User talk:Hoary

If I've posted something on your talk page, please reply there rather than here. Any new question or comment at the bottom of the page, please. If you post something here, I'll reply here.

From time to time non-confirmed editors won't be able to edit this page. If you can't post a message to me here, please do so here.

A finished article

Hi! You were my host at the Teahouse assisting me on infoboxes. I insisted on submitting the article I recently created Meddy (singer) for review when it's finished. I've so far tried to cite/reference any available 'fact' I added on the article. Hope the article is well with you too ANU^writes 16:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

afyaniuhai, now there are very many references, and they're in very many places. As an example:

In 2021, Meddy married^[9] his long term^[10] Ethiopian girlfriend, Mimi Mehfira,^[11][12] who met in the U.S. Meddy and his family live in Texas,^[13][14] U.S, where both of them work. They welcomed their first child in 2022.^[15]

Let's look at [10]. What's it the/a source for? Maybe "his long term"; maybe "Meddy married his long term"; maybe "in 2021, Meddy married his long term". But none of these is an intelligible statement. Only statements should be sourced. So I'd expect: In 2021, Meddy married his long term Ethiopian girlfriend, Mimi Mehfira, who he met in the U.S.^{[one or more references]}. Or, if no single reference provides all that information, then: In 2021, Meddy married his long term Ethiopian girlfriend, Mimi Mehfira,^{[one or more references]} who he met in the U.S.^{[one or more references]}. -- Hoary (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary for the preview, looking at the mistakes I've done on the article I thought was the best of my articles, I'll only dream of getting a , I still have alot to learn from you, Thanks, I'll relocate the sources on full and understandable statements from now on, starting with ^this article. ANU^writes 08:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

A Possible sockpuppet

Hi Hoary! user user:Ayo9 seems to be a possible sockpuppet/vandal (vandalizing mt talk page). Since I've written some articles around Tanzania, user thinks I'm a pushover/a paid editor. Forcing me to have a private conversation and giving out contacts. User deleted whever he/she wrote which I reverted both on my talk page and user's (I didn't). Also whatever the project user is doing I can see relationship between Draft:Simon Cosmas Michael to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Rieber. ANU^writes 14:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

afyaniuhai, I encounter possible sockpuppets every day. Before doing anything about any of them, I need more than mere possibility. Now, if some user is vandalizing your talk page, I'm very willing to stop them, whether or not they're a sockpuppet. So I took a quick look at the three most recent edits by this user to your talk page:

• This edit: It's a little odd to invite another user to contact one in some way outside Wikipedia (and for no specified reason).
• This edit: I can't read this; but according to Google Translate, it's a polite (although rather surprising) request.
• This edit: Improper, but the user is deleting their own earlier edits -- indeed, edits that you don't like.

Let me quote the page WP:Vandalism:

On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge.

The page WP:Vandalism elaborates on this at some length. Note that vandalism is not described as meaning "editing in some way that irritates another editor".

I see no vandalism in any of these three edits. Ayo9 is free to invite you to do something, and you're free to decline the invitation or simply to ignore it. (Of course, repeatedly making the same invitation when it's clearly unwelcome would be a different matter.) If you don't want any further invitation to communicate outside Wikipedia, then simply say so (either to Ayo9 or to any visitor to your talk page), firmly but politely. -- Hoary (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft Damola Victor Ayegbayo

Hoary I appreciate for helping out to get clearity on this draft Draft:Damola Victor Ayegbayo On the comments questions you asked about the draft It Saatchi Art see the catalog here [1] and the publisher is Issuu see my sources is from a reliable platform The Nation (Nigeria) The Guardian (Nigeria)see [2] [3]the names of his artworks on the catalog can also be found on the first reference aswell.but i have also adjusted the contents by doing some copyediting and removed the contents that looks controversial. Thank you, I appreciate your highlights comments. Princek2019 (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Princek2019, please see this new comment of mine. -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hoary you are right, my phrasing was wrong that is the reason I did copyediting and removed any controversial contents as you highlighted. I have just adjusted it to the exact contents as you adviced and the reference as you advice aswell, I hope is better now ?. Thank you. Princek2019 (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hoary I am still looking forward to your response on the draft if my adjustment as you requested is ok.Princek2019 (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

St Mary-le-Bow

Hi there, I'm going to be failing the GAN for this article shortly, due to what appears to be an almost complete lack of response by the nominator. A pity, as it took some time to produce the review. Before I do that, can I check you aren't interested in completing it yourself, seeing as you made a few comments in the review page? I can extend the deadline by a week for you. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 07:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation, Amitchell125. Of course articles don't become "Good" via the worthiness of their subjects, but I admit to occasionally feeling some twinges when I see "GA" awarded to scrupulously assembled articles on subjects that seem to be of little or no significance. By contrast, this church seems most worthwhile. Uh ... not that it matters, of course. Well, I see your point. At this stage, I'd fail the article too. I sense that its most energetic editor did a pretty good job with sources that tended to be rather mediocre: for real improvement, one would need access to specialist books (on City of London architecture, Wren, London social history). Quite aside from other constraints, I simply have no such access. And I have no education in architecture; so I fear that even if critical studies of Wren miraculously fell into my lap, I'd make terrible misunderstandings that would have architecturally informed readers chuckling. Let's hope that one or two people who are energetic, well-equipped and skilful turn up to improve the article. (Where's Giano when one needs him?) -- Hoary (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back to me, I quite understand. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft: Edward Hayter

Hi, I have improved the draft and would like to know your thoughts on it. I have removed all content that was not reliable. There're 2 other sources I'm not sure if they are reliable such as the glass magazine and Bristol old vic Veganpurplefox (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I will removed them to if they are not reliable but I'm keeping them in case it is reliable Veganpurplefox (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Veganpurplefox, try summarizing what reviews in intelligent sources have said about his acting. If there don't seem to be any such reviews, then perhaps, as others have suggested, it's too soon to create an article. -- Hoary (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I will do the research about it now , I had added back the citation for will series. I had removed it before because I put the TV guide source in the first paragraph where is the Infobox and didnt want to have the same source appeared twice, but I added the source back as it said citation needed Veganpurplefox (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your advices! Veganpurplefox (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you think the draft could be approved now? I only kept informations that had multiples reliable sources and took away the non reliable sources and content. Once I find reliable sources I'll will add them back Veganpurplefox (talk) 04:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Veganpurplefox, I suggested above that you "try summarizing what reviews in intelligent sources have said about his acting". I don't mean a list of TV programs, etc; I mean accounts of how he acted. I don't yet see any such summary in the draft. -- Hoary (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I will work on it! thank you for the review and the help! Can it be also blogs for this part or not and only be reliable sources? Veganpurplefox (talk) 07:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Are these sources fine? Cause i would get more informations. https://www.ocmoviereviews.com/interviews/interview-edward-hayter-burning-men/ https://filmthreat.com/reviews/to-dream/ Veganpurplefox (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

For blogs, Veganpurplefox, see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources. Neither ocmoviereviews.com nor filmthreat.com is listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources; the place to ask about them is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. When you ask about them, be sure to describe how you hope to use them. -- Hoary (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay thank you I will look them up! Veganpurplefox (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I see sometimes on the reliable sources verified accounts on twitter can be a source. I was wondering if the account is not verified but it is shown in multiple reliable sources such as the time and the Guardian that they mention the username that it's the real one, can it be used then? Veganpurplefox (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Veganpurplefox, please ask about this at WP:RSN. -- Hoary (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Just did! Veganpurplefox (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I would like to if if you're someone who can help me with another draft I created called Victoria Emslie. Someone else is also editing it but I don't think some of the sources are reliable ,or should I ask in the tea talk? Veganpurplefox (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Veganpurplefox, reliability isn't simply yes/no. It's common for musicians to start with a recorder, so an article about a cellist might say that her first instrument, when still a child, was the recorder, and may use her own website as the reference for this. If on the other hand the article said that at the age of 10 she made her professional debut on the recorder with a public performance of a trio sonata by C P E Bach, her own website would be utterly insufficient as the reference. In order to read up on the relative reliability of certain specific sources, start by looking for these sources in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. If there's nothing there, go to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and look near the top for "Search the noticeboard archives". Just above it, type the title (website, magazine, etc) that you're looking for; and then click "Search the noticeboard archives". If you're still not sure about a potential source, ask about it on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Do not get into an edit war over the source. Instead, explain on Draft talk:Victoria Emslie why you believe that the source is inadequate, aiming to persuade other editors of this. -- Hoary (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I went to the user talk and said "thank you for helping me with the draft" and explained about the reliable sources and sent the link of reliable sources but when I joined wiki I didn't know there was something to talk to others and didn't know the red notification so it might take a long time before the user notice it, I have made some changes in the draft Veganpurplefox (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you think this draft could be approved, I found more informations about her from reliable sources and more websites than Hayter, I believe she could meet the notability criteras. I also found out Chloé Hayden had already had a wiki page and I improved it as it had lack of reliable sources! Veganpurplefox (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Veganpurplefox, if Victoria Emslie is "best known for her roles in Downton Abbey, The Theory of Everything, The Frankenstein Chronicles, The Danish Girl and the TV adaption of 12 Monkeys", then what has been said about her performance in these roles? Although The Guardian says quite a lot about British TV programmes, it seems never to have mentioned her. Unfortunately no other British newspaper comes close to the Guardian (combined with the Observer) for the quantity of material that's both (i) free to access and (ii) (usually) of high quality; but I'd expect that other news websites would say something. However, if they do not, then this suggests that she's not "notable" (as this is defined in Wikipedia). Of course lack of Wikipedia-defined notability doesn't mean lack of merit. -- Hoary (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

If some do talk about it it's from website that aren't considered reliable or the ones that were taken down/archived that I have no access to them Veganpurplefox (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Was wondering since Hayter is both in tv guide and rotten tomatoes for his role in the Will series as Thomas Walsingham, can he be added to the recurrent characters in the Wikipedia page of the series? Veganpurplefox (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I know very little about either TV series or such articles, Veganpurplefox. Perhaps just try adding him and see what happens. -- Hoary (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I have tried but got removed all the time,so I don't understand why since those 2 websites are reliable but people say it's "promotion" to add him Veganpurplefox (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Then you might ask in the article's talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Constanza Navarro Meza article

Mr. Hoary, thanks for your advice. You indicated to me to only put 3 references of the livign person CONSTANZA NAVARRO MEZA to ask you to publish it on Wikipedia. I already sent for publication her biography in english and in spanish. Her 3 most notable references are the following.

www.constanzaoficial.com

https://gluc.mx/entretenimiento/2022/4/28/la-voz-kids-2022-quien-es-constanza-navarro-participante-del-equipo-de-paty-cantu-50120.html

https://youtube/hsYppXHu-_k

Please publish her biography on Wikipedia, thank you very much for your advice Gelowiki21 (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Gelowiki21, please see this. -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Re: Draft:Ren_(ancient_surname)

The editor who created that page and has been most active there is known for naive use of machine translation to process content from languages they cannot understand. Unfortunately, in all cases I've explored in depth, it is clear that they also don't understand the subject matter of the articles they are creating, which is making a bit of a mess. See also User_talk:Immanuelle/Archive_2#New_article, and more extensive commentary and advice to that user at User_talk:Immanuelle/Archive_2#Dongyue_Dadi, among other threads.

About the 妊 character, see also wikt:任#Chinese. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 10:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, Eirikr. I'm not surprised to learn those parts of what you say that I hadn't already inferred. -- Hoary (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Yinka Ilori

Thanks for your comments re: Draft:Yinka Ilori. May I ask you to point me in the right direction to add comments directly via the AfC process (e.g., {{AFC comment|1=[etc.]}} rather than the manual addition I made)? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

A very reasonable question, Cl3phact0; but as the creator of the draft, you're not really supposed to do this. If a reviewer's comment/suggestion/request seems reasonable, you simply follow it; if it doesn't, you could comment on the reviewer's talk page. Incidentally, when I praise the previous article, I don't mean to knock your draft. The deletion of the previous article annoys me, because the deletion has wasted various people's time: its author's, yours, mine, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, I picked-up on someone else's draft when I noticed the declined article (although I am now a significant contributor). Ilori was on my to do list previously, but the impetus was sparked by the declined article.

Re: the AfC question, I'm simply curious how to access (even if not appropriate in this case).

Re: deletion of previous article, I understand your annoyance (though I never saw the actual article, so can't speak to its merit or otherwise). Waste of time is frustrating. I only joined this project fairly recently, so don't have too much history here, but I've seen some of my work removed with seemingly very little regard for the the value of other people's time. If enough of my time is wasted, I'll probably head for the exit at some point.

Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a reasonable question. You have to sign up to be an AfC reviewer. There are requirements for this: You can be fairly new, but not very new: all this is explained here. Once you're okayed, you install AfC's "helper script". Once that's done, any time you, the reviewer, see a draft (whether or not it has been submitted as an article candidate), you hit a certain key combination (which combination it is depends on your OS, GUI, browser, etc), and you get two or three options. One of these is "Comments". Click this option, write the comment (which will be autosigned), check "Notify submitter" if you want to notify the submitter, click "Post comment", and you're done. Incidentally, when any reviewer uses the same helper script to accept the draft as an article, all these comments are automatically flushed away. (The helper script is an excellent little piece of software.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. It looks a bit out of my depth for now. I'll circle back at some point (if I'm still here, of course). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Don't be so quick to give up, Cl3phact0. Clearly you know Italian; I do not, yet did most of the work for the three articles Gianni Berengo Gardin, Morire di classe, and Gianni Berengo Gardin bibliography. You could take a look some time and see some (many?) places where I goofed.... Hoary (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Vaporetto, Venice, 1960: What an extraordinary photograph! Fantastic too that Berengo Gardin sort of shrugs it off as just a lucky day on the way to work, one-shot-deal kind of thing — humilitas occidit superbiam, alas (would that there were more of it too). I'll absolutely read the articles in finer detail. (If I spot any translation improvements that might be made, I'll let you know.) Thanks for the links, Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft: Leong Leong article

Hi, Hoary! I updated the draft of the Leong Leong article you commented on. Could you review it, please? Thanks! Rambam666 (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, Rambam666. Please see my new comment atop the draft. -- Hoary (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I've addressed your comment from February 14, so I hope you will feel comfortable approving the article now. Thank you! Rambam666 (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary I responded to Greenman's question about COI in their preferred means of communicating to tell them that it was an error. Rambam666 (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your new comments. I will work on adding more information about each of the projects. So that I can try to address everything at once, can you please let me know if you have other issues that I need to address before the article can be published? Thanks. Rambam666 (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Can't Find Your Reply

Hello Hoary - Thank you for your recent help last week on adding page numbers to references using Rp. I did not see your latest reply for a few days, but when I noticed it was there, and clicked on it in my "Alerts" -- I got the message that the message could not be found and may have been deleted or moved. How can I easily find this conversation if I need to refer to it? Who deleted or moved it?

Thanks again for your help.

@Sp-lava SP-lava (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Sp-lava, I think you're looking for this (which was moved to an archive by some bot because it had become old). -- Hoary (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. Thank you. Could you please explain how you found it -- what do I need to do in the future if something similar happens?

SP-lava (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

SP-lava, a very few question-and-answer or request-and-response pages here don't have archives. But the Teahouse is among the great majority that do. So I went to the top of that page, and looked for either a link to a set of archives (there wasn't one) or a list of archives (there was one). I clicked on the link to the most recent archive (the one with the highest number). Within that, I searched for the string "template:rp". -- Hoary (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Whoa. Ok, understood. Thank you again.

SP-lava (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Request on 22:45:26, 16 February 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Eisbergsk

• Eisbergsk (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Wilf Perreault (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you so much for your review of my page for Wilf Perreault. I have tried to address the points you raised. Are you willing to review the page again before I resubmit it, or should I take the plunge? Again, many thanks. Eisbergsk (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Sharon Eisbrenner

Eisbergsk (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Gianni Berengo Gardin

Hello Hoary, I'm not sure if it's best to discuss Gianni Berengo Gardin here or on the Talk page of the article itself (some of my thoughts are only tangentially related).

Being a mostly visual thinker, my go-to is Commons, especially when the subject is a visual artist. In the case of the GBG article, it seems to me that more examples of his work (perhaps even a "Gallery of work" section), as well as a portrait of the photographer himself would be a welcome addition. There are a few fotos that are attributed to Gianni Berengo Gardin on Commons. I also noted that (this is the tangent) in the accompanying article Gianni Berengo Gardin bibliography, the name Paolo Monti is mentioned a number of times. There is a vast amount of Monti's work on Commons, some of which seems to intersect with GBG (who's name is mentioned in the metadata of some of the Monti photographs: such as here and here). They were contemporaries, and one would assume they were acquainted. Without meaning to veer into WP:ORIGINAL, it seemed that this might be of use. (I've used or found Monti's work in a number of articles which I've edited, mostly about Italian architects and designers who were active in the post-war period.)

There is also a Screenshot of the film In the Mind's Garden, which purportedly is an image of Berengo Gardin (I don't know what he looks like, so am only assuming the WP:GOODFAITH accuracy of the claim). A few thoughts and questions (and some more tangential stuff): Would it be appropriate to use this image in the GBG article (it's used in the it:wp article about the film in the context of Morire di classe — though not in en:wp)? (I've had a pretty off-putting experience on Commons thus far with most everything I've tried to do with imagery — notably in relation to screenshots I have made/uploaded — and don't want to invite any of that to be visited upon your good work here.) I also note that the marvellous Vaporetto shot is not on Commons. Is any of this related to the apparent randomness of the vetting process over there (in Commons)?

Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Cl3phact0, many thanks for the research and suggestions. I'll follow up the latter within the next few hours. In the meantime, yes, the Vaporetto photograph is here at en:Wikipedia, and at a miserably small resolution, because it's (conventionally, "all rights reserved") copyright and thus ineligible for upload to Commons. If there are images by GBG at Commons, this could be for legitimate reasons and (unfortunately) also despite being ineligible. If I believe that they're not there legitimately, then I'll move to have them deleted, regardless of the uploaders' or anyone else's (or my own) disappointment. The thing is, if you're the creator of a fairly recent photograph, then it shouldn't be some random person with an internet connection to Commons who gets to decide that this photograph of yours is their "own work" either to license via CC or whose copyright he can waive so that anyone can use the photograph for just about any purpose (including commercial). -- Hoary (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is indeed a photograph of Berengo Gardin (who I recognize from how he appears in other photos that we cannot use). And I have no reason to believe the uploader's claim that this and the other three screenshots are, as Commons would define it, their "own work". (I'm willing to believe that the uploader was the person who made the screenshots from a video, but this is not authorship as understood here.) And therefore I've nominated all four for deletion. I'm open to being persuaded that I'm wrong; but if I'm right and we had an article on that film in en:Wikipedia, then perhaps one of these four, reduced in size, could be used for the article under a claim of "fair use". But I'm not sure even of this, because it's not obvious to me that any one of them could be said to represent the film as a whole. [cough] How much of this talk about the little group of Berengo Gardin articles is a smokescreen to keep you from noticing and examining two other articles, Elio Ciol and Enzo Sellerio, for whose awfulness I am largely responsible? My explanation (not justification) was that both articles were perpetrated a long time ago, back when the requirement for verifiability was largely ignored (at least until somebody questioned what an article said). I really ought to try to improve both. Not this week, however. -- Hoary (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

A lot to take in on the Commons side. I'll try to find time to gain a better understanding. I'd somewhat abandoned it for now (as often when I've touched something image related it's led to unexpected and mostly negative outcomes).

You've probably seen that there are also images on Commons relating to both Elio Ciol and Enzo Sellerio (the latter with a connection to Paolo Monti, again). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Works in Commons by photographers one has heard of (or anyway weren't the uploaders) -- ugh, this area may be even more of a mess than you realize, Cl3phact0.

I looked at the Ciol photo. "Lorenzociol" (contributions), who uploaded it, describes it as the work of Stefano Ciol and as coming from this page. Imaginably Lorenzo and Stefano are grandson and son respectively, or otherwise related. But imaginably not at all. However, yes, the photograph is from that web page, at the foot of which, we read: "ELIO CIOL COPYRIGHT 2013 - TUTTI I DIRITTI RISERVATI".

As for File:Paolo Monti - Serie fotografica (Ferrara, 1982) - BEIC 6346632.jpg, if I understand right, the "Photographer" is Paolo Ravenna (a lawyer), and it's "Sicilia/ n. 30 fotografie di Enzo Sellerio/ (1963 ca.)". And it was taken in Ferrara, circa 1963, or more precisely 1982. (I'm surprised to learn how far south Ferrara was back in 1982.) It's from a 1978 notebook of Monti's, so the notebook may have included photographs from four years in its own future. Anyway, if the print was indeed in the possession of Monti (and I have no reason to doubt this), then it's legitimately at BEIC. But I have trouble believing that when Sellerio passed these prints to Monti, he added "And the copyright too is yours. And because it's yours, you or your estate are free to pass it on."

The Sellerio photo ought to be usable (in the right place), if one both (i) points out that it's Italian and created over 20 years ago, and (ii) can convincingly claim that it's an image of a person that's not a "work of photographic art" but is instead a "simple photograph". (See this template.) So Wikipedia has articles (in five languages) on Sellerio because he was a notable artist of photography; but we deny that the photographs by him that we want to use are works of photographic art. Something's wrong here.

However, one thing is clear about this confusingly described photo. The person it shows is not Sellerio. Its appearance, by itself, in an article about Sellerio would probably be misunderstood as showing Sellerio. And therefore, no.

(If your reaction is "No, this is ridiculous", then yes, I warmly agree.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Neophyte mistake...

Hello Hoary, please see this thread (wherein I erred). Apologies. I'll slow down a bit. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

No worries. And congrats on the new article! -- Hoary (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for you help with it! Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Yinka Ilori

On 16 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Yinka Ilori, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the artist and designer Yinka Ilori once made a collection of chairs that were inspired by a Nigerian parable about a giraffe? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Yinka Ilori. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Yinka Ilori), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Mildred Johnson Library

I want to thank you and the other two reviewers for taking time to review Draft:Mildred Johnson Library. At this point, I've added all the relevant information and will not be doing any additional editing. Will it be possible to approve the draft as it stands now? I appreciate your time and feedback. Thanks again. Amycarson12 (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Amycarson12, please see the suggestion/request that I have just now added at the top of Draft:Mildred Johnson Library. -- Hoary (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for providing feedback. I have updated Draft:Mildred Johnson Library with two additional citations (as suggested). Hope that it can be approved as an article now. Appreciate your time and advice. Amycarson12 (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

It has improved, good. But its status remains fragile. I'm not so surprised by this. The article isn't at all promotional: this is good, and might slightly help the chances for survival. However, there's no guideline or policy that says that the sobriety or modesty of an article helps outweigh the lack of evidence in the article for the notability (as defined here) of its subject. And therefore I suggest that you try hard to come up with more sources for the article. (From now, avoid editing the article; instead, make suggestions at the foot of Talk:Mildred Johnson Library, preferably using Template:Request edit.) Good luck! -- Hoary (talk) 10:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I will keep this in mind and encourage our students to dig deep for reliable sources to back up our notability claim.

Before doing additional editing, I will post any updates or issue to the article's talk page.

My hope is that the article will survive until (at least) the end of May as this will allow me to mention the Mildred Johnson Library article during our National Library Week Wikipedia event (April 23-29). Thanks again for your assistance and advice. Much appreciated. Amycarson12 (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Ha!

Your description of statsfact.com, at the Help desk, nearly made me spit out my coffee. That was funny! David10244 (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, David10244, I try to tell it like it is. I know I should utter more of the "Welcome to the teahouse" kind of thing, but I have to retain my sanity somehow. (For the last several days I've been on the verge of losing it, while drafting an augmentation of an existing article -- though so far on my hard drive.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Updated Provoke (magazine) Article

Hello! I have added some new information onto the Wikipedia page for Provoke Magazine. Seeing as you have in the past edited this page, and that you are a part of WikiProject Photography, I would like to ask if you could take a look at my edits and provide me with some feedback. Thank you! - Andrew34jack (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Well done, Andrew. You've certainly improved the article. There are several distinct oddities, however: please look at the foot of Talk:Provoke (magazine) for my comments. (Perhaps these oddities predate your involvement in the article: I didn't look.) Several of the references that don't specify the authors are probably to sources that do have their authors specified: I fixed this for the series by Brueggemann, but I'll (lazily?) leave the others for you, or some other energetic person. ¶ This is irrelevant to editing Wikipedia, but if you happen (A) to be interested and (B) to have some spare cash, Nitesha has just reprinted its Provoke reprint. ¶ And a minor matter of custom here: We add a new discussion thread to the foot, not the head, of a talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Hoary. Thank you for the feedback you provided on the Provoke article. I am fairly new to Wikipedia so my apologies for adding a discussion thread the wrong way. I am still finding my way around Wikipedia's interface, so I am sorry for replying to messages late. I would have loved to purchased copies of Provoke, but unfortuntely they sell out fast and I typically don't have enough cash for the amount they are being sold these days. Andrew34jack (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Andrew34jack, yes, 8800 yen (or for you, 8000 yen, plus "shipping", plus retailer's profit, perhaps also plus sales tax) is a lot. (It's not a lot only for those who both have an ample income and can take seriously the prices asked for remaining copies of the original.) I have to say that I wouldn't be tempted even if it were discounted by 60%: Provoke is significant in photographic history, and richly deserves a good article here ... but in 2023, when I look at that style of photo, it seems terribly old hat. By contrast, Takanashi's later books Machi and Miyako no kao haven't dated at all. ¶ After this university assignment is done, are you intending to stick around in Wikipedia? (I hope so!) -- Hoary (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

While I do think the aesthetics of Provoke have been widely replicated since its release (a testament to how influential it was I am sure), I still retain a particular soft spot for their style, especially for the works of Moriyama Daido. He has always been one of my favourite photographers and I often take inspiration from him when taking pictures of my own. There is also a great documentary on Moriyama called "Near Equal" (if you haven't already seen it). One of my favourite contemporary photographers, Trent Parke, I feel also takes inspiration from Provoke (especially in his book "Minutes to Midnight"). To be honest 8800 yen actually seems reasonable to me, I have seen reprints of Provoke go for upwards of 150USD. I do hope to stay on Wikipedia after my university course ends, although I am a bit skeptical of whether I possess the expertise in regards to knowledge in order to contribute. Andrew34jack (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Andrew34jack, I haven't even heard of "Near Equal"; thank you for the tip. I should look at Moriyama's work afresh -- particularly his early work, made when his style was new to him. Or perhaps this or that within his later work if somebody recommends it. On the pricing of the Provoke reprints: I blame the anchoring effect. (If I'm attributing a cognitive bias to you -- hardly a polite thing to do -- then I attribute the same to myself. When Nagasawa publishes yet another book of Suda's for two or three times what an alternative publisher would charge, I tend to tell myself "Well, it has dozens of photos, and it costs less than just a single print of his would.") Though by all accounts Nite-sha has done a fastidious job here; I don't suppose that they're getting rich from this project. Meanwhile, Trent Parke: I've never managed to see a book by him, unfortunately. And these days copies of Minutes to Midnight are priced for people with deeper pockets than mine. Three things that the articles here on Suda and Parke have in common: they're mostly lists, they're crap, I'm partly to blame. If you improve the one on Parke, I'll improve the one on Suda. (Umm ... eventually, maybe.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

A tempting proposition to work on Trent Parke's article. I will look into it and update you. If you are a fan of the Provoke/Moriyama style, I think Minutes to Midnight will be right up your alley. Andrew34jack (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Andrew34jack, as I hinted, I'm not a fan; but jpegs have shown me that Parke does something interesting with unexpected gleams and radiances (I can't think of the right word), so I'd approach a book of his with an open mind and perhaps enjoy it. (And I see that the photo museum here has Minutes to Midnight.) I should warn you that I can't work on an article on Suda (or take on any other non-trivial project) any time soon: I'm working on something entirely different (using my hard drive as the "sandbox"); it's rather a big thing and it's coming along a lot more slowly than I feared (let alone hoped) when I embarked on it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Nol (band)

I have tried to fix the issue with the article and would be grateful if you could look at it again. Thank you. KhinMoTi (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Lupton rides again

Just in case you are not aware (I reckon you are though!) The editor adding the multiple 'same name threads' at the help desk is our old 'friend'. Like everything else, been advised dozens (100s?) of times, to no effect. Eagleash (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

But Eagleash, how can this be? There's no mention of any Lupton or Middleton. -- Hoary (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Ha ha; indeed, but trademark editing traits and we know they are a retired teacher from Australia, probably from a religious order (Username, Sr(sister)XXXXX). Also used the same IP to edit pages with a Lupton connection. Keep whacking that mole... Best, Eagleash (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

You are an administrator?

Perhaps it would be a good thing if Wikipedia shut down. The few hundred good articles could be saved somehow and the rest binned. It would be no loss. 2.99.213.247 (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi there. Although I wish that all our articles could be on par with that of a professional publication, Wikipedia itself is a non-profit volunteer-managed project, which means that all of our editors do work here (with a few exceptions) for free. We could just hire professional editors, but doing so is expensive and restrictive towards the many people who can contribute on widely different and niche topics, and would leave many of our millions of important articles unmaintained and out-of-date. So although Wikipedia will never be as good as a paid publication, we can provide free, up-to-date knowledge that will be gradually improved over time. If you want a more professional but less flexible (and paid) source of knowledge, I suggest trying out the Encyclopaedia Brittanica website. The Night Watch (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes I am. But being an administrator doesn't bring with it the power to shut Wikipedia down. If it were shut down, the good articles probably would be saved; the bad ones too. It's unlikely that Wikipedia will shut itself down any time soon. An approach more likely to succeed might be to persuade authoritarian nations, of which there are many, that Wikipedia dangerously threatens lawn order, morals, religion, "family values", etc (not to mention gratitude for and love of the current autocracy). However, if you're still intent on persuading Wikipedia to shut itself down, the place to develop such a proposal and make it more persuasive, is Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). -- Hoary (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Teikō Shiotani

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Teikō Shiotani you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Teikō Shiotani

The article Teikō Shiotani you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Teikō Shiotani for comments about the article, and Talk:Teikō Shiotani/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

Congratulations!--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Moving a page

Hi ho hoary! (and I have more vowel inventory if required) long time no see.

Please look at Talk:Silver Garburg‎; sorry, I've forgotten the proper way to suggest/request moving a page. Please do whatever seems best, including just telling me to get on and move it. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is indeed an acceptable address. (The full form, "Hi ho Your Excellency", need only be used at coronations, abdications, whippet races, and the like.) Your suggestion was proper; I agreed with it (as long as the hyphen was slightly lengthened); I implemented my minor variant of it. -- Hoary (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

You may want to take a look

User talk:Pahunkat#Question from PoopMoney623 (21:29, 23 May 2023)

out of the blue new user going right to someone’s talk page like that shows an issue. Just to make you aware. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:5412:4309:BBCF:A3AF (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Sasha Gordon

Hi Hoary, thank you for reviewing the Sasha Gordon draft page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sasha_Gordon). I removed the exhibition history section and correct the "the artist" references (made by a previous writer, unknown to me).

I believe that the standard for reliable sources is met. The source list includes most of the top reliable publications in the art world today...ones that most artists could only dream of having any coverage in:

Vogue Magazine (x2) ArtNews Artsy ArtNet News Juxtapoz

Yes, some of the articles naturally include interviews with the artist, but they also include a significant amount of the author's coverage/perspective. This artist is currently prominently displayed at major art museums including the Hammer Museum and the Baltimore Museum of Art, and she is the subject of a major solo show at the Institute of Contemporary Art Miami later this year. She just attended the Met Gala, putting her in an extremely rarified position among living visual artists.

It is evident that the artist is on a trajectory to the top of modern art and will continue to receive a steady stream of significant coverage, especially driven by her major US museum solo show later this year, which is occurring at the same time that the global art world will be in town for Art Basel. It's not doing anyone any favors to shelve this article, which a lot of time was put into by uninterested parties, until then just to tip past an ambiguous standard that most reasonable people who regularly read art news would conclude to have been substantially met by Vogue Magazine, ArtNews, Artsy, ArtNet News, and Juxtapoz.

If it is possible, I request that this be put up to a community review to alleviate any potential bias against the subject's age or other factors by a single reviewer. Arthistoryx (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

By the way, from tracking this artist on Instagram for awhile, it is evident that many of the writers of the articles sought out Gordon, rather than being approached by a publicity agency or gallery. In particular, this was the case with the Vogue Article. They appear to essentially be "fans" who are also writers at major publications. Naturally, they are going to want an interview with someone they are fascinated by. Regardless, as mentioned before, the writers still included substantial coverage/commentary on top of the first-hand interview data they obtained. Arthistoryx (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, here is a bit of background on some of the sources (excluding the major museum websites, etc):

Vogue: The Vogue Archive is an essential primary source for the study of fashion, gender, and modern social history – past, present, and future. (https://about.proquest.com/en/products-services/vogue_archive/#:~:text=The%20Vogue%20Archive%20is%20an,also%20cater%20for%20academic%20study.)

ArtNews: Founded in 1902; Circulation of 180k in 124 countries. It includes news dispatches from correspondents, investigative reports, reviews of exhibitions, and profiles of artists and collectors. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARTnews)

ArtNet: Publicly traded art research and news platform based out of Germany (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artnet)

Juxtapoz: As of 2009, Juxtapoz had the largest circulation of any art magazine in the United States, more than established counterparts like Art News, Art in America, and Artforum. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juxtapoz)

Artsy: Arguably a top art website, but background is less aged. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artsy_(website) Arthistoryx (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, I added a "Public Collections" section (listing works in major museum collections) in lieu of the exhibitions section and added a few other pieces of information throughout. Arthistoryx (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I reread all of the articles. I don't think it's accurate to call them "interviews" which would seem to insinuate that they're maybe 1-2 intro paragraphs and then a question/answer transcript. Again, yes many of the articles interviewed the primary topic of the article (naturally), but quotes from the artist account for well under half of the content in most of the major articles.

Again, I have no relationship or connection to the artist, if that's the hunch here. I'm an art enthusiast and was surprised that this essentially A-list painter didn't have a Wikipedia page yet. Arthistoryx (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Arthistoryx, you raise a number of points, most of which I shall (at least temporarily) set aside, because (through no fault of yours) I'm tired after spending a lot more time tweaking the draft than I'd intended to. (Briefly, I edited it, accidentally reverted my own edits and more by editing a much earlier version, failed to realize quite what had happened and misattributed the oddity to a database failure, and had to do all my edits again, and some earlier ones too.)

You write: "This artist is currently prominently displayed at major art museums including the Hammer Museum and the Baltimore Museum of Art". That surprised me: When I declined the draft, had I really been so sleepy that I failed to notice something about collections? The draft showed that she had work in five museums: that's WP:ARTIST 5(d) satisfied. But no I hadn't been that sleepy: This material had (beneficially) been added afterwards.

I'll revisit the draft later today. -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Arthistoryx, I've promoted the draft to article status. Now, a few of the loose ends. You wrote: It is evident that the artist is on a trajectory to the top of modern art and will continue to receive a steady stream of significant coverage, especially driven by her major US museum solo show later this year, which is occurring at the same time that the global art world will be in town for Art Basel. I ignored that. Even if "reliable sources" were cited as saying this, I'd have ignored it. It's not doing anyone any favors to shelve this article, which a lot of time was put into by uninterested parties, [...]. I ignored that too. "She's about to be really famous", and "Editors disinterestedly invested a lot of time and effort into creating this" are not reasons for an article. If it is possible, I request that this be put up to a community review to alleviate any potential bias against the subject's age or other factors by a single reviewer. A draft reviewer has three options: (i) accept a draft (as I did a few hours ago), (ii) decline it (as I did earlier), and (iii) reject it. The third sends the message "Stop this enterprise: it's just wasting your and our time". The second says "This has one or more kinds of problem. You're welcome to try fixing them and then to resubmit." Of course a reviewer might decline vexatiously or vindictively (and you might suspect that sexism, racism, or similar is to blame). If so, the first place to ask is probably Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. (Tip: Avoid diagnosing sexism, racism, or similar [unless it's blatant, of course]; instead, provide the evidence for your inference and let readers infer it for themselves.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Much appreciate the additional review, reworking of the article, and the very helpful information, Hoary! I did indeed add the collections section as a rework of the Exhibitions section (thanks to your original advice), so you definitely didn't miss anything there. Thank you for the time you dedicate to this great resource for the benefit of present and future generations! Arthistoryx (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)