Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

RfC about the draft SNG

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the Draft Subject Notability Guidelines on beauty pageant participants be endorsed and added to the Notability guideline template? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

This is an attempt to make beauty pageant participants exempt from WP:GNG. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

If you would take the time to read the paragraph below, you would see that this is an (dare I say it?) "alternative fact." In point of actual fact, it is an attempt to establish that certain biographical articles are likely to be notable, while others are not. It specifically says: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. In other words, the GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

You are not making sense. Read the nutshell over at Draft Subject Notability Guidelines and then read my !vote below. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

If I am not making sense, let me say it plainly: you are wrong. This is not an attempt to do any such thing as make beauty pageant participants exempt from WP:GNG. It is an attempt to incorporate GNG into a standard about these women that everyone can agree to, because there have been disagreements. Your statement above and your !vote below ignore this and substitute your pre-judgement for the actual process that got to this point. Labeling the intent of a guideline as inappropriate or illegitimate does nothing to address the issues that lead to the creation of the guideline. The intent is fairly clearly spelled out, no-one need to have worked overly hard to discern it. Please familiarize yourself with that history before making disparaging statements about the intent of other editors. The diffs linked in the section immediately below should make it clear. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Not all beauty pageant participants are women, right? Have you read the stuff I asked you to read in my previous comment? Do you understand that the text in the nutshell (specifically presumed and and so is likely to have received) mean that this is an attempt to make them exempt from WP:GNG? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: Forgot to ping you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

1: Yes, not all, but by far the majority are women. 2: Of course I read it. 3: Your inference of what that means does nothing to establish what the intent of the draft is. The intent is not some interpretation you have to make when the intent is explicitly stated. And restated. And restated again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Rationale

According to How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance, a policy or guidance should reflect previously-established consensus. Many AfD debates over a period of time have lead to the conclusion that beauty pageant winners are likely to be notable (not automatically notable) if they a win a national level pageant such as Miss America or one of the national-level pageants that feed into the Big Four pageants.

The Draft proposal has been thoroughly publicized in multiple places, and this consensus has not drawn significant opposition from the editing community at large.

• An RFC in starting in August of 2016 at the relevant Wikiproject showed general support for excluding state-level winners but was closed with the comment that a notability guideline was needed diff 1
• A further discussion there showed limited interest in a essay versus a new subject notability guideline diff 2
• In the beginning of December, nothing had been done, and a discussion was restarted there diff 3
• By the 22nd, there was still no new SNG, so I created the draft linked above and let all participants in that discussion know about it diff 4
• Two attempts to create discussions at VPP failed with no support for state-level pageant notability diff 5 and diff 6
• Another posting on VPP diff 7 created discussion and another link to the draft, again with little to no input generated.

Despite these attempts to draw further input, there has been no input to the draft or its talk page since the first of the year. This RfC is to gauge if the draft reflects community consensus on the issue. Thank you for your interest. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose - I don't see any rationale for why yet another SNG is required for this. No examples have been presented in this RFC to support the proposal. Furthermore, what evidence is there that, say, the 2001 Miss Earth from Kazakhstan has received significant coverage in reliable sources? Or the 1965 winners of Miss International from other smaller countries, many of which, I suspect that may have little interest in these awards. The point of an SNG is that it avoids the need for searching for reliable sources for the topics covered by this new policy - but I don't see evidence of that here. My view is that the GNG are sufficient for determining notability for this. FuriouslySerene (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Bizarre attempt to make beauty pageant participants exempt from WP:GNG. The "nutshell" says: "A participant in a beauty pageant is presumed to be notable if the person has been declared the winner of a major international- or national-level beauty pageant competition and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." (emphasis mine)

But WP:GNG says: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

If you win a beauty pageant competition or not is completely irrelevant; we require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

The words "and so is likely to have received" seem to be a bizarre attempt to evade this requirement. Reliable sources that are independent of the subject do not cover beauty pageants because they are not notable. When in doubt, follow the sources. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment This survey is nonsensical and a waste of time, because even if we would have 50 people here who !vote support, and only one who !votes oppose then that would still not be enough to overrule the guideline that has widespread consensus. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• OpposePer FuriouslySerene. These international pageants do not loom so large in the public awareness that most would agree the national winners automatically belong in an encyclopedia. Miss America was a big deal in the 1950's and 1960's perhaps, but eventually in the 21st century viewership dropped below 10 million and ABC dropped coverage, although somehow it later picked up the broadcast again. If any one has the references needed to satisfy notability for a national or international or for a winner of a contributing pageant, then by all means create an article. But there should be no gimme. There need not be a golden ticket to allow articles for every winner of such a pageant. WP:N and WP:BIO seem sufficient. Edison (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose -- I originally welcomed an idea of codifying the outcomes of the multiple AfDs that sub-national level winners are not presumed notable. But I don't see a reason to create an SNG that states that some winners are presumed notable. Perhaps, a section on beauty pageants should be added to WP:OUTCOMES instead. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose we can presume that most failed political candidates in openly contested elections have more coverage independent of their source than beauty contest winners. For them, we often know their thoughts on many issues and their whole resume/cv - these are covered for generally the length of the campaign by independent news organizations. For winners of a beauty contest, the source for nearly everything is her and the pageant (which got most of its information from her too) and is generally of trivial aspects of a biography (he measurements, weight, and whether she likes puppies or kitty-cats, and what she hopes to be when she grows up). Once she accomplishes something independent of the contest (which many do, and many do not) that garners the sufficient attention of GNG, then she's notable - otherwise, descriptions in the pageant page (2017 Miss Cauliflower, or whatever) and a redirect from the winner's name. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I have been watching the ongoing discussion and keep saying to myself that there must be a common sense way to summarize the points you are making to prevent the creation of a lot of articles about non-notable beauty contestants that then need to go through the AfD process before they are redirected to the main article... and perhaps, even better, prevent the creation of so many articles in the first place.

With all the comments I've read, I don't think that there's a real difference in the intended result: to allow people that are notable to have articles - and to have a process to manage the instances where there subjects of the articles are not notable. IMO, the biggest issue seems to be a difference of opinion about how to get there.

Since there seems to be an issue with coming to resolution about guidelines, is it possible that an essay might be the way to go?—CaroleHenson (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion and in many ways, I agree. I am not at all opposed to another solution. This was merely one attempt at establishing a consensus about these notability issues. An essay or an addition to WP:OUTCOMES would be equally worthwhile efforts, I believe. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Eggishorn. Yes, WP:OUTCOMES, makes sense. I support the guideline or WP:Outcomes.—CaroleHenson (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Our policies already have consensus, and this includes WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.  The conflict is simple...editors who object to standalone articles should merge those articles instead of complaining about the choices of our content contributors.  The fact that no one wants to do the merges is a consensus that notability is a minor point, and that editors prefer to leave the topics as standalone.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Merging contestants into the article about the pageant is usually a waste of time, there is usually nothing notable to say about the individual people. Deleting the articles about nonnotable contestants is the best solution. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 06:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a topic area that is clearly prone to accumulation of BLPs on non-notable people. We should only have articles about beauty pageant contestants who clearly meet the GNG because of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, cited in the article. In my view, a special notability guideline for such people is not necessary and would be counterproductive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen and K.e.coffman. This topic area is indeed prone to the accumulation of cruft, and the proposed guideline would add fuel to the fire. Neutrality^talk 04:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposal confuses the fact that reliable source material means that the person is likely notable with the fact that in some limited cases it is reasonable to assume reliable sourced material. No one has presented any evidence that this broad list of contestants are all likely to have reliable material.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

• I'd rewrite this as an addendum to Wikipedia:Notability (people) rather than as a separate page. It could be much simpler. I also thought the project was moving away from SNGs on the whole... And Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) would likely be a better venue for this discussion, since this concerns the notability guideline—more than just this page.  czar 08:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I would also strongly prefer this be reduced just to the pageant-specific section and added to WP:NPEOPLE. No reason to make people read all the way through GNG/BASIC again just to get to the pageant instructions (may solely have effect of reducing number of people who get through it/absorb it all), and introduces potential for conflicting instructions (what if one page's version of BASIC gets edited and not the other?) Innisfree987 (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. -- Shudde ^talk 17:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Bad idea, we aren't going to add this text to NPEOPLE because the consensus is that we follow WP:GNG, which is a guideline many people agree on. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Likewise in the interests of concision and avoiding conflicting instructions, I'd also propose the pageant-specific section be cut back to the following:

Winners of Big Four pageants are generally presumed to be notable.

Winners of the national-level pageants which select participants for the Big Four pageants are likewise generally presumed to be notable. Certain independent national-level or supra-national pageants such as Miss America and Miss Europe, by virtue of long establishment and widespread coverage, are also presumed to indicate notability in winners.

Winners of sub-national level pageants or subsidiary awards (e.g., Miss Virgin Islands, Miss Congeniality, Miss World Beach Beauty) are not presumed notable, even if they have won more than one. However, beauty pageant participants who do not qualify for presumed notability under the above pageant-specific criteria may very well be notable under the general notability guidelines. See, e.g., Honey Boo Boo.

If filed under NPEOPLE, this could be formatted along the lines of WP:NPOL. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed that this should be compressed into a section at WP:Notability (people). We already have too many SNGs, and they tend to cause more problems than they solve, especially in the form of "our topic is a magical snowflake" attempts to WP:POVFORK an extremely narrow SNG that no one watchlists to diverge further and further from WP:N over time, to either try to permit articles on persons who are not actually notable or to prevent the creation of articles on those who actually pass the WP:GNG but don't fit the overly specialized topical criteria. SNGs exist primarily as predictors to save editorial time: it's it likely that that the subject of the article you want to create will meet the GNG? Winner of a national pageant? Probably. Winner of a major regional one? Iffy. Winner of a local one, or just a contestant in a bigger one? Very unlikely; is there something unusual about this particular subject and their context that makes them more notable than others in the same class? In the end it will still come down to non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

In the community consensus called WP:N, WP:GNG is merely one of the ways that we determine the notability of a topic.  Divergence from WP:N occurs with the GNG-centrism argument that WP:GNG is the guideline, not WP:N. 

WP:Notability is not a content policy, nor does content define Wikipedia's notability.  The argument that notability is defined by sufficient material to write an article on Wikipedia is the circular argument that if an article exists on Wikipedia, the topic is notable. 

This confusion did not exist in 2007 when WP:Deletion policy stated, "The deletion processes all focus on whether an article meets the criteria for existence on Wikipedia; that is, they are to determine whether it is not original research, its central information is verifiable, and it is capable of achieving a neutral point of view with good editorship."  Unscintillating (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Almost all articles in Category:Beauty_pageant_winners_by_nationality should be deleted per WP:GNG. The draft is an attempt to sneak this past the community by getting consensus among a tiny group of people who are interested in this topic while excluding the opinions of those who are not. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

This was started specifically because of AfD discussions where special pleading has been made that winning pageants is enough on its own to demonstrate compliance with GNG. In order to bring some clarity, it was suggested by others that a focused and widely-advertised discussion on the merits of that argument was needed. At this point, I will grant that a tiny handful of editors have demonstrated interest and therefore there likely does not need to be a SNG. To call it "BS" as you did here, however, is completely false statement and an assumption of bad faith besides. Even a brief look at the discussions above will show that there has been a controversy of some length and this was an effort to establish consensus on the subject. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, the closing admin will simply ignore that "special pleading". I have nominated the draft for deletion. My BS detector has been trained for many years. Based on your reaction I am pretty sure that your intentions are good, but you have to forgive me for being a bit sceptical since it is really obvious that many of these articles have been written by at least one paid editor with a bunch of socks. The draft is not a good way to achieve your goal, to be honest I think it is counterproductive. Reliable sources that are independent of the subject do not cover beauty pageants because they are not notable. When in doubt, follow the sources. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

As for stuffing editors !voting ANYBIO#1 at AfD discussions, you've been told that you need a WP:NOT guideline to do that.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Pleas skip the disingenuous use of passive voice. Your, "You've been told.." here really means, "My opinion for which absolutely no other editor has expressed support..." If your posts on these issues weren't bric-a-brac assemblages of half-formed cites to a plethora of inapposite guidelines, may be then I would respect the orders I've been given. As it is, I feel entirely free to ignore what I've "been told." Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion to Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)?

• For wider community input, it may make sense to continue the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). K.e.coffman (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense. It may make sense to summarize the sides of the conversations (with a link to this discussion) to avoid people finding reading this discussion is WP:TOOLONG.—CaroleHenson (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

No, let's avoid fragmenting the discussion even further. Summarizing other peoples opinion is incredibly difficult for someone who disagrees with their opinions. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I drafted a stab of a summary (saved on my computer for the moment), but in the process I realized a couple of things that might be good to explore before taking it to a wider audience:

• While there hasn't consensus here for a separate guideline, there has been discussion about putting it in WP:NPEOPLE. When I look at the subsections, they are short and to the point. In this case, perhaps:

Beauty pageant winners

• Winners of Big Four pageants.
• Winners of the national-level pageants which select participants for the Big Four pageants. Certain independent national-level or supra-national pageants such as Miss America and Miss Europe, by virtue of long establishment and widespread coverage.
• Just being winner of these beauty contests, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general primary notability criteria of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".

• It seems to make sense to also have an outcomes subsection regarding whether to delete or merge the content into an article about the contest itself. It seems that in most cases, if the article doesn't meet the items above (e.g., state contests) or other notability guidelines, the article should be deleted.—CaroleHenson (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

We just had an RFC that shows clear consensus that the above proposal is a bad one. And now you want to go forumshop? Winning pageants (big four or national level or supra-national level or whatever) DOES NOT make anyone notable. See WP:GNG. Every single article about a pageant contestant that does not pass WP:GNG should be deleted. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I added the third bullet.—CaroleHenson (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

But you did not delete the first two bullets... And the third bullet should be rewritten to read: "Being a winner of beauty contests is completely irrelevant to notability. Follow WP:GNG." (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: sorry forgot to ping you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I totally understand that it can be annoying when you disagree with consensus. Personally I believe that footballplayers (soccer for americans) are overrated and overpaid and should never be notable. Heck, I wish professional football would stop completely. But I have to accept the fact that others think that footballplayers are more notable than, for example, some interesting scientists. It annoys me that anyone who has ever kicked a football for money has an article, but cool people like Thierry Legault do not... (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Forumshopping is bad, mmmkay? Quote: Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators, or any of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. (This is also known as "asking the other parent".) Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

A couple of things:

• Regarding your comment, The draft is an attempt to sneak this past the community by getting consensus among a tiny group of people who are interested in this topic while excluding the opinions of those who are not. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC), I thought you wanted it to go to a wider community.
• I am not sure what kind of compromise you would envision. There are so many articles about state-level winners. I know you're saying that they should all be deleted, but they are currently going through the AfD process - and do not get a lot of votes in most cases. How do you think that should be addressed?—CaroleHenson (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

1: That doesn't mean that forumshopping is a good idea.

2:We need more Wikipedians, and we need to encourage more Wikipedians to be active at AfD (and other behind-the-scenes stuff). If an AfD has very few !votes (0,1,2) then the admin needs to make the decision based on community consensus and guidelines and all that. WP:GNG is very useful when no or few people have !voted. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something, GNG does not appear to be a deciding factor for closing the AfD as a "keep" or "no consensus" decision - especially if there are only a few votes.

What do you think about having something in WP:Outcomes?—CaroleHenson (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Why would GNG not be a deciding factor for closing an AfD as keep??? I am not an admin but if a discussion has zero !votes and the subject of the article passes GNG then I would keep the article. I don't think adding beauty pageant participants/winners to WP:OUTCOMES is a good idea, because I think participating in or winning a beauty contest is completely irrelevant to whether someone is notable or not. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

What CaroleHenson is proposing isn't WP:FORUMSHOPping. She is not trying different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. She is trying to add more voices to a moribund discussion. I would be forum shopping if (as I think is now appropriate) this gets closed as "No" at the end of the 30 day comment period and then tried to get the same proposal, or a substantially similar one, through Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Then I would be trying to get other editors to say "yes" to what got rejected here. It seems reasonably clear to me that CaroleHenson, however, is trying to propose a somewhat different and simpler proposal. In addition, The Quixotic Potato, you actually give a good argument against what you have been saying earlier. It is clear that some beauty pageant winners are thought by the community to be notable, despite the reasonably clear personal feelings you have against them. It is not some nefarious end-around to put that down at WP:OUTCOMES or as a section in WP:BIO.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:FORUMSHOP. Just because the consensus is against you does not make the discussion moribund. Adding more voices isn't necessarily a bad idea, but trying to find different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want is. It is clear that you do not understand how consensus works, and that you are not accurately reflecting the consensus. Maybe you are unhappy with the way the RfC has been going so far, but going to the talkpages of WP:OUTCOMES and WP:BIO and trying again there isn't a good idea. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I think CaroleHenson's action to try to find a broader range of comment is a good idea. This limited group seems to be dominated with people with an WP:AGENDA to delete this kind of content wholesale. We need some less biased people to look at this objectively. Trackinfo (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

In reality we have a handful of people who think WP:GNG should not apply to beauty pageant contestants. WP:GNG has widespread support among the Wikipedia community. It is obvious that you do not agree with WP:GNG, but many other people do support it. You are in the minority. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

There had been a lot of fruitful discussion about this early-on - supporting the idea of having guidelines in some form, whether in a separate guideline or essay - so that input should not be ignored either. I understand some of the wording issues that have been asserted in this discussion and agree that there is likely a simpler approach than having a separate guideline. There is a precedent for having topic-specific criteria in WP:NPEOPLE- which has been brought up by others. I think that it would also be good to have an OUTCOMES entry as well, particularly as QP brings up - merging contest winners into the main contest articles may not be the desired result in many cases.

I don't understand - and am a bit confused about - what the harm is in providing guidelines that help to clarify notability for beauty contest winners to make the process easier. If there are clear guidelines in NPEOPLE, I suggest that some articles could be caught on the NewPagesFeed, etc. when they are brand new and nominated for CSD so that they never live long enough to go through the time-consuming AfD process. And, those that do go through AfD will have guidance to help navigate decision-making for the ones that should clearly be deleted (state contest winners, contest participants but no wins, etc.).—CaroleHenson (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Outcomes is valid. Most of the negative outcomes have been done in a very small sample, with less than a handful, usually only the same two commenters guiding the decisions. This subject needs broader participation so this aggressive small minority does not rule wikipedia policy in this matter forever. Trackinfo (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a tiny group of people who wants to overrule WP:GNG. WP:GNG has widespread support among Wikipedians. I wouldn't describe you as aggressive, but you are clearly a small minority (less than a handful of people vs thousands). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Did I EVER say I want to overrule WP:GNG? Please show me a link. Let me first state that this is not a favorite subject area of mine, I'm only here as a good samaritan because of abuse. The fanatics on this subject matter do not know their way through these back passages of wikipedia and are having their subject matter trampled. I have pointed to sources. I have said the standard should recognize and presume the existence of the extensive coverage each of these contestants historically get by being in the pageant. National or global TV coverage and major newsprint. These are not Nobel laureates, they are not going to get lengthy write ups, beauty contestants are going to get photographed. The people with an agenda have managed to out vote lone me not on fact, but on wiki lawyering gobbledegook. Photographs are superficial and routine. They insist a beauty pageant is a one time event when it obviously involves multiple steps, qualifying pageants over the better part of a year with a subsequent localized title reign for each one of them. Miss Alabama does not appear at Miss America by osmosis but through their logic, or more importantly, votes, somehow it happens. And following that example, the coverage for Miss Alabama. Where would you expect to find that coverage? The New York Times? That seems to be their expectation, so a slew of Alabama coverage suddenly is not valid. I've been around long enough to know what is kosher elsewhere in wikipedia under GNG. In this subject, that they wish to disappear, suddenly the standard of coverage is designed to be impossible. They should be writing abortion clinic regulations. Far too many of these are the same two to one votes. They love the small AfDs. They love the darkness. There is no broader participation because the general public has no idea the agenda people want this content to wholesale disappear. I've had my say. What we need are some sane minds from outside of the existing discussion to look at the subject objectively. Trackinfo (talk) 07:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Trackinfo, I do not understand what you mean. Please allow me to quote some of what you've wrote:

Did I EVER say I want to overrule WP:GNG? Please show me a link. Let me first state that this is not a favorite subject area of mine, I'm only here as a good samaritan because of abuse. The fanatics on this subject matter do not know their way through these back passages of wikipedia and are having their subject matter trampled. I have pointed to sources. I have said the standard should recognize and presume the existence of the extensive coverage each of these contestants historically get by being in the pageant.

See those sections I gave a yellow background? That is what I am talking about when I am talking about overruling WP:GNG. On Wikipedia we do not presume coverage in sources, we have it as a basic requirement (see WP:GNG). I don't really think acussing anyone of having an agenda is very productive (and it reminds me of that gay agenda thing), but if anyone does then logically it must be the tiny minority who tries to evade GNG because the huge majority who supports WP:GNG does not need to have a hidden agenda, right? I am not sure what you mean by "They should be writing abortion clinic regulations"... are you opposed to abortion??? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

That's why I suggested that Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) is a better place for the discussion, vs the project specific forum. It seems to be going in circle, anyway, due to low participation. Perhaps restart there? K.e.coffman (talk) 08:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

That would be considered forumshopping. I have posted a link there to here. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding stuff to NPEOPLE or OUTCOMES is a bad idea because being a beauty contestant is completely irrelevant to notability. I posted a link on both those talkpages to here. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Because this conversation is so long, I made this edit to Wikipedia Talk:Notability (people)#RfC about beauty pageants contestants, which includes the short proposal for NPEOPLE and that sompe people oppose these guidelines being added to NPEOPLE because some feel that it either is unnecessary due to GNG or circumvents GNG.—CaroleHenson (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I also made a comment at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#RfC about beauty pageants contestants that there is not a proposal at this time for something for OUTCOMES.—CaroleHenson (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notability?

Did this project ever get around to figuring out basic notability guidelines for pageants and participants? Sana Dua, first runner-up of Miss Femina India 2017, has an article up at AfD. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

We simply use WP:GNG. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Miss America's Outstanding Teen State Pageants

If anyone has some spare moments Legacypac (talk · contribs) is threatening to delete sections of Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants as WP:OR - I've referenced Alabama but doing the rest of the article is going to take time (how I wish he would be constructive not destructive and help improve it himself but that's unlikely). Honestly I think at this point the article as a whole is unwieldy and would be better split off into individual states but I see a mass AFD being launched if that happens. Thoughts? --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe any of the included pageants are notable but I really don't like unreferanced OR because it just attract vandals and hoax perpetrators. Editors come along and put a bunch of detail in with no sources at all - either there are sources and they are lazy/unskilled to add them or they are fabricating the data. Legacypac (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Unskilled for the most part I believe... so why not help out? Took about half an hour to do one state... easy to find sources but this is going to need a team effort. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've just added three general references that collectively serve as sourcing for all of the substantive information in the article. Hometowns and such are not sourced, so some additional effort will be needed for these. If anyone feels that the identification of a hometown is controversial and must not be allowed to remain unreferenced, I suppose that person could blank the entries until sourcing can be found. Two other points -- First, the suggestion that the unreferenced material constituted "original research" is bizarre. Original research is material for which reliable sourcing simply can not exist. What we had here was nothing more than a severe lack of referencing and a "refimprove" banner would have been far more appropriate. @Legacypac:, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on this. And second, I agree that the instant article is unwieldy. It really should be split along two dimensions -- by state and by year. So long as the underlying pageant is notable (and I don't think anyone is questioning that), splitting the contestants lists into useful separate articles ought not be a concern. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks for your thoughts, and for your effort on that one. I remember (because I was heavily involved at the time) the two previous AFDs and this article as it stands now was created out of them - but the pageant was in its infancy then and harder to support a claim for notability for the individual state pageants as there had been only 2-3 titleholders for most states. Sounds like it's time to start creating them now though? And I agree re OR/refimprove, that one stumped me a bit as well. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 08:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Although I wouldn't call Pageantopolis a reliable source though! No more reliable than my own fan site --- PageantUpdater (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Well that didn't take long Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Miss Alabama's Outstanding Teen. I'll respond when not on my phone but I note that they refer to the 2007 AFD - I believe the more relevant one is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Miss Ohio Teen USA --- PageantUpdater (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red November contest open to all

		Announcing Women in Red's November 2017 prize-winning world contest Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world: November 2017 WiR Contest Read more about how Women in Red is overcoming the gender gap: WikiProject Women in Red
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 07:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Angelopedia?

Hi all, I noticed this editor change a news reference to a site called angelopedia.com. As I poked through their history, their edits are indistinguishable from widespread spam. However in the interest of fairness, I thought I'd ask if any of you have any thoughts about the use of this site as a reference. It has hundreds of links across many Wikipedia languages. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Not reliable, user generated, should be blacklisted. Legacypac (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• I see no evidence that the user-generated material at the site extends to anything other than the Comments sections and those silly "Predict the Winner" polls. The News content looks to be re-published press releases and, as such, should be treated the same way we treat things like non-bylined biographies on AllMusic -- they can't be used to establish notability but can be used to source non-controversial facts. The same can be said of the contestant interviews hosted by the site. In all, it's a useful resource for non-controversial information, especially for contestants from nations where most of the other sourcing is likely to be written in non-Roman alphabets. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• I'd say it's about as reliable/useful as my own fan site - it's not. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

That depends. Does your fan site do a lot of interviews with contestants? And speaking of reliability, can you point to any factual errors in Angelopedia's news reports? NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

No to the first question - as to the second I'm not sure you'd be able to point to many if any errors in my site ([1]) either and my site could also be considered a source for titleholder listings/results etc but I still don't think it would be appropriate to link it on here. I'm not really basing that on reading any guidelines or policies though I will admit, just doesn't feel right. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 13:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Pageant contestants

Not sure of the minimum requirements for contestants, so would Paweensuda_Drouin pass WP:N. Thanks in advance...^{Atsme📞📧} 00:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Confusing Miss Teen USA afd discussions

Just thougth I'd put a note here, recently three Miss Teen USA winners have gone to AFD. we now have a very confusing situation & I have sought comment from the closers as I'm not really sure where this leaves things going forward (if Legacypac or another editor were to try and afd any of the other pages)

• • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Brown (2nd nomination) - Keep
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janel Bishop - No consensus
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherise Haugen - Delete

As the three are notable for exact same thing & the coverage levels were similar this has left things in a bit of a mess. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

It might be helpful to have a Request for Comments on the question of whether winning the pageant constitutes a "well-known and significant award or honor" as specified in WP:ANYBIO. Undoubtedly, the burn-the-witches crowd will argue that it doesn't. But if you feel that you can assemble good arguments in support of the proposition, then an RfC might be the perfect way to assure consistent results. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI Following the change from No Consensus to Keep for Janel Bishop I have initiated a deletion review for Cherise Haugen --- PageantUpdater (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"Born in" in notes column?

I just removed a whole lot of unnecessary bullet pointing (that was throwing out the formatting) at Miss USA 2018. I also think the "born in" etc is trivial & should be removed, does anyone have any thoughts on this? It's something that has crept into similar articles recently but I think it's excessive. Thoughts? --- PageantUpdater (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

This project would do itself a world of good if it started to develop a Manual of Style for its articles. And matters such as these could be addressed in that Manual. But as to your particular questions, I agree that "born in ..." doesn't belong in the article for the event. And I agree that "without bullet points" looks better. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Any thoughts on the thread I opened immediately above? NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. I think it's an important and interesting point that a non-negligible fraction of contestants for a title called "Miss USA" are actually immigrants. This would not be true for most countries in the world, and points out a lot about this country. --GRuban (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Use of "death daggers"

Hello, folks. For a little while now, I've been seeing editors adding those "death daggers" (the ones that look like crosses) to contestant lists in a large number of articles. For those who are not familiar with the "death daggers", they are intended to indicate that the person is no longer alive. I think this is a bad idea and would like to delete them, but would prefer to get some consensus here first.

As things stand right now, I could delete them as being unsourced, because the editors never bother to add references supporting the daggers. But conceivably, the editors could come back with sources. That wouldn't change my thinking that they're a bad idea, for the following two reasons.

1. The lists are not intended to provide information on who is or who isn't still alive. This is true of virtually every other list that I've checked in other fields of competition. As just two examples, 1961 New York Yankees season doesn't bother telling the reader which team members have died; neither does Australia at the 1960 Summer Olympics. And I don't see any reason why the pageantry articles should be any different.
2. This second reason is more subtle but, to my thinking, just as important. When a reader sees a few names on a list identified with the "death dagger", there is an unstated implication that any person whose name does not have that dagger is still alive. And yet, I have no confidence that anyone is monitoring these lists to verify that all of the deceased persons have been correctly identified. It is this potential for misleading the reader that causes me the greater concern.

Your thoughts and comments will be greatly appreciated. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree, all points. --GRuban (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete all; unnecessary and pointless. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, we are not using those in any other context for biography subjects. The only use I recall of them on WP is for indicating extinct taxa in lists of the subtaxa of a particular taxon, and usually only in the infobox (see, e.g., the one at Felis). More often, we just use separate sections for extinct and surviving groups of organisms (e.g., at Felidae).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Andrea Moberg

Another editor has tagged the article for Andrea Moberg, a Miss Grand Peru, for speedy deletion. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Miss Grand Indonesia

Miss Grand Indonesia is a brand new article, but I have some concerns about the content being original research. See Talk:Miss Grand Indonesia#Original research / synthesis. Somebody with more experience and knowledge about pageants taking a look would be appreciated. -- Whpq (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Beauty Pageant articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. There might be as few as one page in the category, or zero if someone has removed the expert request tag from the page.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Unknown contestant name

The notation, ( * ) "unknown contestant name" appears in a handful of articles at Category:Nations at beauty pageants, like New Zealand at major beauty pageants, but other than that article, in which I just used it, appears unused (i.e. all the contestant names are known/used). It's unclear whether it's supposed to mean literally ( * ) or just the asterisk * is to be used. Since it is so rare, should I just remove the notation altogether and use (name unknown) in the one instance needed? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 15:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Formation of actual guidelines for articles

I've been contributing to this project for awhile, and of all the projects on Wikipedia I've participated in, WikiProject Beauty Pageants has been one of the most disorganized. I think that it's about time we create some notability and manual of style guidelines for articles.

Some of the ideas I have include:

Notability

• Notability is only bestowed upon pageant contestants who win one of the Big Four international beauty pageants – Miss Universe, Miss World, Miss International, or Miss Earth, win a national qualifying pageant for one of the two major Big Four international pageants – Miss Universe or Miss World – assuming there are enough references to properly source said article, win a different non-qualifying but relevant national pageant such as Miss America, or if a non-winner has numerous sources demonstrating why they are notable in another way.
• Notability is only bestowed on individual editions of the Big Four international beauty pageants (unless reliable sources begin promoting another international pageant as major) or major national pageants such as (but not limited to) Miss USA, Miss America, Miss France, Miss Brasil, etc. What can determine what makes a national pageant major is if sources for it exist.
• If these guidelines are agreed upon, I would propose mass deletion of articles that do not follow these notability guidelines. While there are numerous, some that come to mind are Miss Universe Mongolia 2018, Miss Multinational 2017, Miss Ukraine Universe 2018, and a number of contestants from various pageants who either would not be notable according to these guidelines, or are extensively undersourced and sources do not exist to help the article.

MOS

• On contestant articles, I am against separating each pageant they've ever competed in into its own subheading, as this takes up so much unnecessary space, and instead believe all pageants should be simply under a "Pageantry" heading. If there is a lot of information to cover for one single pageant, then a subheading can be created. In the infobox, "Major competitions" should only include major national and international pageants they competed in – meaning one of the big four international pageants, a national qualifier for Miss Universe or Miss World, or a major non-qualifying national pageant. If they have never competed in a major national or international pageant, they probably don't deserve an article or are more notable for something else. State pageants and minor (inter)national pageants should not be included. However in "Title", any titles they won can be included.
• On individual pageant edition articles, the "Notes" section for contestants needs major guidelines. I propose that if they have become relevant in some other sense (such as Savannah Chrisley being a cast member on Chrisley Knows Best or DeAnna Johnson being a contestant on The Voice) then this can be mentioned in the notes section. Additionally, if they held a previous title that is notable, such as a qualifier for Miss Teen USA or a national qualifier for a different Big Four international beauty pageant, but non-notable titles should not be included. Additionally, I am leaving room for other notes to be added if a number of reliable sources deem them relevant to the contestant (such as, for example: being the first titleholder of a certain race or sexual orientation). Being born in a different country is not something notable enough to be included, immigration is not a crazy concept.

If you have any comments on the guidelines I proposed, or would like to propose your own guidelines for discussion, we can discuss here. I am pinging a number of frequent WikiProject Beauty Pageants editors for their thoughts. Hopefully we can organize this WikiProject, it's much needed and unfair to the girls we're writing about. @NewYorkActuary: @CJinoz: @Ejgreen77: @Legacypac: @Art 281:

{ [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@NewYorkActuary: @CJinoz: @Ejgreen77: @Legacypac: @Art 281: { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 02:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, thinking about this. Excluding State winners is a great start. In nearly all cases rhe sate winners go off to other non-notable careers leaving WP:BLP1E type pages. Legacypac (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for tagging me on this post, I usually only focus on the 2 main international pageants Miss Universe and Miss World articles. As far as individual contestants Wikipedia articles I really don't edit those because I feel like it's wasting my time. They are poorly written and sometimes are so short I don't even think it should qualify as an article. However, I am more than happy to get on board to come up with guidelines for individual contestants Wikipedia articles. Art 281 (talk) 03:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: @Art 281: Sorry for not answering for so long, I didn't see that anyone actually answered me. Art, I agree with what you said regarding individual contestants, and that's why I think major reform is necessary. According to these notability guidelines I have proposed, those individual contestant articles that seem unworthy of even having an article should be deleted or redirected. WikiProject Beauty Pageants has become my dominant focus on Wikipedia in the last year or so, but the project is so unorganized and overrun by vandalism, so I'd love if we can work together to create and enforce some guidelines to turn this project around. Not only for ourselves, but for the girls that we're writing about. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 05:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Citations

In reviewing the information on a Miss USA pageant my mother was in, I noted there are 0 citations for any of the information on that page, and it appears this is normal for pageants from about 30+ years ago. Is that acceptable?

In particular, my mother remembers some of the information on the page referencing her year differently. Some of the information she spoke about would seem to be noteworthy, but without citation, I'm reluctant to change that page at all. I'd feel more confortable also if citation standards were higher on these pageants as I feel a little digging at newspaper archives would yield much more accurate and complete information. - jeffwinchell

Pageant sourcing is awful and I believe that many pageant pages are full of errors. I see information changed from one uncited "fact" to another uncited "fact" all the time. I fear both versions are wrong. Legacypac (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Standard symbols

At New Zealand at major beauty pageants, I saw that usage of the × and x was inconsistent, and changed the former (the non-standard-keyboard "times" symbol) to the latter (the letter "x"). However, I now see that usage in other articles in Category:Nations at beauty pageants is also inconsistent. I'm guessing the symbol was originally used instead of the letter for aesthetic reasons (i.e. it is vertically centered), but as the MOS points out (somewhere), many/most editors don't recognize the distinction and end up using the letter instead, causing the current (though subtle) mess.

I propose that the letter should be used instead of the symbol. Thoughts? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 15:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Personally I would use Template:N/A filled in with "Did not compete". { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 05:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jjj1238: Thanks. I went with {{N/a}} in its default form, and cleaned up some of the other markup. Similar work could be done on other similar articles, probably via templates to make it easier/consistent/changeable. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Major need of cleanup

• Miss Asia Pacific International 2019 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Miss Earth 2019 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Miss Universe 2019 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Miss World Philippines 2019 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Binibining Pilipinas 2019 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have come across so many of these articles that are only sourced to say Instagram, that I am despairing of ever getting a modicum of cleanup. Wikipedia has so many under sourced articles and such a slow deletion process that ever making progress against the behemoth at times seems inpossible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Johnpacklambert: It would help if you name a few specific articles....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Johnpacklambert and WilliamJE: I've been making some headway (or maybe I'm just fooling myself). There is problematic editing at the articles listed above. Other experienced editors are invited to help. Stripping Instagram, Facebook and YouTube "citations", as well as personal blogs, is a good start, then monitoring for reintroduction. Re the latter, I've had to request page protection for a few articles. - Bri.public (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Beauty Pageants

I have made changes to Template:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/sandbox. Are there any problems with this being replaced with the live version. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 14:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Migsmigss, Triila73, Orcakorn25, Jjj1238, Ejgreen77, Marcetw

Notability

Hi, are there any official notability guidelines? I've created a page in my sandbox for a Lebanese association football player (Mohamad Taha), who was also a contestant in several beauty pageant contests. He was runner-up in Mister Lebanon 2018, as well as a contestant in Mister International 2019, and winner of Best Model Asia-Pacific 2019. Would he constitute as notable? Thanks in advance, Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Notability (beauty pageant participants) was an attempt to create a notability guideline.

It sprung out of the discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Archive 6#No progress on drafting a notability guidelines for pageant winners. That discussion was continued here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Archive 7. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Long-term disruptive editing regarding Carmen Suleiman

See Talk:Carmen Suleiman. --DB1729 (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Good and bad Beauty Pageant sources list

User:Bri and I have been talking about the subject of good and bad sources for our beauty pageant articles and we've started Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Sources, to put notes on those we keep running into. Comments, contributions, all welcome. --GRuban (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you help confirm a Miss Nicaragua picture?

Daniela Torres, hopefully?

Daniela Torres, mother Luviana Bonilla, sister Luviana Torres?

I also asked the main editor of Miss Nicaragua 2015, but he hasn't edited in a couple of months, so I wonder if someone here could help? I found this Creative Commons licensed video of Daniela Torres, Miss Nicaragua 2015, with her mother Luviana Bonilla, and her sister Luviana Torres, who was first runner up in Miss Nicaragua 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0htDrWcSdnM But I'm not entirely sure which is which! I think Daniela is the one in the blue, and Luviana is the one in the yellow, but I'm not 100% sure; they are sisters after all, and do look a fair bit alike. Can someone help confirm my identification? There is a newspaper article that goes along with the video https://www.elnuevodiario.com.ni/variedades/356370-clan-reinas/ in case that helps, but unfortunately the better picture there is not licensed Creative Commons, so we can't use it. --GRuban (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

National pageant winners notable?

I had a notion that winners of national beauty titles were regarded as notable (not that I can now find a guideline to that effect, so maybe I dreamt it). However, a couple of "Miss Belgium" title holders have just been deleted with expired "BLP1E" prods, and I was wondering where the consensus to that effect had been established. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Willma Gendb

Draft written by subject, if someone feels like getting involved. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Beauty Pageant articles needing expert attention has been nominated for discussion

Category:Beauty Pageant articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France at major beauty pageants

Notification of this deletion discussion of 92 articles dealing with the national history of 92 countries and territories within the largest pageants. Just a neutral notification, but discussion is appreciated. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 08:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Miss Cebu#Requested move 14 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Miss Cebu#Requested move 14 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)