User talk:PJvanMill/archives/001

This is an archive of discussions from the en-Wikipedia talk page of PJvanMill. Do not start new conversations here; go to the talk page itself for that.

I may have put a conversation here that wasn't quite as dead as I thought it was. If you wish to revive a discussion, copy it to my talk page and add your comment, with the edit summary reviving <discussion name> from <archive>; then remove it from here, with the edit summary reviving <discussion name>.

Welcome!

Hi, PJvanMill. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, PJvanMill. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Co-creation, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello! I noticed you are working on the article for co-creation. I work for a company called Industryhack and we are basicly using co-creation as a tool to serve our customers. We have noticed that much of the terminology in wikipedia concerning articles with subjects close to us don't do very good job in explaining them. This is especially true in Finnish. I noticed your excellent suggestion about how to move forward with the co-creation article. Can we help you in someway? None of us have any experience in wikipedia, but on the other hand we have read quite a bit research about the subject and are willing to learn and contribute. We are not looking to promote ourselves, but it would be important to us that these terms would have good descriptions in wikipedia. (co-creation, open innovation, culture of experimentation) Thanks and hope to heat from you. HannuLR (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@HannuLR (talk · contribs) Hi and thanks for the cookie! Yes you can help, and you don't really need much experience to edit Wikipedia. You are free to make any change to the article that you think is an improvement, with the exception of writing about yourself / your own company. With this particular article, there are two main problems: (1) the term "co-creation" is used in a lot of different ways so it isn't always clear what a source thinks it means when they're talking about it (2) almost nothing in the article actually helps people understand the concept of co-creation. You say you've read quite a bit of research on the subject, so here's how I think you can best contribute to the article: (step 1) pick a source: some article/paper/... that you've read about co-creation and that you thought was very useful/insightful/... (step 2) determine the definition: try to formulate what the source thinks "co-creation" means exactly (step 3) summarise what the source has taught you: write a few sentences - not too much - in which you reformulate the information that is in the source - don't quote, put it into your own words (step 4) if you think it is important to know what definition your source uses in order to understand what it's saying, then add a short bit about how they think of co-creation to your text (step 5) find a section where it fits - or just make a new section if there isn't one -, put your text in there, hit "publish changes", summarise your edit and don't look back. If you do it like this, I think you will greatly improve the article, and I would very much appreciate it. PJvanMill (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@HannuLR: And one important step that I forgot, somewhere in the middle of step 5: don't forget to reference the source with an inline citation! PJvanMill (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Tansegrity

Hi PJvanMill I have left a question for you on the co-creation talk page. If you could let me know why you removed additions I made to this page it would be much appreciated. Thank you, Tansegrity (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Tansegrity

Hey Tansegrity, I've replied over at the talk page of Co-creation. Two other little things: (1) you don't have to put your name after the ~~~~ (2) please make a new section when you start a new conversation on someone's talk page. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you PJvanMill very much. I will check out your comments and appreciate you getting back to me so promptly. Also thank you for the advice and guidance about using wiki, much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.127.211 (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of New York City Ballet 2012 repertory

Having closed this discussion as delete as to all nominated articles, I could use some help removing links to these articles from other articles. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@BD2412 I've removed the now empty template in a bunch of places. Also, it turns out I missed one: list of New York City Ballet repertory. This should be deleted, too. Unsure whether to do those with PROD or AfD. Thoughts? Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I had assumed that one was skipped intentionally, as it is less trivial than the season-by-season lists. BD2412 T 15:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@BD2412 The basis for deletion was not necessarily how trivial they were, but more that WP does not need a list of ballets that this group has performed in the first place. I do think this one falls under NOTDIR as well. I suppose I'll have to do another AfD. For the other one, I'm thinking of a merge discussion...? Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

PS: Also not sure it is less trivial: the scope encompasses all of the seasonal ones, yet there are more non-notable entries than I remember seeing in those. PJvanMill (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Articels

Hello, could you maybe give me any Wikipedia-articel to create? I am not able to decide. It is too much. Thank you, Daniton999 Talk 12:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey Daniton999. Creating new articles is quite difficult and is not recommended for newcomers. You should probably first do more work on existing articles. PJvanMill (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you PJvanMill, but I allready created some Articels in another Wikipedia.
Any idea, what to create?Daniton999 Talk 12:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey Daniton999. Not all Wikipedias work the same. On the English one, there is for example a very big emphasis on citations. So I really do recommend you get some more experience working on English-language Wikipedia articles. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey PjvanMill, the german Wikipedia is working as the same. --Daniton999 Talk 12:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniton999 (talk • contribs)

Okay, but there is also the fact that there already are a lot of articles on the English one, so it might be difficult to find a topic that you're interested in that doesn't have an article yet.

Why do you want to create new articles, by the way? Is there a reason that you don't want to work on existing articles? Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

PS: Your signature should probably use a wikilink to your user page instead of an external link

It is so, that I don't want to create articels which are allready created. --Daniton999 Talk 12:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I change it --Daniton999 Talk 12:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniton999 (talk • contribs)

When you contest your own PROD

Can I Log In has given you a WikiTrout! Trouts promote WikiFun and hopefully this one has made your day more fun. Spread the WikiFun by giving someone else a trout, especially when they are doing something silly. Happy slapping! You contested your own PROD on Christoph Wulf.

Spread the fun of trouts by adding {{subst:Troutalt}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

{{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 16:03, June 26, 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Frisia

Hi, noticing your edit, I wonder, because here it reads: ...is a contemporary region ... Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Lotje. West-Friesland is not one of the twelve provinces of the Netherlands - it's contained in the province Noord-Holland. I also don't think there is an extra layer of government there inbetween the province and the municipalities (there is no description of such in the article). I think most of what makes it a distinct region is the dialect, and simply the fact that people still consider it a region. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 14:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

AfD

Dear PJvanMill,

Can you let me know in normal language what is wrong with this Wikipedia entry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Technische_Hochschule_Ingolstadt_(2nd_nomination)

I am keen to make any changes you want me to, but don't remove the page please.

Many Thanks, Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.26.144.28 (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear Peter, the reason I nominated it for deletion is that I think it fails the English Wikipedia's general notability guideline (GNG) - read that for the details. The only thing you can really do to improve the article's chances is to find good sources, which would change the GNG evaluation. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 11:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your edits! Avishai11 (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Avishai11, I do not know what I've done to deserve such praise from a brand-new account, but thank you none the less. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 17:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

a message for a possible frind

	a message for a possible frind
	not trying 2 be rude im genuinely asking you? why do you keep taking down my entries shouldnt their pages contain what pop culture has made them into or what locals have said about their storires? Mr kindheart (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Mr kindheart I removed the content that you added because you did not cite a source. On the English Wikipedia, it is basically a rule that everything needs to come from reliable sources, this is called the verifiability policy. For a tutorial on how to cite sources, click here. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 12:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

PS: That tutorial is for if you are using the visual editor (VE). If you are editing the source with the text editor, click here instead. PJvanMill)talk( 12:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

dear pvanmill mr kind heart here what if the sources i have are from copy righted sources (which go against the rules) and videos on youtube which are also copy righted and what if they are like ive mentioned unprven sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr kindheart (talk • contribs) 03:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

mr kindheart what if the sources i have are from copy righted sources (which go against the rules) - that is a misunderstanding. Copyrighted sources are allowed. What matters is that the sources you cite are "reliable" (explained in the tutorial here). Unfortunately for you, YouTube videos are usually not considered reliable. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 19:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

mr kindheart, did you go through the tutorial I linked to above? From your edits, it looks like you did not. Please go through the tutorial, it explains how to cite a source properly. I will link to it again: Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup. The tutorial has multiple sections - you can go to the next section by clicking "next" or clicking on the title of the section. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 20:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

yeah i did oh crap did i forget something??????????????????????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr kindheart (talk • contribs) 06:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@mr kindheart Oh, so you did do it? The reason I thought you didn't is that you were trying to cite a source at the article Ixtab and it wasn't going so well. From your edits there, I think you are using the wikitext editor. So let me try to explain how to cite a source. If you are editing an article and you write this:

According to John Doe from Example.com, Alice and Bob had a party celebrating Bob's birthday on 12 September 2009.<ref>Doe, J. (2009). ''[https://example.com/alice-bob-party Alice and Bob are having a party]''. Example.com.</ref>

what you get is this:

According to John Doe from Example.com, Alice and Bob had a party celebrating Bob's birthday on 12 September 2009.

So basically, in the wikitext editor you put the source immediately after the sentence that it supports, with ref tags around it. You can also use the {{cite}} template inside the ref tags (click on that link for information on how to use it). Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 14:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

References

LJoS again

Sorry, PJvanMill, but there's some things need reverting and I'm not likely to have time in the near future. HLHJ (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks HLHJ, though only one new edit to inspect this time. PJvanMill)talk( 17:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry! Thought it was more. It would have been faster for me to just fix the one. Fixed one more and mentioned count to Masem. About the paint, I have no knowledge of the topic, are we sure this is verifiable? HLHJ (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

HLHJ, per WP:PRIMARY the work itself is usually good enough as the source for a plot summary: A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. So yes, I think it is verifiable. I think he's watched the movie, but what he wrote does not really convey understanding, so either we should try to get clarification from him, or watch the scene ourselves. Either way, we should probably make a citation with the timecode he mentioned. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 14:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, but I fear that the editor may be sufficiently confused as to the purpose of Wikipedia that watching the movie might fail to verify it. He seems to want to add specific stories to WP, possibly as a joke, and seems to be engaging in citogenesis. HLHJ (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

HLHJ watching the movie might fail to verify it the timecode in the edit summary makes me believe otherwise. I also don't think his edits are meant as a joke, I think he really does want to contribute, but cannot currently assess whether an edit would be valuable or unhelpful. And I don't see how he can be engaging in citogenesis unless he is an author of sources that Wikipedia uses...? Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 16:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have backed that up. Writing a source and then citing it on Wikipedia is indeed what it looks as if he has done. The refusal to use learning resources makes it very difficult for him to contribute, and takes a lot of other editors' time. HLHJ (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@HLHJ Yeah, later I saw that edit and understood what you meant. My understanding of citogenesis was that it refers to reliable sources in particular (or considered reliable, at least) taking facts from Wikipedia, so that's why I was confused. The fact that the Wikia edits were made at the same time as the first Wikipedia edit that introduced this content basically proves your suspicion as far as I can see. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 11:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not surprised I was incomprehensible, I expressed myself very sloppily. Apologies. HLHJ (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

HLHJ, no worries, as long as we end up understanding each other :). Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 13:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup page

I haven't worked there before; it was the note of Joanne Wilson that brought me there. Should I be striking when I mark done? I usually work directly from the AfCs, and my own list of problems, but this seems a good supplementary way, and I'll look inrom time to time. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, DGG. Striking when marking as done is the custom, yes. Great to hear that we can expect to see you there sometimes. By the way, did you know you are already on the member list? The 17^th surviving member, in fact! Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 12:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Secretlab

I had earlier posted to DGG's talk page and he had advised mentioning the company's name less, so I went ahead to make that change and thought that was case closed—since he did not explicitly raise other issues—hence the removal of the tag. I believe in fixing things instead of just placing tags, so I kindly seek your help in correcting whatever feels promotional to you. As I am the main contributor to the article and am sadly blind to my shortcomings (in this case at least—I can't see what needs to be fixed). Moreover, I am of the opinion that all the sources consulted are reliable ones, and I don't see why there must be "negative" bits. Do you necessarily expect to find negative reviews of a restaurant with 3 Michelin stars or ranked among the world's top 10, for example? Kingoflettuce (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not like I didn't do my due diligence in trying to look for "negative" coverage to make the article more "balanced", but I couldn't find any (that were RS). You are more than welcome to add any that you might have come across. Kingoflettuce (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I also have to ask—since we seem to be in the business of digging through contribution histories—why the particular interest in this article?! I've written a hundred over articles: would you care to take a look at the others? I can think of one other instance, where similarly some user waxed lyrical about it sounding too promotional, and it did get speedied, but pretty much the same thing got recreated and featured on DYK. Kingoflettuce (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Kingoflettuce. So first about the tag removal: I had not seen that discussion on DGG's TP, so now I understand a little better... however, the tag was about something very different from too many mentions of the company's name, so that could have been an indication to you that DGG didn't think that was all that was wrong with it and did indeed think the tag to be appropriate. He also said he was leav[ing] the article to those who may be more interested, which I would interpret as interested in fixing the problem indicated by the tag he left on it.

I'm going to post a follow-up about what I think is wrong with the article in a moment, but for now could you please stop adding new paragraphs in follow-up edits? It makes it hard to reply to. Please give me a bit of time, I don't write as fast as you. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 18:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

No worries, those were just afterthoughts. I'd really appreciate if you'd just directly trim whatever you feel is wrong with the article. Kingoflettuce (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

(Last afterthought, I promise!) Also, what the tag sdems to suggest is that the sources aren't RS, which I very much disagree with. Kingoflettuce (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kingoflettuce So, now about the article: the issue I see is basically one of independence. None of the sources are sponsored as far as I've seen, but many of them are routine coverage of announcements, likely largely based on press releases. Articles largely based on press releases are one example listed at WP:Notability (organizations and companies)#Examples of dependent coverage; they might be independent in the sense of not sponsored, but they are not very intellectually independent. Dependence negatively affects the source's reliability evaluation also. Some other sources are interviews - obviously, content that comes from the mouth of the company's CEO is also not intellectually independent. My remark about all the sources being positive was not meant to say that that itself is a problem; I just thought it was another indicator that some of the sources were not very intellectually independent. When a source goes out of its way to describe a company in a positive light, I get the idea that it's not very thorough journalism.

Now, this does not necessarily mean such sources cannot be used at all. It's just that we should be careful with what we take from them - for extraordinary claims, something the person says in an interview is not sufficient, and more relevant in this case: not all announcements that get routine press coverage should make it into the article.

So, two concrete examples of how I think this goes wrong in the current article: (1) the "Partners" section is entirely based on coverage of announcements, and some of this seems hardly relevant: what is the relevance to the reader of an endorsement deal with a footballer? Just because Secretlab announced this and it got some press coverage (almost all corporate announcements get some press coverage), it should not necessarily make it into the WP article. (2) the "one million chairs" fact, which is also in the lead section. Again, it does not seem very relevant to the reader, it sounds like something that would come from public relations, and the source is mostly interview and part nice-sounding statistics, with hardly any independent analysis. To have it in the lead seems rather non-neutral to me.

My analysis is subjective, of course, but I think most would agree that the quality of the sourcing is not that good. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 19:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

PS: excuse the length.

Well, I've tried to model the article after other preexisting corporation articles, and frankly I still can't see a significant difference so a) I don't see why the company's partnerships wouldn't or shouldn't be relevant to the reader--see Nike, Inc.#Sponsorships for instance b) I took reference from the Good Article Tesla, Inc and how it highlighted the firm's one million electric car sales based on this source that is in turn not even based on an interview but a single tweet by the CEO. I think by your metrics that source would similarly lack thoroughness and "intellectual dependence". While you may disagree with the inclusion of these items and find them irrelevant/uninteresting, I don't think you can speak on behalf of "the reader"--it's a tad presumptuous. At the same time, like I've said, you're more than welcome to make any changes to the article that you may like--if you think the sourcing sucks, find better sources, I haven't been able to and I'm making do with what I can find. But don't just slap a tag and call it a day. I'm curious exactly WHAT to you qualifies as "relevant to the reader"... Be my guest, make all the changes you need and please remove the tag while you're at it Kingoflettuce (talk) 08:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@user:Kingoflettuce About "the reader": of course that's part subjective (what I expect as a reader), but I'm also trying to go by A Wikipedia article should [be] a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject (from here), and some other parts of WP:NOT, where it stresses the importance of context. The reason the Dele Alli sentence looks bad to me is this: instead of a broad description of the company's marketing practices, we have a description of one isolated instance of influencer marketing, with also no indication of why it is relevant. Other parts of the article are also stringed together from specific facts, but they give more of a general idea. Ultimately, though, what is "useful to the reader" is determined by consensus.

About the million chairs in the lead: per the relevant part of WP's manual of style, the lead should be a summary of the body. The lead is currently very short, and comparing the lead to the body, the inclusion of that particular statistic stands out as specific and flattering. In a larger lead, it might be appropriate, but in the current lead including that over something more general or informative is non-neutral in my opinion.

About the sourcing: WP:NOTNEWS says that routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia, and in general for determining what to include we should look to sources with mostly independent analysis over routine coverage. That's why I do think it's a problem if most of the sources are short coverage of announcements. Luckily, for this article I see there are also some sources that are more in-depth - I just think they are under-used currently, we should be looking more to those sources for what is WP:DUE.

Anyway, I will not slap a tag and call it a day. Today and over the next few days, I'm planning to make basically the changes I outlined above - contextualise or remove the Dele Alli sentence, make the lead a bit more balanced (possibly expanding it) and make less use of routine news coverage and more of in-depth sources (by the way, I was able to find something semi-negative, as is honestly to be expected - something in the source "Lunch with Sumiko" about "peeling"). After such editing, I think the article will be basically fine. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 15:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Understand if you might be busy, and appreciate the changes you've made so far, but is the issue solved or do you intend on making any more changes? :) Kingoflettuce (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

user:Kingoflettuce I do, I've been meaning to get to it. Real life has been getting in the way a bit, sorry. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 16:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Sir Thursday

Hi, yes, that works. It's how you say it. Try reading it out loud. No one would say "the the". Neils51 (talk) 11:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Neils51 I would actually say 'the the' but with a slight pause between them: 'the first book in the - short pause - "The keys to the kingdom" series'. I think it might be a bit confusing when one reads it the first time, but at second glance it makes sense; I don't think it is necessarily a problem. Anyway, just removing the first one isn't a correct solution. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 11:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The Jones (third baseman) AfD

I recently came across this AfD while looking through the athlete deletion sorting archives, and wanted to note both my appreciation for your patient explanation of how GNG supersedes NSPORT, and mention for future reference—when encountering another editor invoking WP:N's ambiguous "GNG or SNG" statement– that there is even more explicit guidance on this in the FAQs collapsed at the top of NSPORT (part of which was also quoted by Hut 8.5):

Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?
A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability.

Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline?
A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.)

Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met?
A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. This sentence is just emphasizing that the article must always cite reliable sources to support a claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline.

Anyway, it was encouraging to see there are newer editors who understand the intent and consensus interpretation of a nuanced guideline that so frequently trips up even admins. Regards! JoelleJay (talk) 06:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello JoelleJay, and thanks! If I'm understanding correctly, this FAQ is not itself policy or guideline, so it's not really 'evidence' on its own, but it provides evidence - the old discussions it cites are definitely strong evidence that the principle of "normal SNGs are subordinate to the GNG" enjoys historical consensus. Just now I've also noticed that it is also stated reasonably explicitly in the section "Applicable policies and guidelines", which I had previously read over: In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline.

On the other hand, I feel quite discouraged looking at the Jones AfD... it seems so hard to change someone's mind once they've convinced themselves of the "a normal SNG can override the GNG" position. An endless loop of (1) the other gives an overinterpretation of one sentence in a guideline (2) I explain why that is a misinterpretation (3a) repeat from step 1 or (3b) the other resorts to simply restating their position, or "Any position can be argued", or "We'll just have to agree to disagree" or "why are you so eager to delete? Have some compassion with these poor little articles..." (4) I try to get them to look at the actual arguments and counterarguments that have been made (5) repeat from step 1 or 3b. I'm very tired of this pattern in AfD discussions. I wish we could just end this debate once and for all. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 15:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

My interpretation is that the FAQs are considered a part of the guideline, since they are transcluded in the NSPORT page and required consensus on the NSPORT talk page to introduce. I see them as similar to "in a nutshell". The "Applicable policies and guidelines" section is definitely a valuable reference as well, and probably more persuasive than the FAQs since those are not easily visible.

It's definitely discouraging to see so many editors pulling "but the second sentence of NSPORT!" and WP:N arguments, but fortunately more and more admins are recognizing GNG trumps NSPORT and disregarding the "keep meets NFOOTY" etc. !votes (as we see with the Jones close). In routine athlete AfDs it's usually the same 3 to 5 editors making these claims with zero further reasoning provided, so closers rightfully give them very little weight. Those guys will always !vote that way because they refuse to recognize the guideline; it's the editors who cite sports SNGs in good faith who are more likely to come around to thoughtful explanations of the guideline. See the comment by the editor after the first relist in this AfD as an example of someone who seems receptive to feedback (the closing statement is also very auspicious).

I agree it would be ideal to settle all this more concretely, with clarifications at both N and NSPORT, but I think building up good precedent at AfDs first is the best way to ensure any future RfC on the matter will be based on both guidelines and practice. JoelleJay (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@ user:JoelleJay and required consensus on the NSPORT talk page to introduce Ah, I see, I had not realised there had been a formal discussion about this on the talkpage... though I'm somewhat uncertain if the consensus on the talk page would be enough to make it part of the guideline...? Maybe the right term is "explanatory supplement"? I'm not sure.

Thank you again for your thoughts, it does now seem to me like this conflict might at least be inching closer to a resolution. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 21:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Cont. from WT:WikiProject Wikiquote

Re: Special:DIff/1059501438

Honestly, I'll just go with how you do it. WikiProjects created via WP:COUNCIL/P are so rare anyways that I doubt the issue will ever come up again within the next few years. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@MJL I see. To discuss this more broadly was just a suggestion; you're right that proposals aren't that frequent to begin with. I was thinking such a discussion could lead to more specific guidance for future closers, but it isn't a must, as it's ultimately not that important an issue. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 21:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for citing "AML, least effective policy experiment?" on the FATF page. If it's of any interest, one and possibly two other papers in the series of five related papers on AML effectiveness is directly relevant to the way you've framed the new paragraph. Also, if you wish to mention some of the harms caused by the FATF system, a recent UN paper addresses many of the harms well. (Arguably, the UN's proposed solutions may not mitigate the harms as much as they hope, but the UN paper is, I think, a valuable contribution. Not least because critical, evidence-based expressions of the impact, costs, and harms occasioned by the FATF model remain surprisingly rare. Even more so from insiders like the UN, with much of the leading constructive critical analysis still delivered by independent academics. For example, on a specific, and significant, harm - financial exclusion triggered by FATF rules - Prof Louis de Koker is one of the leading authorities, with various papers readily available if they're of interest (in academic journals and in The Conversation). Including an editorial if I recall in the Jnl of Money Laundering Control specifically noting FATF's delays even acknowledging the problem. Beyond FATF's impact, etc, if the page itself is of interest to you, the reference to David Lewis as Exec Director might also be updated. He resigned effective December 2021, new appointment pending. In any event, kind regards

RFP001 (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, RFP001. My involvement with this article is mostly as a random person who read some interesting research and went to see whether that was reflected in the article. The only further work I see myself doing on it, at least any time soon, is making the lead section reflect the body better.

Normally, I would recommend you to try and make changes yourself, and see what sticks (it's hard for me to estimate how much would). If you are the author in question (as I suspect given your username and your comment - no need to confirm or deny this), it would be allowed to cite your own work within reason according to Wikipedia: Conflict of interest #Citing yourself, but you'd want to read the guidance over there and also consider how you'd want to use a WP account tied to your real-life identity.

The update about David Lewis is an edit I definitely encourage you to make, if you can cite a source for this information. The editing how-to should go a long way, and you could direct any questions you might have to me or, for example, the Teahouse.

If you don't decide to edit the article, that is of course perfectly fine. Future editors will see the paragraph that I added and discover more sources from there that they may want to cite, and eventually the article will contain as much content about these concerns as is deemed appropriate. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 00:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Small note

Hi PJvanMill. Thank you for the reasonable discussion at TLC's RfA. I wanted to leave a brief note on your talk page about something unrelated. Improving the accessibility of Wikipedia is one of my top areas of interest, and I noticed that you were using ''double apostrophes'' to indicate emphasis, whereas these should only be used to italicize in situations other than emphasis, for example, titles of works such as The New York Times. This can become a concern for readers using assistive technology and for those with custom style sheets that handle emphasis differently. Would you please consider reading the relevant guidelines and switching to using <em>...</em> or {{em|...}} (I use the latter)? Please also spread the word if you see others doing this! Warm regards, AlexEng^(TALK) 20:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey AlexEng. Thanks for bringing this up... I'm trying to understand what the actual effect of these two options are for someone using a screen reader. From WP:NOSTRIKE and MOS:DEVIATIONS, I am inferring that screen readers are unlikely to act on semantic attributes (that would be the em HTML tag or the {{em}} template, I figure) and even less likely to act on purely presentational/typographical attributes (so that would be the double-apostrophe markup). This makes a lot of sense to me, because I doubt the average user of a screen reader wants to hear "... the guidelines do start emphasis allow end emphasis just removing..." instead of simply "... the guidelines do allow just removing...".

Thinking about it, I actually see my use of italics as more presentational than semantic. I don't intend for it to carry meaning, I just want it to make it slightly easier for others to follow the flow of my sentence. If I use italics in a semantically relevant way, that is if the meaning of my sentence would become unclear without the italics, then I would consider this as a failure of mine to write a clear sentence. So really what I want is to write such that it's fine if the screen reader ignores the italics, and where doing something with it would likely just annoy the listener.

So in this particular case I conclude that there is little difference, and that the apostrophe markup may actually suit my use better. Nevertheless, thank you for bringing this here, as in the process I've been reminded that strikethrough is normally ignored by screen readers as well, and I've realised that my use of {{hatnote}} at user:PJvanMill/work is probably misguided. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 22:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey, PJvanMill. I didn't expect any pushback on this. I'd be happy to give you some more technical details to help clarify. For reference, I am a software engineer, and I have worked in the area of software accessibility for a leading corporation in this field in the past. You seem to have correctly identified that italics and emphasis are two different things. Emphasis is intended to carry meaning and is indicated by the <em>...</em> tag. Italics are used to make text look a specific way and are indicated by the <i>...</i> tag; using double apostrophes results in the latter. The fact that emphasis just happens to look like italics in your browser is coincidental and is a sighted convention, but not guaranteed for all readers. A person with dyslexia may be using a font that doesn't support italics, or they may have custom CSS to make the text look more readable to them. A person with visual impairment may have a screen reader such as JAWS that changes pitch when it traverses an emphasized word. The Web Design Group has clarified the difference between structural and presentation elements. I encourage you to read that. This is further clarified (and directly referenced) in the W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, which Wikipedia respects per WP:ACCESSIBILITY and per the WMF's endorsement in the linked nondiscrimination resolution. I would gently request that you consider using the proper tags to avoid inadvertently discriminating against visually impaired users by unintentionally concealing semantically relevant information from them. See also the previous HTML spec for some historical context on the reasoning: The presentation of phrase elements depends on the user agent. Generally, visual user agents present EM text in italics and STRONG text in bold font. Speech synthesizer user agents may change the synthesis parameters, such as volume, pitch and rate accordingly. It's typically unlikely, in assistive technologies, for the word "emphasis" to be read aloud as if it were part of the text, as you seemed to imply above. You needn't worry that switching to the proper tag might break up the flow of the text and annoy the listener. WebAIM adds: All screen readers share similar functionality and capabilities. However, keyboard shortcuts, voices, and ways of calling out links, images, and so on, vary between them. Since users will be accustomed to their preferred screen reader’s conventions, these differences don’t typically impact coding practices. The key is to adhere to accessibility standards and generally-accepted accessibility techniques. One final point: I suspect that you may not be fully aware of what semantic information may be indicated by your use of italics rather than emphasis, and I would urge you to read a bit about it if you are curious. When you italicize something, you are probably doing so for emphasis; the specific exceptions each have a heading under MOS:ITALICS, e.g. "names and titles", "words as words", etc. Please let me know if you have any questions! AlexEng^(TALK) 23:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@AlexEng A few considerations.

First of all, thank you for the correction. It was a bit silly of me to assume this would be implemented with begin / end announcements. In my haste, I was basing myself on what I've read about the accessibility of wikitext indentation markup. In hindsight, it seems obvious that a screen reader would use volume, speed or pitch if it acts on the em tag.

But how common is it for a screen reader to act on this tag? Here I come back to what I read at MOS:NOSTRIKE: By default, most screen readers do not indicate presentational text attributes [...] or even semantic text attributes. My take-away from this is that it's much more important to make sure that one's text "degrades gracefully" if such attributes are ignored, than it is to distinguish between presentational and semantic attributes. That means one's use of such attributes should never actually carry meaning, should never really be semantic. The surest way to avoid inadvertently discriminating against visually impaired users by unintentionally concealing semantically relevant information from them is to never use any such markup in a meaning-altering way. That is really what I've learned from this interaction and what I will be paying proper attention to from now on.

Let me clarify here that I consider "semantic" to mean that it actually impacts the meaning of the text. If visual emphasis is considered always semantic and never presentational, I think that stretches the meaning of "semantic".

In fact, I'm going to go one step further and say that the best thing for me to do is to never use either the em tag or the apostrophe markup for visual emphasis - that way I can be sure to never use them in a meaning-changing way, which would be inaccessible and also just bad writing. As a general principle, I think simplicity of mechanism is usually the best way to achieve accessibility. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 16:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

PS: This means I don't really see a problem with gracefully-degrading use of the apostrophe markup, and I do see a problem with non-gracefully-degrading use of the em tag.

Sure, that makes sense too. Sometimes it is easier to emphasize specific words or phrases in order to avoid ambiguity or to transmit a specific meaning to the reader. Consider this example without emphasis:

There are many respected and trusted accessibility resources that advise against the use of blocks of italic text.

The reader is left to infer that the use of italics is undesirable. Now, consider it with emphasis:

There are many respected and trusted accessibility resources that advise against the use of blocks of italic text.

Now the reader can infer that although the use of blocks of italics is inadvisable, the author is deliberately making no statement about the use of italics in more limited cases. Sure, you could restructure and reword this sentence to avoid needing to emphasize anything, but some writers/editors prefer not to have to jump through hoops to make their writing accessible. Ultimately, it's up to you, but I am happy to hear that you got something positive out of our chat. To answer your question, very many screen readers have a setting to convey em and strong tags, but very few of them have it enabled by default. AlexEng^(TALK) 03:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@AlexEng Excuse this rather late reply, I dropped off WP for a while there. I think the example you provide is pretty interesting. It is not strictly ambiguous, and in context it would likely be understood as intended. As a standalone sentence, it's easy to over-interpret, though this could be remedied by for example saying "entire blocks", a sort of emphasis with an extra word. I talked about "degrading gracefully", but this example makes clear that that is not quite a matter of only "yes" or "no", and that it can also depend on context.

That the functionality is widely supported but typically off by default is how I had understood it. For most software, though, many users do not change the defaults - and I also wonder if there are potential downsides to this functionality, why it would be off by default. This suggests to me that I should expect some fraction of people reading what I write to be using a screen reader with this setting turned off, and that to make my writing accessible to those people I should not truly rely on the assumption that em tags will have an effect. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 14:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)