User talk:Uhai/Archives/October 2022

Weldon and Wilkinson Ltd

I see you propose to delete the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weldon_%26_Wilkinson_Ltd as you left a message that you cannot find anything about this company on the internet. It closed in 1982 and in the 1970 employed around 700 people, so as a major employer at time, I thought it might be of interest for families doing family research if they worked there. There is a reference to the company here on the internet http://www.nottshistory.org.uk/monographs/nottingham1927/nottingham17.htm if you scroll down that page you will see the company did exist. I updated the page recently as my father passed away and I found some more information that might be on interest. Let me know what I am doing wrong and I can correct it. Thanks again for your assistance. Weldora (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Weldora: Unfortunately I am concerned that the article doesn't meet the criteria of the WP:GNG. I have no doubt the company existed, but I am concerned about the existence of reliable sources that show the company is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. There being no sources in the article itself is a big problem, but fixable if there are sources that do exist somewhere, even if they're not online. Do you have sources (even old newspaper articles, books, etc.) that support the information about the company during World War II or the fires that the company experienced?

Please note you are allowed to delete the proposed deletion tag from the page if you disagree with it, however the article would still be eligible for the articles for deletion process where the community decides whether to keep or delete it. Uhai (talk · contribs) 22:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Appropriate External Links

Hi, Uhai. I'm all quite new to this but could you explain why the link to the YouTube video on the 'videogamedunkey' wiki is inappropriate? The video is a biography about Dunkey which readers could watch if they wished to learn more about him. ChroniclerSprite (talk) 10:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@ChroniclerSprite: Hello, please see WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOLINK#In the External links section of an article. The link bot's reversion of your edit was not a false positive and itself shouldn't have been reverted. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Uhai (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate the response! From my understanding, the video appears under Fair use as the footage used was for historical purposes. ChroniclerSprite (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@ChroniclerSprite: My concern with the link was less about copyright but more about adherence to the first item of WP:LINKSTOAVOID. We don't link to resources in the external links section that contain information that already is or should be in the article, with the exception of official pages of the article's subject. For example, a link to Dunkey's YouTube channel would be acceptable. If the YouTube video in question contains facts that are not currently present in the article, it's better to find reliable sources that support these facts and add them into the article directly. Please note that YouTube videos themselves are not reliable sources because they are user generated content. Uhai (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks for sharing your thoughts. What about adherence to the third item of WP:What can normally be linked? The YouTube video in question links to a site that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail, and other reasons.

The video is a reliable source that supports the facts not currently present in the article and it is based on reliable, publishable, primary sources and quotations making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered. ChroniclerSprite (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@ChroniclerSprite: YouTube videos are not reliable sources except in cases where the uploader is a verified account and reputable organization, per WP:RSPYT. The video in question doesn't meet these standards so it is not reliable. If the video itself is derived from sources that meet the criteria of being reliable, then these sources should be directly used to support the missing content from the article. However, looking through the provided Google Doc, it looks like most, if not all, of the sources are just other YouTube videos or other unreliable user-generated content such as Discord or Twitter.

Really, anything that calls itself "fan made" or is considered as such is not going to be acceptable for inclusion into Wikipedia, including things such as fansites. I don't consider copyright to be an issue here, just that the video's inclusion, whether as an external link or as a reference, is contrary to Wikipedia's policy.

The third item of WP:ELYES doesn't apply here because the video does not meet the criteria of being a reliable source and therefore cannot be considered to be neutral or accurate. Uhai (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Surely we can agree that a video's reliability is based on the sources used rather than the platform in which it was uploaded?

As I am sure you are well aware, the video is a documentary about an online figure, and thus the citations you have found are in fact (to a large extent) YouTube videos created by the online figure himself or his colleagues discussing his own life. I can assure you there are zero citations that used Discord as information, and the Twitter sources you had found are likely Tweets from Dunkey.

If you had discovered an inaccuracy in the video then I'd greatly appreciate if you could share and advise on how to avoid such inaccuracies again. ChroniclerSprite (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@ChroniclerSprite: I wouldn't agree that its reliability is based on the sources used alone as sources can be interpreted in various ways and bias can be introduced even if done unaware. Additionally, even the selection of sources (e.g. someone deliberately or unknowingly only choosing to use positive or negative sources) can be problematic. This can even be an issue with Wikipedia articles and is part of the reason why Wikipedia articles themselves are not considered reliable sources for use as references on other articles.

The sources being primarily Tweets or YouTube videos made by the subject himself or his colleagues is a whole different can of worms, as they would not be considered independent sources.

I know you disagree with me, but unfortunately there's no way under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that the video can be added to the article. If you'd like a second opinion, you can ask at the Teahouse otherwise I'm willing to answer further questions you have as well. Uhai (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

May I ask if you can provide evidence of information that has been interpreted incorrectly and/or bias that has been introduced?

I encourage you to see that the Tweets or YouTube videos made by the subject himself, or his colleagues within the video, are not independent sources but primary sources. They are videos of Dunkey talking about his life to his audience or to his colleagues.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that the video has been deemed inappropriate simply because of surface-level appearances, such is it being from YouTube and for its title being 'Fanmade', rather than there being actual inaccuracies or misleading content within said video. ChroniclerSprite (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@ChroniclerSprite: You are indeed correct that the video is being judged based on the fact it's from YouTube. The content of the video is irrelevant as the inclusion of YouTube videos in general, excluding the exceptions that I mentioned, as external links or references is against Wikipedia's policies. I was explaining to you why these policies exist and how they combat the addition of potentially unverifiable or biased content without commenting on the video itself. I didn't even watch the video to judge its quality as videos are not reviewed on a case-by-case basis for their content. If they were, it would be a monumental effort, hence the existence of such blanket policies. Uhai (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Can a YouTube video be linked if it provides a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article (Links normally to be avoided)? How may I prove to you that it is?

I strongly urge you to watch the video as then you will see it contains neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail and other reasons. How may I convey this without the video?

According to these two wikis here and here, video links ought to be considered on a case-by-case basis and I can assure you this link is a reliable source based on its content being not misleading, relying on primary sources, quotations, zero contentious material and offers a balanced biography of Dunkey's life to the best of the uploader's abilities.

I would consider the uploader a Subject-matter expert given the extensive research but this can only be demonstrated if you were to watch the video. I appreciate the uploader does not have years of professional experience with the subject but I don't see how that would be possible. ChroniclerSprite (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@ChroniclerSprite: The video does not serve as a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it was featured. The video is a biography so any verifiable content in it that is currently missing from the article would be expected to be in the article if it were featured.

Wikipedia:Video links, as you referenced, states that when using the video as a source to support article content, then you must establish that the uploader and the video meet the standards for a reliable source. The video uploader does not meet these standards and is not considered an established subject-matter expert under Wikipedia policy because their work has not previously been published by reliable, independent publications per WP:SPS.

Unfortunately, I cannot help you with this topic any more beyond what I've already stated. I recommend you ask at the Teahouse if you're still confused or would like input from someone else. Uhai (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate your patience. I only hoped I could have convinced you that I genuinely desired to improve the Wiki page. It's beyond me how someone can value a system that judges sources by their book covers only. Hope there's no hard feelings and take care, sir/madam. ChroniclerSprite (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

CSD tagging

Hello, Uhai,

Thank you for tagging these nonexistent user pages for deletion. How do you find them?! Or the G8 pages you tag, too! I'm really curious.

As you can see, often new editors move their drafts into User space or Wikipedia space by accident and moving it to Draft space is a better solution than deletion of the page. Thank you for all of your contributions to the project! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Liz:, for the user pages I've just been using a query I wrote (https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/68085) and manually going through the results to look for pages that need to be moved or speedy deleted. It's not particularly robust—it includes things it shouldn't like soft redirects of renamed users and excludes things it shouldn't like IP user pages that are eligible to be deleted. Also, I'm just looking in the user space right now instead of the user talk space also, although obviously this can be changed.

For orphaned talk pages, I periodically query https://orphantalk.toolforge.org/ and look for pages that I know aren't G8 exempt in the result (there's 41 exempt in total), as unfortunately the tool cannot filter out such pages.

I'm working on my own tool right now that will serve as a robust way to search for misplaced user pages and also serve as a more functional successor to OrphanTalk, in addition to other functionality. Uhai (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Article redirect makes editing impossible

The article "Pratt Center for Community Development" has been redirected to "Pratt Institute." I am unable to make changes to the original article (to add sourcing information) until the page has been restored. Bdodd-Prattcenter (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Bdodd-Prattcenter: Thank you for your paid disclosure. Are you trying to edit Pratt Institute or create a dedicated article for Pratt Center for Community Development? If it's the latter, I recommend you go through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process as you will be able to draft the article at your leisure without worrying about your edits being reverted or deleted. I've posted a welcome message to your talk page with additional resources to help you. Please let me know if you have any questions or feel free to ask at the Teahouse. Uhai (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

"Pratt Center for Community Development" had a dedicated article up until a month ago. Granted, it had been flagged for several issues and we were aware of the problems that needed to be addressed. But it seems that in September, another editor made the decision to redirect all references to that page to that of our parent institution (Pratt Institute). So the original article is now gone from public view, and I felt that decision was unwarranted, and was trying to restore the article so we could make the necessary changes. Bdodd-Prattcenter (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@Bdodd-Prattcenter: Looking at the page history, the article definitely did have some issues (mainly that it had no references and appeared promotional) so I would venture to say the change to a redirect was warranted. That being said, because of Wikipedia's relatively strict standards for articles in the mainspace and the ease in which they can be deleted for issues such as notibility or appearing promotional, I would recommend that you draft the article via Wikipedia:Articles for creation so, upon review, it can be moved back in place of the redirect. In the case of paid contributions, I especially recommend this as the review process can help identify problems like neutrality issues and promotional-sounding prose that are incredibly difficult for even experienced editors to avoid when they are paid or otherwise have a conflict of interest.

I'd also like to note that COI editing, including paid editing, is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia though not expressly prohibited as long as it's disclosed. Because of this, I would also urge you to consider restricting your contributions to articles relating to your employer to edit requests only.

Also pinging @Discospinster: for any opinion you may have on the matter since you are the one who changed Pratt Center for Community Development to a redirect. Uhai (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

It was basically an advertisement, not to mention unreferenced, and so information about it would be better placed in the parent article. ... discospinster _talk 21:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)