and made a whole bunch of people mad. It's pretty much the same thing over at AfC, honestly I get tired of citing WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and Wikipedia isn't a directory nor your advertisement destination location. I'm not entirely sure where to go from here, it's rather exasperating. Whispering^(t) 00:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinehouse Photography Club

Good day and sorry for bothering you. You seem like you know quite a bit in regard to Wiki. I dont know really what to do with the page. I was told by the one user I cant edit or make any changes because of potential COI. I tried posting it on some edit pages for possible rewording and so forth. Do you have any suggestions? What would you do in my situation? Thanks again for your time! --Dreerwin (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

CAA and CC-BY-SA whatever

Thanks for your participation in AFD about Canadian Automobile Association. Thanks for explaining some about whatever license applies now. I knew it is no longer Gnu Public License, but I guess I thought it was "CC-BY-SA" or such, where the "BY" indicates attribution is required, like to the photographer's name for a photo. Per Creative Commons license#Attribution. And about just "SA"(?) there is Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content#Attribution. I do have the impression that a publication repurposing Wikipedia content usually should have to link to the actual article, where a reader could then go into the "View History". Anyhow, thanks! --Doncram (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Doncram, no problem. I'm not sure if they're required to link to the edit history. We should do some checks of Everipedia and see if they (a) link to the original article on Wikipedia or (b) just to Wikipedia itself. It'd also be interesting to see if they have to import the editing history - I suspect not. What we'd also want to do is see what is meant by "attribution". I suspect it just means Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation. I've skimmed a bit here (https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use/en#7._Licensing_of_Content), but's not completely clear. Also, note at the top that re-users of the content can optionally use the GNU Free Documentation License ("GFDL") as an alternative, which may or may not have any attribution requirement. Doug Mehus (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

When I checked Everipedia's version of the article, https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/Canadian_Automobile_Association, and clicked "View History," it says there have been no edits so it appears they're only tracking edits done on Everipedia. Interestingly, I couldn't find any link to Wikipedia, so not quite sure where they're linking to it.

As for what belongs on Wikipedia, I subscribe now to the deletionism ideology as that's the only way to get the article count down and focus on improving articles that are worthwhile. There's a LOT of articles, especially on companies and organizations such as CAA, that are just not notable—or not notable anymore. Wikipedia is not a directory and it's not for company's to improve their search engine results placement (thinking of writing an essay that Wikipedia is not for corporate SEO). Everipedia, on the other hand, seems to welcome anything and that's fine, but will be harder to manage. So, perhaps that's where companies and organizations excluded from Wikipedia can go. Your thoughts? Doug Mehus (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, i would think that Everipedia should be linking to the Wikipedia article directly, where the edit history could be found, rather than copying it over themselves. But at the CAA article and another test article where I can see they simply copied what I myself wrote in Wikipedia, I too see no way to get to mention of Wikipedia. It actually says "no RECENT edits". If i created an account and logged in could I see more?

Okay, it's official, we are coming from different directions. I am very much an wp:INCLUSIONIST. I do see the need for paring away of junk stuff and fighting paid editors, but I want to work on positive contributions and on saving worthwhile stuff. When I am at AFD I myself choose to go into topics where I estimate something probably should be saved. My wp:AFDSTATS showing now are typical: i mostly vote "Keep" and i think i am fairly influential, affecting the outcome not just agreeing with what others have said. i do quite well percentage-wise for someone mostly voting "keep", with 80 to 85% "correct" rate (meaning green plus yellow cells because "no consensus" results in "keep" outcome). Oh, hmm, you have mostly voted "delete" and don't have as much record yet. Maybe you have not been aware of AFDSTATS? It is handy for coming back to revisit the AFDs still in progress. cheers, --Doncram (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:SMALLCAT: how small is small?

Hi Dmehus, I just noticed on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 18 your statement that categories with 4 or fewer articles are considered within the purview of WP:SMALLCAT. Can you point me to a source for that, please? (WP:SMALLCAT just says "a few".) I was amazed when some two-article categories I nominated for deletion a while back were kept, and if there's some guideline I overlooked I would like to try again. Opera hat (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Opera hat, I haven't been able to find it, but haven't the time to look for it at the moment. However, it mentioned somewhere that generally 4 or fewer articles was considered small, 2 or fewer were likely candidates at surviving deletion, 3 somewhat so, and 4 was mixed. Let me know if you find it. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

No bother; thanks for replying. Opera hat (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion concerning WP:THREE

Hello, thanks for you comments. I brought this here because where we were at was specifically as a comment that I wasn't able to reply to because of the closing so I don't want to go beyond that.

Being bold is an option and if it is not reverted then all is good. I haven't had time to consider the ends and outs but you can start a discussion on the talk page that many may be watching. You can do that and ping past involved editors, or you can add it as a RFC. You can go the bold route and use other options as needed. Arriving at a more broadly accepted consensus is far better with as many weighing in as possible. To me the exact path you choose is a personal choice.

I suppose I would have to give it deeper consideration to see if adding AFD is important, or even needed, and I suppose exploring this would lead to answers. I would have to look at the history. It might be a good idea to inquire of the essay creator.

The direction I take concerning the need for notability sourcing does revolve around how a first reliable source used satisfies significant, or in depth, coverage of the subject. If I see a second source satisfies notability I do not try to nit-pick. If it doesn't seem a second source on notability gives it that "push" over the threshold I will seek a third. I imagine care does have to be taken in trying to be too specific because it must be realized that the criterion depends of the situation. Which ever way you go please ping me. Otr500 (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)