User talk:Kudpung/Archive Apr 2019

wikiproject headers

Hi. I hope you are doing well.
Is there any template/maintenance tag that can be added on a talkpage of an article, which has no wikiprojects listed on the talkpage? I recently came across Electrical tuning, a forgotten article. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Usernamekiran, Just add the banner from the apropriate Wikiproject. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Madresfield Court

Dear Kudpung, I hope you're keeping well. My current run at an architectural FA is on the simmer as my collaborator's got some real life issues that need attending to. So I was casting around for something to take up in the interim. I think Madresfield would make a wonderful FA. Very interesting building, great stories attached, and a reasonable supply of reliable sources, many of which I have. I increasingly enjoy collaborative FAs and, knowing your interest in Worcestershire, wondered if a joint venture would be of interest. The collaboration could be as heavy or as light as you wished. We could divide it into History and Architecture and take half each, or I could do both and you could limit yourself to commenting etc. Alternatively, the idea may not appeal at all, in which case just say, I shall not be remotely put out. Have a ponder and let me know. All best wishes. KJP1 (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi KJP1, unfortunately RL isn't allowing me time to dedicate anything like what I used to do on Wikipedia. That said, I would suggest you get Madresfield up to GA first. It looks very clean already and should pass easily. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

No problem at all. I shall potter about with it and, as and when it turns up at PR/FAC, your comments would be much appreciated. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Ahem

I think there is a thread starting here that is best moved to the talkpage. And by someone with the standing at RfA such as yourself. Montanabw^(talk) 18:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) A thread?! Which one, more like it  :) ——SerialNumber54129 18:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The one referring to Mueller, Trump and Hitler, probably *roll eyes* ☆ Bri (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that one!—In my arrogance, I thought Montana meant the one that I started  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 19:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

LOL SerialNumber 54129. Montanabw^(talk) 04:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Montanabw, I cannot intervene as an admin on an RfA on which I have already voted or commented - WP:INVOLVED. Also your link loads a page in a format with which I am totally unfamiliar and does not go to the thread. Is this possibly the mobile device site? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

ah yes. I’m trying to edit from an ipad. Many things are screwy with the mobile platform. At any rate, looks like the situation was addressed. I edited the link. Not sure it works now, but for my own reference... Anyway, I thought anyone could move a conversation to the talkpage, wasn’t looking at admin action. Montanabw^(talk) 04:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Montanabw, well, anyoner can - theoretically - but as you are well aware there are a number of people who are looking for just any excuse to trip me up. These kind of people, just like the nay sayers on the RexxS RfA, don't give a monkey's toss for all the good work people do around here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Didn't realize that the trolls have turned their "stink eye" on you as well. But then, I've not been super active recently. There should be someone, perhaps one of the 'crats, take a couple of the oppose discussions to the talkpage, though. They are pretty toxic. Montanabw^(talk) 19:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Montanabw, the 'crats almost never intervene, even on the nastiest RfAs. It's almost as if they have a secret pact no to do so. They probably think, and perhaps rightly so, that the rest of the community should do its own policing. Biblioworm's reforms were a mistake. Well intended, but they never changed anything. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Montanabw, I'll say this for Biblioworm's reforms: they helped RexxS squeak through, thank goodness, but I believe it's the only real example of the lowered bar getting the right result. The changes have nevertheless never encouraged more editors of the right calibre to run for office, and RexxS's RfA was a prime example why they don't. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

And of course although it's regularly said to opposes with vacuous reasonings that "the crats will give this vote the measure it deserves", etc, of course they don't—unless there's a crat chat! Perhaps if they went along striking crap !votes as they happened, it would be a deterrence to saying dumbass things. But atm if enough people make enough of those votes...it will never come to a crat chat. ——SerialNumber54129 12:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 you did your best to put one totally 'clueless' voter in his place, but like belligerent kids in a classroom, many just will simply not pipe down. You'll find the current thread at WT:RfA interesting for the same reason. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Disney Media Networks

Strange to see that the French Wikipedia has a detailed article about Disney Media Networks, while the English Wikipedia has it as a redirect to a small section in The Walt Disney Company article. Care to translate the entire article into English? JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 08:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for asking JSH-alive, but the topic is not really within my sphere of interest. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I see. I guess I'll have to look for other ways. Thanks for your answer, though. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 16:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Clarice Phelps

Considering your opinion that science biography articles get judged way too harshly compared to e.g. sport people, what is your opinion on this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarice Phelps (2nd nomination). Polyamorph (talk) 09:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Polyamorph, well you already know my opinion but as far as the current notability criteria are concerned, my good friend TonyBallioni couldn't have closed it any other way. The person to talk to however, is DGG who is far more qualified than I am on notability for academics . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I actually agree with DGG and Kudpung generally on academic biographies (DGG and I were the leading voices towards maintaining NPROF as an independent notability standard from the GNG last time around.) The issue with that AfD was what can be seen in the original nomination, and was the clear consensus in line with policy and guidelines. As for the 2nd nomination, well, it was substantially identical and created with the edit summary recreated page that was deleted. I really want this to stay up, so please advise where I need to improve instead of just nominating for deletion. That isn't how our consensus system works: once the community has decided at AfD that something isn't notable and that an article should be deleted, people don't get to make minor changes when nothing substantial has changed to force a second fight over a contentious article after there were already two discussions about whether or not we should have it. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Polyamorph, this is a special case. Even in the 21st century there are very few women of ethnic minorities in science and technology, and many of us are making a special effort to make sure that we have articles on all the possible ones that are notable. There is unfortunately but understandably a certain tendency to try to write articles also on those who are not really notable. There is actually a fair amount of press about many of them, as the institutions that employ them try to show that they are not bigoted, and they do in fact have at least some minorities and women. That sort of press is just PR, playing its usual role in trying to make things look as good as possible. We have to watch out that we do not confuse this with NPOV coverage. Now, she is a lab technician who played a minor role in preparing a chemical precursor that was used in a large important project. Lab technicians are often underrated, and they can be more important in a project than the title would indicate, and the relegation of women to that role is in fact an example of prejudice. It can be difficult to discern which ones ought to be covered, and we have to rely on true NPOV sources, not on PR. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi TonyBallioni and DGG, many thanks for your replies. I wasn't intending any criticism on the original AfD or subsequent speedy deletion decision, but I was pondering if a much broader discussion on notability of people in general is necessary. This comes from a comment Kudpung made to me about (and I quote from NPP discussion) "every soccer player who has played five minutes in one match gets a BLP based only on their listing in a squad, while scientists who really have contributed to research and knowledge have to jump through so many hoops". Surely, a technician who has played a role, albeit a minor one, in the discovery of a new element, is a way more important, significant, and long-lasting contribution to human knowledge than a minor sportsperson will likely ever make in their lifetime. Kudpung has highlighted to me a major problem and inconsistency with our notability guidelines. Polyamorph (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I know of no rational way to compare the notability of people in different fields. The uniform use of the GNG was intended to do this, but in practice our practice of distinguishing what sources are sufficient ha sled to different results according to both the nature of available sources, and what people want. "notability " in the WP sense is peculiar to WP and it has no actual meaning except that it represents the subjects that the consensus at WP wants to have an article on. The only univerrally accepted other standard is WP:PROF, (and, in practice the analogous special case of scientific journals) , and this is accepted because everyone wgo works in the area more of less agrees with the criteria. I have always thought we should do similarly in all other posible fields: we would have one monumental argument for each field on what the criteria should be, in terms of what that field internally considers importance, we would come to a consensus, and then judging the individual articles would be much simper.

The problem in doing this is the very strong and incompatible views about how different fields should be covered. There is no basis for saying how deep our coverage in any field should be except our own personal ideas of what should be in the encyclopedia. The only way we could come to agreement here for those of us interested in a field to let other fields make their own decisions. It does not detract from the notability of scientists that we cover athletes more intensely. I thik our coverage of some forms of popular enertainment is absurdly deep, (except or course for those particular ones in which I am interested myself), but why should it bother me? DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I've been too busy to respond to this. I would love there to be a more in-depth discussion on this, as although as you say there it is difficult to rationalise notability of entirely different fields attempts can be made to at least make improvements where logical inconsistencies exist. I note other language wikipedia's have different rules on the notability e.g. generally not allowing articles about fictional characters (except for the really notable ones!). So a different consensus can be found I believe. A more in-depth discussion of this could be worthwhile, but perhaps at a different venue?! Polyamorph (talk)

@Kudpung:, @TonyBallioni:, @DGG: It looks like this is getting some media attention see here. Polyamorph (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

the media is likely to show some confusion between the WP concept of who is notable and the concept of "who ought to be notable". I am not sure about what ought to be the relative standards in different fields, but I am sure that in the sciences, the notability standard for the late 20th and the 21st century ought to be world-wide and the same for all groups. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Swarup Sarkar

Swarup_Sarkar Dear @Kudpung: and @DGG: Can you kindly have a look into my draft article of a Living person and comment? Cons: 1) My first article. 2) Some of the facts written initially were not referenced from online resources. 3) Myself being a fan of this guy, have used a lot of adjectives in the first versions of the article, which rightly seemed to be promotional by User:Doc James. [[Draft:Swarup Sarkar being the first epidemiologist to recognize and report transmission of HIV/AIDS in India among Injection Drug Users, and worked extensively among the then dejected and marginalised group of sex workers of India and Bangladesh, and helped them earn a fare share of quality of life, rights, empowerment and condoms (which they learned to force their clients to wear after getting organized). Sadly there are dearth of references of his major achievement in liaising and advocating with the Government, UNAIDS, The Global Fund and Generic Pharma companies to produce cheap HIV medicines, and supply them free of cost to HIV patients of India through Government programmes. I leave the rest of editing to future readers and contributors. Pros: 1) This person is not myself, my family, my friend, my client, or my employer. I also declare that I have no religious, political, academic, legal, or financial relationship with this person. But he is an alumnus of my same Medical Grad School, 28 years prior to my graduation, which I don't consider as WP:COISELF . 2) After major edits, the Article in its present form doesn't have any promotional content. However I feel that the Editions suggested by User:Winged Blades of Godric were way too harsh and drastic. 3) I surely know about the contribution of this person in question, as I am an Infectious Diseases resident physician at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi. I would feel wonderful, if both of you could spare a few minutes and go through the draft and let me know your decision. Thanks in advance.Drsayantanb (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion ongoing here Draft_talk:Swarup_Sarkar Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I have given explicit edit-summaries in every of my edits and double-vetted it to be certain enough. Yet, I am anot immune from errors and it is perfectly plausible that I might have been wrong in some case. I will thus encourage you to create a new section over the t/p; highlighting your issues with my edits pending which we can have a discussion. Best, ∯WBG^converse 05:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

To start with, I have a problem about verifiability: there is no such thing as "the Award for Outstanding Public Health Achievements by World Health Organization (WHO) " -- this presumably refers to some specific actual award, but I have not been able to find exact documentation. The content for much of the article is derived from uncritical news sources, or his own published papers in scientific journals. Neither are reliable for the significance of his work.

Second, I have a problem about advocacy. The final section "High Risk Groups" is devoted mainly to giving his opinions, and advocating for reforms. Neither is suitable for an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• DGG, Drsayantanb, Winged Blades of Godric, Doc James. I apologise for not having had time to look into this myself, but RL ad health are still getting in the way. Thanks everyone for keeping the conversation going. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)