Open main menu

User talk:Barkeep49


Talk:Mintaro, South Australia/GA1Edit

Barkeep49, I'm not sure whether you noticed that the nominator agreed with your suggestion to close the review. Please stop by to take care of this when you can. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I had seen it and thought I had done it - whoops. Thanks for the prod. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Draftifying questionsEdit

Could you have a quick look at this - I thought it needed to be draftified, had a quick word with the author who agrees (they've never used draft space before) - can you do the needful (unless I can do it manually with the NPP curation toolbar?) Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 10:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit:   Done - you might want to get the scripts listed under Core which you don't yet have. This includes a move to draft script that is handy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks - I've installed that draft mover script, will try it next time. GirthSummit (blether) 16:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi - another question on draftifying articles. The footballers I nominated to AfD have all been deleted, so I had a brief chat with their creator (User talk:Lubo-Iv-95) about the notability requirements, and the remaining non-notable articles they've created. They say that they understand the requirements now, and are happy for me to go ahead and clean out the rest, but they've asked whether there's any way they could be archived. I think that this is a reasonable suggestion, since it's entirely possible that some of these players may become notable in the future - if their team gets promoted into the next division, or if they do well and get a contract at another team. What would be the thinking on draftifying these - can we have drafts for non-notable people who may become notable at a later date? Is draft space the right place for this, or would they be better in a subpage in the author's user space? GirthSummit (blether) 08:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Girth Summit, it's a reasonable enough request. If they're move into draft space they can be speedy deleted after six months. If in userspace the timeline can be longer. Personally I would suggest that he manually copy/paste the wikitext articles somewhere of his choosing and that you PROD the articles themselves - makes clearer what happened in the future. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Electric Bond and Share list?Edit

Hi, I'm still actively working on building this page up that was deleted earlier last year. I appreciate the suggestion of building a better lead. However, I have put the list of companies that were part of the company back in:

I had barely started to put links and updates on the history of these companies since many are still around today and play a major regional roll in the electric industry. For this reason, I don't see it as just a list, but already starting to be documentation of what was the largest holding company of its kind in this country that was forced to break up. This history which directly impacted General Electric Company and Morgan company has been intentionally removed from U.S. history for a reason as it represents one of the largest legal cases in American history spanning over 25 years in length.

On this basis, i would appreciate it if "the list" stays and that it be seen not merely as a "list". If there is some kind of rule about list on wikipedia on their usage, please direct me on this. Energynet

Helpful Clarification?Edit

Hi Barkeep! I hope I'm doing the "talk" pages correctly. Thank you for your note on my talk page. Would you be able to help me understand why the page I wrote ( was perceived as promotional? I was intentional about trying to write my first article in a fitting manner, and would find value in learning what made it come off in this manner. Obviously, you don't need to spend your time explaining this to me - but any help is appreciated! Dominicmyles90 (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)Dominicmyles90

@Dominicmyles90: You did do the talk page thing correctly. Welcome to Wikipedia! Your question is very fair. Promotion on Wikipedia comes in several forms. There is the clear "buy this" type. But a lot of promotion is more subtle. Wikipedia is the fifth most visited website in the world and our readers trust us and so we need to be careful to not give credibility to things in Wikipedia's name. In general the community has pretty high standards about what companies and products get Wikipedia pages. You can read more here. The specific issues I had were:
Its shoes are catered towards homeowners and lawn care professionals. - targeting who the product is for in Wikipedia's voice
Kujo sells its shoes through its website, as well as on the websites of Amazon, Dicks Sporting Goods, and Gardener's Supply Company. - Advertising where you can buy it
Kujo shoes have been featured as the Amazon Deal of the day, as well as in the The Family Handyman[5] and a WOIO news segment. Again trying to show credibility by saying where they've been featured.
Hope that helps explain my thinking. You should know, that even if those three sentences were removed, the product might not qualify for an article. I'll link again to the place that explains what companies and products need to be eligible for an article. If you have further questions please let me know. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thank you for your response! And for the value you add to Wikipedia! I definitely hear what you are saying. Thank you so much for the helpful explanations!
For what it's worth, this was my first article, and so I modeled it after a similar company page, The North Face. While with the second and third issues, I was attempting to follow the North Face's page structure, ie, the "Stores" and "Rise in popularity" sections respectively, I now see how its not analogous. I hope this gives clarity as to why I spoke to those subjects :)
For the first issue you identify, with targeting who the product is for, the issue is with my second sentence, which is structured identically to the second sentence of The North Face ("Its clothing and equipment lines are catered towards outdoor enthusiasts, climbers, mountaineers, skiers, snowboarders, hikers, and endurance athletes.") I understand, though, these are judgement calls and involve a lot of nuance.
Would it be possible to remove the 2nd and 3rd issue sentences (and the first if you remain in feeling it promotional) and restore the remainder of the article?
Regardless, thank you for helping me understand, and helping me improve how I try to contribute to Wikipedia! Best regards! Dominicmyles90 (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Dominicmyles90 to restore the article you would need to show how it had received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The version you last wrote did not show this. Using The North Face as an example, the articles from the New York Times, USA Today, and San Francisco Chronicle are all examples of the kinds of high quality sources talking about a company in significant detail that helps to show it is notable (our word for topics which can have Wikipedia articles written about them). Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: Thank you for all you help Barkeep!! I am a bit surprised that the article lacked notability. There were three references (one each from The_News-Herald_(Ohio) and The_Family_Handyman, and two from WOIO) that I thought established this. In each case the coverage of Kujo was significant (addressing Kujo directly and in detail), the sources reliable (each having Wikipedia pages), secondary, and independent of Kujo. There were also other secondary, independent sources with significant coverage of the subject from smaller sources (eg, Monroe Evening News, a subsidiary of GateHouse_Media). I understand these sources are not the New York Times, but are they not respectable for this purpose? Best regards! Dominicmyles90 (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Dominicmyles90 I will admit I did not fully analyze the sourcing after I saw the promotional language. You could certainly restore a version of that article with the promotional language omitted and I will let a different New Page Reviewer look at the article. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: Thank you for your helpfulness. I really appreciate it, and all that you do for Wikipedia. We are lucky to have you.

Removing social media statisticsEdit

Hello. Are you aware of any RfCs or policy docs specifically addressing social media statistics (subscriber counts/views/followers/etc.) that you can point me to? Thanks in advance. Levivich 23:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: I looked and came up empty when I went looking given the discussion at Talk:Mark Dice. Coming out of that discussion I was genuinely curious how controversial of a change removing this information would be. So I did a batch last week. I received pushback at a couple pages but largely the changes stuck so I did a second round over the last couple days and was planning to see how that worked. I think in the longrun an RfC is mandatory for any number of reasons, including I am but one person, but for now I've been availing myself of BOLD editing to gather information while improving the encyclopedia by not having manipulated statistics served to our readers. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Count me among the pushback, not to the bold editing, but if the RfC was "should we remove all SM stats", I would !vote no. The reason I asked is because I'm curious what the community thinks; I guess we'll both find out.
I would be in favor of some rule about bracketing social media statistics. So, for example, we wouldn't say "2,943,922 subscribers", but we might say "over 100,000/over 1 million/over 10 million subscribers". That would give the reader the sense of proportion while blunting concerns about manipulation. What do you think about that? Levivich 00:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Levivich I think it's better than the status quo. I also think it runs into the issue that we don't know that fake subscribers are evenly distributed and so if someone has over 1 million subscribers and 400k of them are fake (unlikely but not completely implausible) we're giving them a lot more credit than they deserve above someone who has 500k subscribers and 50k of them are fake - the "real" difference is 1/3 rather than 2x. We just don't know.
I'm still mooting the right structure for this to take. For instance I know (based on RS) that this problem effects Twitter followers as much or more than YouTube. So do I/we start there? Twitter followers is also more low stakes because there aren't professional tweeters in the same way that there are professional YouTubers. Or do we start with YouTube for precisely for the reason that the information has a bigger impact on our readers/we're lending more credence to bad information? What's the right wording/structure for the RfC? If you want to watchlist User:Barkeep49/Social Media I will when I have come to some conclusions be drafting language there and would welcome your thinking. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Watching the page. Thanks! Looking forward to your results. Levivich 03:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!Edit

  Sorry if you don't like them, i just thought you would. Everyonegoes2018 (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


FYI I think you forgot to sign this RfC closure. --DannyS712 (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712, Thanks. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 ReminderEdit

Hi. I'm DannyS712 (talk), and I just wanted to remind you that you have signed up to compete in this year's WikiCup! There are about 2 weeks left before the first round ends – if you haven't yet made your first submission, there is still time to start; if you have already started, keep up the good work. See your submissions page: here. Good luck!

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Occupational Health ScienceEdit

Barkeep49, I listened to the people who took down Occupational Health Science. The journal began in 2017. In early 2018, I tried to start a Wikiepedia entry for the journal. It was taken down as not notable enough. I waited a year to try again. I thought the journal would pass the notability test when two volumes would be published and a third volume would be arriving.

The journal meets the criterion "reliable sources to be influential in its subject area," the subject area being occupational health. The editor, Robert Sinclair, is an important figure in the field of job stress (teachers, soldiers) as are the associate editors. The journal is published by a reputable publishing company, Springer. OHES published a paper by Charlotte Fritz, an influential researcher in the area of the impact of work on sleep. The journal published work by Charlotte Fritz and Leslie Hammer on stress in correctional officers. Hammer is an important researcher on interventions to reduce ob stress in order to to improve worker health and well-being. It has published Kyle Page on work-family family conflict.

I would appreciate it if you would restore the journal. Iss246 (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Iss246 You have been working at this over a long period of time and so I can understand your frustration that has built. There is a concept on Wikipedia which says notability is not inherited. So the fact that Sinclair is an important figure and it's by a reputable company doesn't help establish its own notability. You are saying that The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area. - these reliable sources would have to be journal articles or other secondary sources independent of the Occupational Health Service saying it's influential. Do you have sources/links which show this? That would help to building an article that can be restored and kept restored. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I know about notability not being inherited. That is why I was accepted the taking down of the entry one year ago. But now the journal has a record of publishing two volumes and is in the process of publishing a third volume. The journal has a record of publishing papers relevant to the field of occupational health. A learned society, the Society for Occupational Health Psychology, considers the journal a reputable source. On those grounds you should restore the journal. Iss246 (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Iss246 You need independent sourcing that says it is influential - the society which sponsors it can't just say it. Do you have any kind of secondary sources that talk about the journal? Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I will look for secondary sources.Thanks. Iss246 (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I found additional information bearing on notability. Bear in mind that there is a time lag between when usage statistics become available and the journal's current publication year. Although the journal is in its third year, the publisher recently made available usage statistics for the first year of Occupational Health Science: The statistics suggest that the journal is notable, and should be represented on Wikipedia. Iss246 (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Iss246 that is promising but I don't think it yet satisfies criteria 1 of WP:NJOURNAL. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, please explain to me what would satisfy criterion 1. What evidence would confirm for you that criterion 1 is satisfied? Iss246 (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Temple Run: BraveEdit

could give me some leeway for Temple Run: Brave?the article already uses reviews from other details. Both Game Rankings and Metacritic offer reviews from that we consider reliable. and there are some I found outside those sites that can be used for the article. It wont take me more than 24 hours to add them in.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Blue Pumpkin Pie I checked the sources that were being used and I could but it didn't seem that they were on the list of Video Game reliable sources. Did I miss a couple? Alternatively feel free to restore it with firmer citations to the good reviews from game rankings or metacritic. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
OK thank you. I'll restore it when i have all the reviews are on it. I just didn't want to have an edit war before i do and i'm willing to talk things over.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #5Edit

Welcome to the fifth newsletter for the new Growth team!  

The Growth team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects.

New projects for discussionEdit

We began the "Personalized first day" project with the welcome survey so that we could gather information about what newcomers are trying to accomplish. The next step is to use that information to create experiences that help the newcomers accomplish their goal – actually personalizing their first day. We asked for community thoughts in the previous newsletter, and after discussing with community members and amongst our team, we are now planning two projects as next steps: "engagement emails" and "newcomer homepage".

  • Engagement emails: this project was first discussed positively by community members here back in September 2018, and the team how has bandwidth to pursue it. The idea is that newcomers who leave the wiki don't get encouraged to return to the wiki and edit. We can engage them through emails that send them the specific information they need to be successful – such as contact from a mentor, the impact of their edits, or task recommendations. Please read over the project page, and comment on its discussion page with any ideas, questions, or concerns. Do you think this is a good idea? Where could we go wrong?
  • Newcomer homepage: we developed the idea for this project after analyzing the data from the welcome survey and EditorJourney datasets. We saw that many newcomers seem to be looking for a place to get started – a place that collects their past work, options for future work, and ways to learn more. We can build this place, and it can connect to the engagement emails. The content of both could be guided by what newcomers say they need during their welcome survey, and contain things like contact from a mentor, impact of their edits, or task recommendations. Please read over the project page, and comment on its discussion page with any ideas, questions, or concerns. Do you think this is a good idea? Where could we go wrong?

Initial reports on newcomer activityEdit

We have published initial reports on each of the team's first two projects. These reports give the basic numbers from each project, and there are many more questions we will continue to answer in future reports. We're excited about these initial findings. They have already helped us define and design parts of our future projects.

  • Welcome survey: the initial report on welcome survey responses is available here. Some of the main findings:
    • Most users respond to the survey, giving it high response rates of 67% and 62% in Czech and Korean Wikipedias, respectively.
    • The survey does not cause newcomers to be less likely to edit.
    • The most common reason for creating an account in Korean Wikipedia is to read articles—not for editing—with 29% of Korean users giving that responses.
    • Large numbers of respondents said they are interested in being contacted to get help with editing: 36% in Czech and 53% in Korean.
  • Understanding first day: the initial report on what newcomers do on their first day is available here. Some of the main findings:
    • Large numbers of users view help or policy pages on their first day: 42% in Czech and 28% in Korean.
    • Large numbers of users view their own User or User Talk page on their first day: 34% in Czech and 39% in Korean.
    • A majority of new users open an editor on their first day – but about a quarter of them do not go on to save an edit during that time.

Help panel deploymentEdit

The help panel was deployed in Czech and Korean Wikipedias on January 10. Over the past four weeks:

  • About 400 newcomers in each wiki have seen the help panel button.
  • About 20% of them open up the help panel.
  • About 50% of those who open it up click on one of the links.
  • About 5% of Czech users ask questions, and about 1% of Korean users ask questions.

We think that the 20% open rate and 50% click rate are strong numbers, showing that a lot of people are looking for help, and many want to help themselves by looking at help pages. The somewhat lower numbers of asking questions (especially in Korean Wikipedia) has caused us to consider new features to allow people to help themselves. We're going to be adding a search bar to the help panel next, which will allow users to type a search that only looks for pages in the Help and Wikipedia namespaces.

How to create a good feedback page?Edit

What is the way to built a good help page? What blocks you when writing an help page? Your replies will help to create better help contents to newcomers, that would be used on Help panel.

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot, 14:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC) • Give feedbackSubscribe or unsubscribe.

File:The Rough Patch cover.jpgEdit

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Children's Literature Newsletter February 2019Edit

Children's Literature February 2019

Wow! Can you believe that we've gone from less than 5 members to over 20 in just a short time? Thanks to everyone for joining (or rejoining) the project and hopefully we will do some great work ahead. Please feel free to bring any ideas you might have to our talk page.

Recognized Content

 The Adventures of Beekle: The Unimaginary Friend Review by ReaderofthePack
 Locked in Time by Fearstreetsaga Review by Ben79487
 Radiant Child: The Story of Young Artist Jean-Michel Basquiat Review by Snowycats

Project Tagging - Your help is needed

Thanks to Earwig and his bot some articles had our project banner placed on their pages - this will let us monitor and support these articles better. However, the tagging received some complaints about too many incorrectly place tags (see here). Some help in going through the categories to be used by the bot would be appreciated. That list of categories can be found at: User:The Earwig/Sandbox/Children's Lit

Article Alerts

A great way to stay on top of articles which need particular attention is through the project's article alerts page. You can find out about new Good Article Nominees, Articles for Deletion, and more. If you watch the page you can even see the new additions each night right frmo your watchlist.

You are receiving this because you are listed as an active member of the Children's Literature WikiProject or have chosen to subscribe to the newsletter. If you would like to sign-up for just the newsletters or want to be an active member but not get the newsletters you can do that here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Tackling the assessment backlogEdit

Right now the assessment backlog at WikiProject Children's literature is getting really full at approximately 1,593 articles. Can you help me tackle the backlog, please?

I'll be doing the February GOCE blitz from the 17th to the 23rd, so I will not be able to assess as I'll be in copyedit mode. :)

Anyway, after alllllllllllllll this talk... Have a happy Valentine's Day! – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 03:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Please {{ping}} me if you want my attention; I don't check my watchlist very often. – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 03:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Ben79487 Happy to help though I will likely only do a marginal amount. It's going to get a bit longer before it gets shorter when the bot finally finishes running. Happy to call this out in the next newsletter. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:Thanks, Barkeep! All help is needed.
P.S. Was it a tagging bot tagging a ton of articles? – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 03:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Ben79487 It was going through categories and finding articles in those categories without the project banner so a lot got tagged, yes. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
OK! – Ben79487 (talk contribs) 03:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
P.S. It's sad that so many of them turn out to be stubs.  Ben79487 (talk contribs) 04:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Ben79487 most articles everywhere are stubs so not surprising. I would love if we turned up a High importance article or two out of the whole process. But really why I think it important for the tags it to make sure that if anything gets nominated for deletion, project members have a chance to save it. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Youtube subscriber count and viewsEdit


I reverted a bunch of your edits removing the subscriber count and views from articles on youtubers, and thought it would be rude to do so without leaving an explanation. I sincerely believe that it is important that this information remains on Wikipedia articles, as they are the main metrics used to compare subreddits. While they are unreliable, it is an approximation, so the number we put on Wikipedia is an approximation as well. Yes, it is often outdated, but the infobox specifies the date which the count was last updated. The count for most popular YouTubers is frequently updated by IP users organically, so there is no concern of widespread misinformation going on. And while they can be manipulated, the vast majority of youtube channels do not manipulate these metrics, and the most frequent offenders are music labels. I do not think this is a reason to remove the sub and view count of every youtubers. Also, I do not know of any consensus that they should be removed on all article on youtubers, only of arguments made by some Wikipedians. Emass100 (talk) 06:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!Edit

  It was a good idea to propose a policy change about including subscriber counts for Wikipedia articles on new media publishers. This issue has been settled as a no almost forever, but I think that it is timely to reconsider the practice. Great job speaking up. Even if it does not pass I like the conversation that you have convened. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: Thanks. I have found that despite being a no forever there is a loud contingent that think it's a yes. I am hopeful we'll still end up at a positive consensus. Thanks for taking the time to come here. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Barkeep49".