User talk:W.carter/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have. Views/Day Quality Title Content Headings Images Links Sources Tagged with… 177 Assassination of Olof Palme (talk) Add sources 457 Immigration to Sweden (talk) Add sources 7 Tensta Konsthall (talk) Add sources 20 London Research Institute (talk) Add sources 639 Breakfast (talk) Add sources 69 Three Crowns (talk) Add sources 186 Right-to-left (talk) Cleanup 48 Peek & Cloppenburg (talk) Cleanup 130 Uruguayan cuisine (talk) Cleanup 35 Women in Sweden (talk) Expand 9 Peter Pohl (talk) Expand 748 Tire (talk) Expand 1,023 Italian cuisine (talk) Unencyclopaedic 156 Serratiopeptidase (talk) Unencyclopaedic 244 Geo-fence (talk) Unencyclopaedic 242 Carpal bones (talk) Merge 198 W Motors (talk) Merge 40 Quant E (talk) Merge 2 Bruce B. Jefferson (talk) Wikify 174 Eye surgery (talk) Wikify 80 Puffed grain (talk) Wikify 3 Cineshorts (talk) Orphan 1 International Council for Central and East European Studies (talk) Orphan 2 Zhang Tingdong (talk) Orphan 7 Lars Herman Gyllenhaal (talk) Stub 3 Lokrume (talk) Stub 5 Nimrod Theatre Company (talk) Stub 8 Paviken (talk) Stub 5 Recep Çetin (talk) Stub 12 Asahi Prize (talk) Stub SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping! If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Strange days

I see ye had yet another interesting day (in the Chinese sense of the word). A bit strange though in that the effect of the apparent flare was so relatively localised. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Yep, we are all huge fans of the Chinese use of that word. ;) Not too surprised about the airport hiccup though. Probably a combo of close proximity to the northern lights and an airport "built by the lowest bidder". w.carter-Talk 21:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Good Morning. I just granted you the autopatrolled user right in recognition of you work on creating new articles. Not a big deal but an indication of why Wikipedia needs editors like you. Keep up the good work! Best,  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

WOW! It may not be a big deal to you, but it certainly is to me! Thank you ever so much! Cheers, w.carter-Talk 08:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

What a coincidence, I was also given the flag today. Jim Carter 08:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It certainly is. How very nice, congratulations to you too! Cheers, w.carter-Talk 08:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Congrats, Cart, on the well-deserved recognition of your fine work at English Wikipedia. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 17:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The plan proceeds as you have foreseen, Master! Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, the entire Galaxy will soon be within our grasp, my young apprentice. w.carter-Talk 21:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, quick question regarding adding documents

Is it OK to add (links to) PDF documents? If so, what's the best way to do this? Thank you. Klhartog (talk) 12:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Klhartog! Yes, PDFs can be linked to if they are used to support facts in an article. The way to do this is to add them as references (or "refs"). Arbitrary linking in the text should never be done. In this article: Fred T. Mackenzie (scientist) there are a couple of PDFs used as sources. Take a look in the Reference section. For example, this PDF is linked to in one of the refs. The proper way to write the link to it is:

<ref>{{cite book|last1=Mackenzie|first1=Fred T.|last2=Guidry|first2=M.W.|last3=Arvidson|first3=R.S.|url=http://samples.sainsburysebooks.co.uk/9780080550510_sample_732484.pdf|title=Evolution of Primary Producers in the Sea|editor1-first=P.|editor1-last=Falkowski|editor2-first=A.|editor2-last=Knoll|publisher=[[Academic Press|Elsevier Academic Press]]|location=Massachusetts|pages=377–403|date=2007|isbn=978-0-12-370518-1}}</ref>

Since you are a newbie, you may want to read about making refs. See User:Yunshui/References for beginners and Help:Referencing for beginners which also includes videos on how it's done. I saw that you asked the same question at the Teahouse. Was it not properly answered there? Best, w.carter-Talk 12:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I managed to add 5 references to my Sandbox

Klhartog (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Great! Now you can do the same with all the other external links you have in the text in your sandbox. Move them to refs since there should only be links to other Wikipedia articles in the sentences and not links to other websites. Those belong in refs after the full stop at the end of the sentence. Best, w.carter-Talk 13:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

• Op-ed: You are invited to participate in the Community Wishlist Survey

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation finances; Superprotect is gone

• In the media: Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov: propaganda myth or history?

• Traffic report: Death, the Dead, and Spectres are abroad

• Featured content: Christianity, music, and cricket

• Gallery: Princess of Asturias Awards 2015 ceremony

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

On Wikipedia I have many colleagues, but you are truly a friend

Thank you for both the new scripts (I'm not up to tinkering with code today though, I have some code PrimeHunter wrote for me that I've yet to implement either) and of course the tea. Nice, soothing, medicinal tea. (And delicious too, naturally!)

Since you noticed my attempts at mediation, I have to ask what your opinion of my efforts is. I certainly don't go looking for trouble but I saw a situation I thought I might be able to improve by intervening. (Bad habit I picked up from the Teahouse, hm?) I've spent enough time on it now that I'm wondering if I'm still impartial — and whether I'm really doing any good. I know I can rely on you for an honest assessment. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 22:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I was going to wait with my assessment of your work 'till after the debate was closed, but since you ask, here goes: I must say that so far I'm impressed. Mediating in a heated debate where both sides wants to drag you into it and choose sides is not for the faint-hearted. The debate is a textbook example of how things can turn out when a newbie, unaccustomed to the rules and guidelines of the WP, meet an editor with sleep deprivation. I think you are handling things very well, staying impartial, acting as a referee/moderator, sifting through the comments with an analytical mindset. I have seen many similar debates, and the curious thing is that it is often people who are fronting very well-intentioned organizations, and who very capable when it comes to using social media, who have the hardest time understanding that the WP is something completely different. They often get entangled in debates like this one, since they fail to see that having an article on the WP is not a right but a privilege. Commercial companies trying to get articles here are much more apt at understanding about COI and copyrights. (Although I've seen a fair share of heated debates about those too.) Folks that are fighting for a "cause" are also much more prone to take things personal than those who are just trying to get a free ad for their business. When you get caught in such a debate, you need to let go of any personal opinions and just look at the thing from a bird's view. And so far you have managed to do just that. I really like the way you summarize things from the discussion on the page. (That's a new invention here!) This makes it easier for the participants (and everybody else) to keep focus on the issue and not get caught up in sidebars and new threads. That, my friend, was my two cents. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 23:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: As for "whether I'm really doing any good", you will never get these two to agree on anything or like each other. The only thing you can hope for and aim at, is that they stop fighting on the WP and that you can keep them cool enough to not get indef blocked. w.carter-Talk 23:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reassurance, Cart. Your opinion means a lot. I feel as though I'm making progress in getting them to agree to apologize to each other for what each of them considers the other's worst offenses, which is heartening. I'm concerned though that WP:SPA Lucylivescot (who I'd thought had left Wikipedia after helping get the nomination discussion started) has started trying to instigate more unpleasantness. Unlike Donnie Park who has a long history of positive contributions, she seems to be here mainly to attack Kevin Healey. Check her contributions for the two most recent edits, 1143 bytes each, reverted by other editors. Do you think it would be jumping the gun to report her to AN/I or SPI at this point, or should I let her have more rope? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 05:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: Leave things be for now. Doing anything else would be going looking for trouble, the thing you said you did not want to do. Keep on monitoring the discussion on your talk page or you may be burned out prematurely. You don't have to fix everything. The whole thing will probably blow itself out soon as WP is not a soapbox. w.carter-Talk 09:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: The discussion seems to be over now. I suggest you put the Template:Closed around it followed by the Template:Collapse top to mark it as closed. w.carter-Talk 11:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I had been very much uncertain I would be able to persuade either of them to apologize for anything, so it was tempting to keep going and try to get them each to apologize for everything that had offended the other; but I recognize that you're right, and that it's better for Wikipedia to stick with the truce we have rather than risk re-escalating. Thank you again for your very useful advice, Cart. I did indeed both close and collapse the discussion. (Initially I tried to get both section headings inside the closed and collapse templates, but I just couldn't get that to work.) Fingers crossed that incivility doesn't flare up again. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 16:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: A truce is good. We take what we can here. The templates are only designed to cover one thread at the time. Should you want to put two main headings inside it at once, the best way to do it is to add a couple of "=" to the second heading and thereby making it a subsection to the first: == Heading == → === Heading ===. (At least I think that is how it works. ^^) Closing and collapsing a discussion is most of the time a very effective way of saying that enough is enough and preventing it from igniting again. Try to do something nice and productive for a while now. My personal favorite remedy is to pick an article from the Category:All dead-end pages and start fixing things in it. Anything you do to it is an improvement and very gratifying. Be well, w.carter-Talk 16:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

• Op-ed: As one thousand of us requested, Superprotect has been removed

• Arbitration report: Elections, redirections, and a resignation from the Committee

• Discussion report: Compromise of two administrator accounts prompts security review

• Featured content: Texas, film, and cycling

• In the media: Sanger on Wikipedia; Silver on Vox; lawyers on monkeys

• Traffic report: Doodles of popularity

• Gallery: Paris

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Whoops

Thanks for that correction – I'm an idiot and I couldn't see what I had done wrong to screw everything up... it's late and I should go to bed. :-/ Richard3120 (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Absolutely no problem. I'm an equal idiot since I had forgotten to set my phone to mute. I was mentioned on GrammarFascist's user page and somehow this generated a 'ping' to me with the accidental transclusion of their page. I was awakened by the ping-generated email-alert. Being the WikiAdict that I am, I had to check what was going on. I only recognized the problem because I have once done the same thing myself... Cheers, w.carter-Talk 08:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

New Article

Dear W.carter,

Now I’m returning to the Wiki-work again and, according to your advice, I sorted out how to move images of the medals from my page to Commons under the Wikipedia medals category. I hope, I have done it in the right way.

As I mentioned in my previous mail, I’m going to present another work to Wikipedia, and it will be a short article about unique wolf’s park Les Loups de Chabrieres in Central France, in Creuse (located 500m from the town of Gueret).

Just several days ago I made interesting photos there and obtained some information direct from the Gueret National Park’s administration.

The problem is, that this article already exists in Wikipedia in French language:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/For%C3%AAt_de_Chabri%C3%A8res  

So, does it mean that this article should be translated into English as it is, or I can write completely different one, using my own text and photos? If it is possible to write on this subject, even if French version already exists, can I ask you to advise me on the right presentation of this article and to supervise this project?

Best regards, Chris Oxford. Chris Oxford (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello again Chris Oxford, nice to have you back. I see that you have uploaded your medal pics at the Commons. Well done. You missed putting a "Now Commons" tag on the File:Wikimedal Geology photo competition.jpg so I did that for you. Before you start your new project about writing an article, it would be great if you finished the last one first. You had uploaded your photos at Commons and had them deleted here, which is all very good, but you left them uncategorized. That way they will not be accessible through the search engines and therefore of no use to other editors. I wrote you a note on this in our previous conversation here, but somehow you seem to have missed that so here is a copy of that text for you:

"I see that you have uploaded the Greece files at the Commons and tagged the copies at the WP appropriately. Well done! You should do the same with the pictures of the Wikimedals as well even if no one has come around to tagging them yet. You do it the same way and add the delete tag. Now that the files are in the Commons you need to get acquainted with the Category-system there. Tagging a pic with categories will help other editors find the and use the pic. The categories are at the very bottom of the page. Click on "edit" to see the code for them. The more detailed you can describe a pic, the better. If you look at the File:Pegasus Square in New Corinth.jpg in the Commons, you can see the categories I have added to that one. The categories should be as narrow as possible. As you can see; I did not simply put it in the "Greece" category or not even the "Populated places in Greece", I went all the way to the subcategory "Squares in Corinth", and so on. Click around and take a look, I think you will figure out how it works. You should also keep an eye on the files at the Commons since once you have uploaded them there there will always be other editors or Bots coming to fix this and that, minor things you may have missed. Looking at what has changed will help you learn for the next time you upload pics there."

Once you have sorted out the pics, we can start with the article you were talking about. I will be happy to help you and guide you through it all.

Each Wikipedia in different languages is independent with its own set of articles, rules and practices. Sometimes articles are translated from one language to another but most of the time, new articles in the different languages are created. The text is usually very different in different languages so it's perfectly fine for you to start an article here your way. The English WP also have much higher standards for articles than most other WPs so the new article here has to be up to those. For one, the French article fr:Forêt de Chabrières does not cite any references, something that is a must for new articles here if they are to not be challenged or deleted.

I hope you realize that you can not write the article using only your observations and impressions of the park, what you write must be supported by other independent sources. Take a look at this article: Parc Zoologique et Botanique de Mulhouse and you can see how it's supposed to look with footnotes and references. Please also take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article. Did you have in mind to write about just the wolf park or the forest with the park as a sub-section of it? The link you provided to the French WP was to the article about the forest, while the article about the wolf park is at fr:Parc animalier des monts de Guéret, they can of course be combined here. In order to create the article in peace and quiet before submitting it to the main article area, you start by creating it in your own "sandbox" (that is your page for scribbling and trying things out as well as composing drafts for articles). It is located here: User:Chris Oxford/sandbox, you just click on the link and start it. I will be able to monitor things and help you there.

Your pictures from the park can be uploaded to the Commons at any time. The article do not have to exist for that. You can look at one of the pics/files from the French article such as File:Guéret Loups de Chabrières.JPG and see what categories you should consider for your photos. w.carter-Talk 21:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear W.carter,

Thank you very much for your reply. You are writing, that I left the pictures of the medals uncategorized - it was true for some short time and I suspect, that may be you have seen them exactly then, but after that I placed them into an existing Category Wikipedia Medals - I thought that is an appropriate one. Please correct me if this is not true. And thank you very much for your help and the desire to help in future. I am sure, that it will be at interesting work, which will be made to a high standard. Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Chris Oxford: Yes, you are quite correct, it was written in the brief period before they were categorized. So that only leaves the Greece pics to be taken care of. Looking forward to the article as well. w.carter-Talk 16:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

New Article, part 2

Dear W.carter,

I believe, I have now categorized all the photos and I will shortly be starting the new article in a Sandbox, sure, that with your help it will be a very good one. Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Chris Oxford: The pictures look great with their new categories'. Well done. Keep me posted on the progress with the article. Cheers w.carter-Talk 10:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for welcome message

Thank you for welcome message. I mostly edit in russian section of Wikipedia, so that's why I hadn't made all the mistakes a new editor of Wikipedia should make. --Arsenicum-82 (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

• Special report: ArbCom election—candidates’ opinions analysed

• In the media: Icelandic milestone; apolitical editing

• Discussion report: BASC disbanded; other developments in the discussion world

• Arbitration report: Ban Appeals Subcommittee goes up in smoke; 21 candidates running

• Featured content: Fantasia on a Theme by Jimbo Wales

• Traffic report: Darkness and light

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Indentation

I notice that in this edit to WP:THQ you changed the indentation of my message. I was not replying to Cullen, I was replying to the OP, and similarly your reply was not to mine but to the OP, so all the replies should be at the same level of indentation. See Wikipedia:Indentation. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. I wasn't paying attention as much as I should have, the extra : was pure reflex. Sorry about that. w.carter-Talk 19:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Moa Martinson

Hello my friend, I thought I would lend a hand on what you're working on for a change. I see several corrections to make to Moa Martinson, but I saw you left the {{Under construction}} template on it, and wanted to make sure I wouldn't cause an unhelpful edit conflict. Are you actively editing it right now, or may I go ahead? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 19:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: Hi there, thanks for the offer. However let me get back to you on that, otherwise your would do much of the work in vain. I stumbled upon the article and it was a mess, a huge mess! She is one of our most noted authors and deserve better, so I have made it my new project. First I have to go through the text and iron out most of the Swenglish and bad language. I take it one section at the time (1½ left). Simultaneously I'm trying to correct some wildly inaccurate facts. When this is done there will be a hefty expansion (2-3 times what it is now is not outside the realm of possibilities) and thorough checking of facts and sources, followed by a rearranging of the article's structure. After that there is the "ironing out of the language" plus copy edit. This is when you might come in handy. Finally I will nominate it for GA while having the FA in the back of my head since there are sooo many good sources about her. To think that when I got hold of the article, someone had put a "notability tag" on it!!! Heavens above! In short: Not yet, but I will gladly accept your offer later on. :) w.carter-Talk 19:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

... and I did not answer your question... No, I'm not working on it right now. I've had the day from hell at work today and I need to be sharp for working on that article. I'm going to hit the shower and the sofa, hopefully in that order. Things will be better tomorrow. Or so they say. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 19:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done already. w.carter-Talk 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

• Op-ed: Wikidata: the new Rosetta Stone

• News and notes: Fundraising update; FDC recommendations

• In the media: Erasmus Prize awarded to Wikipedia; trouble on the Russian Wikipedia

• Recent research: Do Wikipedia citations mirror scholarly impact?; co-star networks in silent films

• Featured content: Caves and stuff

• Traffic report: J'en ai ras le bol

• Arbitration report: Third Palestine-Israel case closes; Voting begins

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Blog: Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia Deutschland urge Reiss Engelhorn Museum to reconsider suit over public domain works of art

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Moved to User:W.carter/things I have received

Thanks! Lovely! :) Always happy to help, w.carter-Talk 18:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

English translation of an already-existing French wiki page (from the teahouse question) - some more questions & issues

Hi W. carter, I wasn't sure how to refer back to the teahouse section where I asked questions about translating/writing a new bio of French artist Gabriel Delmas. The hyperlink to make more comments there is gone, although this is (I think, I hope) the page I'm referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions&oldid=693005208

Once the teahouse page updates, there is no longer any 'join the discussion' or 'edit source' for me to click to return there. Of course I can come directly here to your talk page, but how is it done if I wanted to return to my teahouse question?

In any case here is the issue I now have:

I probably should be creating the article in my sandbox but I'm writing the bio from scratch offline because it seemed easier. One of the issues I'm having now is, even though I am creating a new bio, the sources I will use as citations, references, etc are in French. I'm very confused about how I cite them because this is English wikipdedia and I just realized that, they are obviously not translated into English. So my whole strategy of making this easier by doing an original article in English, will still have me dealing with the translation-of-foreign-sources issue. My French is not fluent, I do understand how to read it but I am by no means a proficient speaker and don't want to attempt to translate the citations.

That's one issue. The other is, this artist is fairly prolific in several different art media (painting, drawing, graphic novels, multimedia installation), but what he is most known (and notable) for are his contributions to the underground comic book scene, which is a major industry in France, Belgium, Italy and Japan. All his books have been published (by major publishers) and one of them has just been reprinted by a new small press in Italy. The book (Largemouths) was a cult classic when it was published 10 years ago (also had a different name, Grangousiers) but I am having very little luck finding reviews of this because it just came out this past November. So would I write about what people have said about the book years ago, since it is the same book, or try to find more sources for the newly published reprint? The artist has a body of published work I will talk briefly and generally about, but this particular book I wanted to highlight and focus on because it crystallizes what is considered to be his original vision. And yes, I can find sources for this assertion.

But that brings me to two other issues. Please bear with me, I know this is long!

The next issue is that, unlike in the U.S. where comic books are seen as frivolous, something for kids, not taken seriously as an art form, it is a major, serious, respected industry in France (also Japan, Italy, Belgium). Everyone reads them, they are written about in journals and publications and....this is the reason I want to write about this particular artist....they are the place where many innovative and unconventional artists make their mark on French culture. The graphic novel is a form especially suited for those artists who are out of the mainstream. Even though the industry is mainstream and many of the artists working in it are also doing work that is mainstream, both the form itself and the industry are open to the kind of artist who wants to expand and challenge the boundaries of this art form. Very open to it. This is not the case here, in the U.S. or in most English-speaking countries. I bring this up because some of the assertions I will make in writing about him may be skirting the 'neutral' tone requirement. I agree that the French wiki article has a tone that is, in many places, bordering on promotional, something I am mindful of and do not want to do in this article. However, having said that, there really is no way to talk about an artist who is outside of the mainstream (even though widely published in it), whose books and art challenge many aspects of society (satirically) without resorting to language that is not neutral. To me, to adopt a tone that is scholarly and sanitized when I am describing an artist whose work is unconventional and avant-garde is not only weird, but wrong and misleading. I do see the need for neutrality, but this is not merely an issue of neutrality.

Here's the last issue. I've noticed a lot of broken links on the original French wiki article. I've managed to find the sources elsewhere for some of them, plus I"m starting to find new sources, but what do I do if I can't find them? If the publication is gone? Or if the source is now only available if you pay to read it? This is difficult enough in my own language but I feel lost in this quagmire of searching in a foreign language. All of his books have been published, but some are now out of print, and others are in the process of being reprinted. Can my article, providing it passes all of the other tests (a big if, I know...you haven't seen it yet) on neutrality, reputable sources, notability, be accepted even if it is not definitive, not complete? How much or how many sources would be enough to qualify it for acceptance?

And that leads me to this. I also don't quite understand the meaning of wiki's test for reputability. Because even though this artist has a body of published work, and I can find sources for citations, he, like many artists working in a form that is considered part of the underground art scene, is often reviewed in publications that would not or may not pass wiki's stringent tests for mainstream writers and artists. The kind of publications that review artists in France are very different than those here. Some of the best sources I have found (meaning the material is rich and interesting and perceptive) are among his peers. Other artists, editors of art magazines and blogs, these are the people that have the most to say, and who say it in a way that demonstrates exactly why the artist is notable.

Does any of this make sense?

I appreciate your advice and help and any strategies you may have to help me with this article. I know how difficult it is to write about any living artist, but to write about a foreign one, but have to abide by a standard that he wouldn't even meet in his own country....seems very strange to me.

Alphaville3467 (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Reply

Hello Alphaville3467. That. Was. A. Lot. I'm leaving you an answer in a subsection simply out of logistic necessity. Let's see if we can sort this out:

Teahouse: All post at the Teahouse are archived. You can see the index for the archive on the right side of the top of the questions at the Teahouse page, right under the "Contents". The numbers there (414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423) are pages of the archive. If you want to reopen a thread, you post a new question and include an url to the original question. In this case it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_422#English_translation_of_an_already-existing_French_wiki_page BUT, the Teahouse is mainly for discussing the nuts and bolts of editing. Lengthy discussions on a single subject, such as the one we are entering into now, should be carried out on talk pages: user or article. That is why it is so very much better to start working on the article here at the WP instead of offline. There is an alternative to sandboxes that are called drafts where you can specify what it is you are working on. The dafts have talk pages where discussions about the article are held. You can invite people at the Teahouse to the draft page disuccion and ask for help or opinions, many new editors do.

References: It is perfectly alright to use French (or any language) sources here. If you take a look at this very good article, Valérian and Laureline, you will see that most sources are in French. Sometimes sources can include an translation as well as you can see in this article I'm working on where the refs are in Swedish: Moa Martinson. You can use references of any age as long as they are reliable.

Article: I think it would be wise if you started with reading some other articles about similar subjects here on to get an idea of what an article should look like. The article about Jean-Claude Mézières is a very good example. You seem to have a lot to say and it is really impossible to give good advise without having seen some text. Normally the biography should be just about the person. If you want in-depth texts about his works, they should be described in separate articles and referred to with links in the bio.

French graphic novels: You do not have to explain about these to me. I'm very familiar with them and have read a lot myself, which is why I volunteered to help you in the first place. I'm Swedish but I can read and speak French very well although my writing and spelling is a mess. I can assure you that the WP have no trouble with such articles, it deals with all sorts of art forms. Take a look at this for example: The Nikopol Trilogy. But all subjects are all treated in an equal "dry" and objective way, as is the nature of an encyclopedia. If you want to write an essay, you should seek another forum.

Start: Why don't you start writing and we'll take things from there. Click on this red link and just begin: Draft:Gabriel Delmas. It will be just like a notebook at first, with no structure. I suggest that you start by just listing all the sources you want to use. That is like "gathering the evidence" and by that we can determine if the article will meet the notability criteria even before you have begun! :) I used a similar technique when I worked on an article as you can see in this old version of a draft.

To be continued later...: I'm quite sure I missed some part of your very long ponderings. If I find something I'll get back to you. Otherwise, let's start and take the questions, trouble and issues as we find them along the way. I will be you mentor on this. w.carter-Talk 21:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Notability: (@Alphaville3467:) This is what the WP has to say about the criteria for notability of people like Delmas:

Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.

3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Just thought I'd let you know. w.carter-Talk 21:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Gabriel Delmas bio

Thank you so much, W. carter! You're right, this won't make any sense until you see what I'm writing, so I'm going to start with your suggestion of listing all the sources, and just starting my draft in here. I'm glad I don't have to worry about the formatting yet because this is terribly (insanely) confusing to me, even though, believe it or not, I'm quite nerdy. I can't tell you how happy I am to hear you say you know this world, that you're not just vaguely familiar with French comic art. Huge relief for me. HUGE.

Now, having said that, I have to ask you the dumbest question of all. I don't know how to reply to your reply....I mean, when I go to answer you, to keep this thread together (is it possible?), I have to start a new section. Is this a bug on my end? Because I can't reply to your message to me. I know you gave me the guidelines about writing to you (If you want to get hold of me you write @W.carter: resulting in @W.carter: or W.carter resulting in W.carter and sign with the four "squiggles" Alphaville3467 (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC) at the end and hit "Save".)Italic text But I don't know where to actually 'reply', except at the top of your talk page. Forgive me in advance for being a dunce..... and know you made my day with these other tips about the article. Thank you! Alphaville3467 (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The top of the page says this: "Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic." But only the" Click here to start a new topic" is hyperlinked. So this is why I am confused. I just want to put text under your reply. Alphaville3467 (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alphaville3467: And you did just right. If you had clicked on the "hyperlinked", that would also have been right. That would have created a new post here at the bottom of the talk page automatically. You can ask here any way you like, there are very few rules on user talk pages other than that you post the new questions at the bottom of the page, that is the opposite of how the Teahouse works. But it would be even better if this was continued at the talk page of the draft, since that would then be archived together with the emerging article. I could technically start the draft for you, but I like you to have the honor of initiating this. Just click on this red link: Draft:Gabriel Delmas, write something like "Hi!" or "Start" and hit save. Once you have done that, I can set up the talk page for it and we can continue there.

As for the colons, you add one

more for each

new post in a

thread to keep

them separate.

Look in the code here and you will get it. :) w.carter-Talk 21:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alphaville3467: Having said all that, it is getting late and I have to sign off for tonight to get some sleep. I will be back here tomorrow night again to help you a bit more. Good Night! w.carter-Talk 21:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@W.carter: thank you, I'll try to get this started anyway. I still have a confusion as to how you replied to my reply though. I can't reply to anything unless I add a new section. Alphaville3467 (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)