User talk:Onel5969/sandbox8

WP:ACADEMIC #3

Hey Onel5969. Hope you're doing well. Draft:Jef Van den Eynde. Does a Johns Hopkins School of Medicine research fellow pass WP:ACADEMIC #3? The bullet says "fellows of major scholarly societies", but leaves some room for interpretation. Are there any more examples that come to mind? Thanks for your help. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, I would say no. Not sure that JHSM qualifies as a major scholarly society. Prestigious, but that term usually refers to things like Geological Society of America, or American Society for Neurochemistry. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

NACADEMIC # of papers cited: How important is being first author?

Good morning my friend. What are your rules of thumb nowadays for NACADEMIC#1? Is it still "multiple papers with 200+ citations = pass, one paper with 100+ citations = maybe"? Also, there are sometimes tons of authors listed on these papers, do they have to be the "first author" for the purposes of using these rules of thumb? The article that made me think of these questions is Yuval Heled, Google Scholar. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, yeah, that's a good rule of thumb, but it's not absolute, as it also depends on the field of the academic. There have been several AfD's where the high citation count was in the 60s, but it was in a very specialized field. And yes, multiple authorships do matter. In this example I think the citation count on multiple articles is sufficient. Even more to the point, if they have a google scholar profile, you can also see the h-index. Anything over 30 will almost always pass an AfD. And many in the 20s will also. Below 20 it can be problematic, and below 10, they will almost certainly get deleted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Visual artists

Visual artist Marcelo Brodsky is likely notable. His authority control box is stuffed full of links, and his list of exhibitions is very long. First off, what's your workflow when you see an article like this? Do you do a google search to confirm notability, or go off the authority control box, or go off the exhibitions, or open some of the references, etc? Second, we've talked about visual artists before, and my notes say that they need two permanent notable collections to qualify under WP:NARTIST #4b. When presented with a list of exhibitions like in this article, what is the quickest way to evaluate which ones are "permanent"/which ones qualify? What does permanent mean exactly... does it refer to the permanence of the hosting or the permanence of the building/organization? Thanks my friend. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, you don't ask easy questions do you? - okay, my personal workflow is first, the references. Many times, and this article is no different, most of the references are from Primary sources (e.g. galleries, art exhibitions, interviews). Then I would open those references which appeared the most promising to be independent and in-depth. I opened 5, and there is a very nice article from The Nation, and coupled with the 3 paragraph piece from Artnet, and to me that is borderline notable. Since it's borderline GNG, then I would look to NARTIST. I would open the refs used to VERIFY the museum collections, and see if they mention whether or not they are part of the permanent collection. If they do, then he meets NARTIST. That being said, his list of exhibitions, even if they were simply solo temporary exhibitions, would warrant passing. But I opened two of the refs, and he's part of the permanent collections of NFAH and Tate, so that would qualify him. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Onel5969, sorry for the hard questions! The easy ones I figure out myself :) The hard ones, I take your answers and add them to my essays and the flowchart in my head, and calibrate, and become a little better each time. Just my personal opinion, but notability is both very complicated, and poorly documented. The notability guidelines are noisy, rambling jumbles of legalese that do not succinctly reflect the workflows of our experienced reviewers. I almost feel like I am having to reverse engineer a bunch of institutional memory. Please do let me know if my questions get too annoying and I'll dial it back. Thanks as always for your help. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, questions are rarely annoying. And I agree regarding notability criteria. In addition, AfD closers who simply count !votes (which you're not supposed to do) are highly annoying. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, couple more questions. 1) Could you elaborate on this point? That being said, his list of exhibitions, even if they were simply solo temporary exhibitions, would warrant passing. Under what circumstances does somebody pass NARTIST when their works aren't in a permanent collection? 2) How can you tell if a work is in the permanent collection? On these two pages I looked at, the word permanent doesn't appear. I guess just look at the museum website and make sure it's not traveling or temporary? 3) Does being in a museum's collection means the museum owns it, but not necessarily displays it? Here, for example, they have a ton of this artist's stuff in their collection. 4) Is copy pasting the list of their paintings from a website a copyright violation? Example. Proper nouns like this seem like a gray area to me. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Onel5969. Quick ping in case you didn't see this one. Thank you for your time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, regarding 1) - like other notability criteria, it's a judgement call. Some are easier than others. For example if an artist has had solo shows at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the National Gallery of Art, Museum of Modern Art, and Art Institute of Chicago, that would most likely pass through an AfD. (and I'm being very US-centric in those choices, obviously there are literally a couple of hundreds of art museums around the world which would qualify). Here in Phoenix, while the Heard Museum would probably qualify, the Scottsdale Museum of Contemporary Art probably would not. Also, these are solo exhibitions. If they were group exhibitions, it's much more problematic. Regarding 2) - the first link to the Tate, if his work is in their catalogue (and it's not a catalogue for a particular exhibition), then it's in their permanent collection. The MFAH is even more explicit, saying that it is part of the special collection, "Photographs by Latin American Artists". And since this artist's medium is photography, you can have the same work in multiple collections. Regarding 3) - yes, I don't know what the exact % is, but museums usually only have a small portion of their total collection on display at any one time. Regarding 4) - No, lists of works, be they art, bibliographies, etc. are not copyright infringement, because you can't paraphrase titles. And thanks for the ping, I did miss this. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's a switch - question for you!

Hi there. I never noticed this before, but in the NPP school exercises, during the tagging section it asks you to tag articles using the NPP tool. Were you able to use the tool prior to being approved for the NPP right? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

My, how the tables have turned :) Nope, no NPP toolbar until you get NPP perm. And I think NPP tagging is through the toolbar. I read and have heard stories that NPP tagging is glitchy, so I've never actually used it or even tried it, I always use Twinkle. In particular, someone said that tagging articles with the NPP toolbar was auto approving articles for them, which is quite a big glitch. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, regarding auto approval, it does automatically check the box, "marked as reviewed", but you can uncheck it before adding the tag. I use it for all my tagging on new articles, but not to send something to Prod, or AfD, or CSD. Then I use Twinkle. Thanks for getting back to me. Not something I can check on my own. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Producers, directors, writers

I know that singers/bands and actors have special SNG passes. Do producers, directors, film/TV writers, and any other similar occupations also get special SNG criteria, or do they need to go through GNG? Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, take a look at WP:CREATIVE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah perfect, thank you, that's definitely the SNG. Too bad some of those bullets look a little subjective. I wonder which of the bullets is used most often? And any other tips for applying them? Thank you, I appreciate your time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, the one I've seen used the most is #3. And normally it's been used regarding television show co-creators. #4 is used all the time for artists mostly. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

YouTube

Onel5969. Hello my friend. Long time no chat. If you have a minute, I have a question about YouTube. Let's say a reputable news outlet's YouTube channel puts out a video on a topic. 1) Could this video be a reliable source and used as a citation? 2) Could this video, if lengthy enough, be used to pass GNG? I assume the answer to both questions is no, but someone suggested I might be wrong. Thanks a lot. Looking forward to your feedback. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The short answer is no. Since content uploaded to YouTube, it can be manipulated, see WP:YOUTUBE. However, the one exemption is stuff uploaded from reputable news sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#YouTube. So the question would have to be is the news source reliable? The second question is more subjective. However, if it is a single ref, then no, it would not be enough to pass GNG (think 1BIO). Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)