User talk:Scope creep

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

The Signpost: 10 January 2024

From the editor: NINETEEN MORE YEARS! NINETEEN MORE YEARS!

Special report: Public Domain Day 2024

Technology report: Wikipedia: A Multigenerational Pursuit

News and notes: In other news ... see ya in court!

In focus: The long road of a featured article candidate

In the media: What is plagiarism? Oklahoma Disneyland? Reaching a human being at Wikipedia?

WikiProject report: WikiProjects Israel and Palestine

Obituary: Anthony Bradbury

Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2023

Crossword: everybody gangsta till the style sheets start cascading

Comix: Conflict resolution

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UPE at Ernest & Celestine: A Trip to Gibberitia?

Hey, is there evidence beyond the page history that there's been UPE at Ernest & Celestine: A Trip to Gibberitia? As much as I'm surprised to see the IP editor add a reception section claiming 100% approval on Rotten Tomatoes this late in the game, the citation appears legit and with 23 critics' reviews, it meets WP:GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: It perhaps legitimate now after the editor was forced to update the article. Before that it was a complete mess. The editor has all the signs of being UPE, readying the film for the American Blue-ray release market, which is the main driver of film profitability, after the cinema. If you think it is notable, please remove the G11 tag. scope_creep^Talk 16:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I've restored the pre-speedy-tag version and added pov/UPE tags per your underlying concerns, which seem valid. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Hochstein - Illegitimate reasons for move to draftspace

This page was recently moved to draftspace by you, with the reason being "it has no sources and Refs are clickbait, interview and social media.." Can you please identify which sources are categorized as "clickbait" or originate from social media? And to say that this article "has no sources" is an assertion that lacks any basis. The Miami Herald and New York Times are unquestionably regarded as credible sources. While I can recognize that some of the sources used in this article may not be of the highest journalistic standards, this is commonplace within the domain of television personalities like the one under discussion. To illustrate, you can refer to other individuals in similar roles, such as Jacqueline Laurita, Dina Cantin, Carlton Gebbia, Gizelle Bryant, Ashley Darby, etc. You'll notice that these pages cite numerous sources that are considerably less reputable compared to the ones utilized in this article. With that said, moving the page to draftspace is not an appropriate measure, as it is on par, if not more qualified, compared to that of its peers. The move appears to be an unjustified exercise of authority, as the reasons cited for the move are completely unfounded. I have submitted the draft however, the most suitable course of action at this point would be for you to re-publish the page. CityLimitsJunction (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CityLimitsJunction: Comparing one article against other as though if one is present the others should be present is both disengenous and unhelpful. The articles references are really poor and until they are fixed, it will remain in draft. The Miami Herald newspaper article is about the house, not her, as is the New York Times, both of them don't prove the person is notable. This is a WP:BLP. Add valid WP:SECONDARY sources and it will go back in mainspace. scope_creep^Talk 07:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Sha Shtil

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Sha Shtil, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "generic title" error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Dübendorfer picture ?

Hello Scope creep,

I have come across that picture of Rachel Dübendorfer you uploaded : File:Rachel_Dübendorfer.jpg.

I have checked the source you provided (https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11190827) and I have not found that picture in the file.

By the way, there are several copies of a photograph of Dübendorfer in the files https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11190819 and https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11190820, but she doesn't look much like this one.

Are you sure you there is no mistake ?

Regards, Rob1bureau (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rob1bureau: No. I could have been looking at several documents, searching and selected the wrong one as the source, so it could be somebody else. Human error maybe. It certainly not the ideal picture. I'll do an image search and see if I can find the url for that. If not then any one from those two documents above would be ideal. scope_creep^Talk 17:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rob1bureau: I just looked at the National Archives at https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11190820. She doesn't look like her at all. There seems to be several images named Dübendorfer but they are nothing like the image in the archive document. It will need to come out. scope_creep^Talk 18:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janusirsasana

Hi! I noticed you moved the Janusirsasana page I created to Drafts, citing "more sources needed" as the reason. I'm a bit confused. According to Wikipedia's general notability guideline and based on WP:3REFS, the Janusirsasana page would have notability & enough sources since I've used more than 3 reliable, in-depth references that are independent of each other. Additionally, there are many pages currently in existence that use 5 or less reliable sources. For example, Matsyasana is a C-class article with 5 sources. Pasasana is a start-class page with 4 sources. Split gymnastics is a start-class page with 3 sources. I plan to move the page out of drafts if there is nothing else wrong with the page. Thanks! Whitestar12 (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Whitestar12: How goes it? I hadn't seen that. It normal to put the square brackets around wp links so we can follow on it without actually doing a search. Its not number of sources that count, its the quality. You have two reference, to commericial organisations, one which is selling product, making them effectively spam links. Yoga is a very old practice. There should be plenty of sources on gbooks and other academic archives. Never use this types of spam references, ever, particularly since the average web page is only up for six weeks. Hope that helps. Once its fixed, please submit it for review. scope_creep^Talk 16:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Whitestar12: I sincerely hope your not adding these spam links in to other article. I see you have already been warned by Hipal for adding promotional material. Are you being paid to add this stuff? scope_creep^Talk 16:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for the quick reply back.

Sounds good, I'm adding the square brackets for WP links here. Thanks for letting me know.

Firstly, I had no intention of using promotional material and I am not being paid. As for the insistence with Hipal, that was one time & I was unaware it was promotional in nature. That was not my intent and I corrected it immediately.

Secondly, your comment for reverting to draft specifically said "more sources needed," which can be interpreted as more quantity. Thanks for clarifying.

Which sources are you referring to in specific as spam? 3 out of the 5 references are books. 1 reference is the yoga journal which is used in every single yoga asana page on wikipedia (including "good article" status asana pages such as virabhadrasana, siddhasana, and more) and is reliable. The 4th reference (website), I can see how this one may be questionable, and I am happy to remove it and replace with another reliable source. I can remove this one until I find something else.

Overall, I see only 1 reference that may be questionable. What is the second reference " to commercial organization?"

Thanks! Whitestar12 (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Whitestar12: I suggest you don't use any of these commercial sources again. I notice that on the Siddhasana, the GA reviewer is blocked, which doesn't imbibe confidence in me, that the article are genuine GA articles. On the virabhadrasana, there is a reference to https://bahiranga.com/the-history-and-meaning-of-warrior-pose/ which is selling product. That is straight spam link. This is selling product [1] I will need to talk to an admin for advice. scope_creep^Talk 19:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I agree with both your points, and with that in mind I removed the website.

Every single asana page on wikipedia uses the yoga journal (quite literally) as a source. You are welcome to search and check. I believe yoga journal is a reliable source and is not promotional according to WP:RS; it is a national publication. If you search any yoga asana from the list of asanas you will see yoga journal being used, including the yoga page itself. I'm happy to loop in other editors who have been editing yoga pages for their input.

Aside from the website, which I already removed, which other references are you referring to as "spam?"

Whitestar12 (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap - Hi! I know you're always editing yoga pages & have given input on my edits previously. What are your thoughts on yoga journal as a reliable source (if it's used in compliance with WP:MEDRS)? Would love your input. I wonder because majority of the asana pages I've seen reference it - I went down the list of the first 20 asanas in list of asanas & I found that 18/20 used yoga journal, see below.

Adho Mukha Shvanasana

Most pages I've seen including the yoga page itself references it. If it is not reliable, then perhaps we should open a discussion in WP:Yoga.

Thanks in advance!

Whitestar12 (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YJ is the journal of record on modern postural yoga. It takes great care to be accurate, and its articles on the asanas are explained and illustrated with precision. From its foundation, it had serious and scholarly yoga teachers like Judith Hanson Lasater editing. It has a glossy side but it's also extremely responsible. You may find it helpful to read Yoga as exercise to grasp the relationship between all this and classical yoga.

As for Janusirsasana, it has long been a redirect to Paschimottanasana where it is discussed. We have the major asanas as articles, with similar asanas treated as variants: here, the sitting in stick pose is the root asana, and sitting like that with one leg folded is a variant. We don't need another article on the same thing. If someone has deletedthe redirect, we need it back!

All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just thanking you for the review of my page Travelling North. There was originally an article by the same title but it referred to the later film of the same name, derived from the play; I thought the play deserved its own official article! It turned out to be an interesting one to write (David W. is a good author with a lot to say, behind its apparently simple premise...) Anyway hi from Australia, where "north" means warm, south cold; the (e.g. UK or US.) equivalent would be relocating to the Mediterranean maybe, or Florida! Cheers - Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

bare urls

Please don't add bare url template to the pages where there's no bare reference such as Kamaksha temple. Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Egeymi: They don't have publishing details in there, which means they are quite close to being bareurls. Having just the name of the web page and the organisation isn't enough to identify it later. It essentially makes it unfindable, unless its in an archive. Also can you add a trans-title property to the references so folk know what the say in English. scope_creep^Talk 19:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? There's no bare url so the template is unfit. You request, "Also can you add a trans-title property to the references so folk know what the say in English", is totally irrelevant as an answer to my statement.--Egeymi (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request writing article about Henk Pelser (Q110847318)

Hello Scope_creep, Would you like to write the article about Henk Pelser (Q110847318) for the English wikipedia? It'll be appreciated if it is done. Boss-well63 (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]