Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/Carmel cleanup task force

WT:CARMEL

Introduction

@Netherzone, Graywalls, Melcous, and Somebodyidkfkdt: as folks who have helped with cleaning up the Carmel-related walled garden articles, I've added you as members to this new task force created to more easily coordinate cleanup activity and discussions in a centralized location. You of course can remove your own name if you wish; otherwise, welcome. Left guide (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating this, Left guide. Netherzone (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: For now, I think transcluding some of the key walled garden navbox templates onto the project page is a simple way to see what we're working with. Left guide (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never understood how transcluding content works, so I will watch what you do and learn. Netherzone (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: Like this for example. Now (at least in desktop mode) at WP:CARMEL#Buildings you should be able to see that template he built which appears to contain most or all of the articles in the Carmel buildings walled garden. Click the little "show" button on the far right side of the template if you don't see a list of articles. Left guide (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadia Press

I have noticed that the editor started leaving out the publisher, Arcadia Press, in citations, for example at Thomas Albert Work where I have corrected one of these instances, instead, Arcadia is listed as "work=" rather than "publisher=" in the citation data fields, "work=" is ignored and doesn't end up in the citation. Unfortunately, we will have to check sources carefully even if they don't specify Arcadia, and the Arcadia Images of America picture book series in particular. Looking for certain author names can help. Netherzone (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might merit another discussion in RS/N. There's WP:ARCADIA but it hasn't been discussed enough to make it to RSP. Graywalls (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henderson family member AfDs

@Graywalls and Netherzone: If we're going to send any to AfD, let's be sure to open it with a strong nomination that includes a source assessment table. I know of at least one active experienced editor on those articles who has a history of pushing back against deletion of Henderson family member articles and has sometimes been supported by innocuous naive !voters who don't thoroughly inspect sources, so we want our case to be as persuasive as possible to uninvolved outsider passersby at AfD. That's one spot where we really ought to take a slow, measured, calculated approach. Left guide (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, I agree source analysis / assessment is essential! At the time of the Henderson family AfD's the ARS was actively being canvassed. They got their hand slapped and a few were blocked. I don't know if that is relevant to your note above, but just sayin'..... Netherzone (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: The ARS canvassing thing I hadn't thought of and is separate from the spirit of my initial note. I can think of a few arguments we can use in a nomination (and the hand slaps and blocks you mention could bolster it) to possibly have a chance at overturning some of the prior AfDs that closed as keep, if that's something you might be interested in attempting. On one of the AfDs I noticed that you switched to "keep", so I trust the result of that one. Left guide (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ellwood Walter (businessman) should probably be renominated, since it's been long enough since the AFD that it shouldn't be any issue. I couldn't find any SIGCOV on newspapers.com and the only possible SIGCOV is the Philadelphia Inquirer obit, which I don't have access to. I would've redirected it to Ellwood Walter, No. 7 but I'm not sure if that passes GNG either. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, that AfD is pretty weak; there's flaws in basically all of those arguments. I wouldn't give it much value. Left guide (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just cleaned up a lot of the filler unrelated to him. Have not yet looked at the sources. If AfD, please include comments about the lack of SIGCOV. The creator tended to synthesize little bits of info. I think the AfD could be successful, basically he was a businessman doing his job, no more, no less WP:MILL - there is nothing to distinguish him from millions of other American businessmen, even if he had "distinguished presence" and "great personal dignity" who had for his time "considerable wealth" which does not a notable subject make. Netherzone (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @Somebodyidkfkdt, if you don't have Twinkle installed, it is a "helper tool" that is very useful, for nominating AfDs, but also for a lot of other uses too. More info here: Wikipedia:Twinkle. You can install from the Gadgets menu on your Preferences. Netherzone (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do, but I just don't use it very often. Thanks for the advice though. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Henderson Family Tree business should be carried out in a different forum since it's not really about California and this task force is setup under WP California. Graywalls (talk) 11:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, there's no point in needlessly fragmenting our efforts due to a technical distinction like that per WP:NOTBURO. It's much easier to coordinate with a single centralized gathering place. Left guide (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template for deletion discussion

There is a TfD now open that pertains to this task force at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 August 19#Template:List of sea captains and pilots. All are invited to participate. Thank you. Left guide (talk) 08:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Memorial Library

@Netherzone, Graywalls, and Somebodyidkfkdt: What do y'all think about this book that's been cited in the article? McFarland seems like a reliable book publisher, and there's a whole chapter dedicated to this library. It’s probably better than 99% of the sources we've seen in the walled garden in terms of reliability combined with on-topic SIGCOV. It's pretty persuasive to me in terms of helping establish notability, but if there's something I'm missing, please point it out. Left guide (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that the author was apparently "Instruction Librarian and Head of Reference and Instruction" at Chapman University when it was written. The book also doesn't seem indiscriminate, unless California only has 32 libraries. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that I am biased towards keeping libraries. What was unclear is whether this is an article on an allegedly historical building WP:NBUILDING or on the library itself as a WP:ORG, which are different criteria. I think the McFarland Press book is SIGCOV contributing to the latter; it looks like a really good, solid source. Netherzone (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just now realized that this is the same book Somebodyidkfkdt seemed to be referring to in this edit summary while taking down the notability tag, so I guess I wasn't the first to notice. Left guide (talk) 04:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take note

See User:Greghenderson2006/sandbox8 for additional template NavBoxes, not sure if these ever made it to main space, but they may be useful for walled garden clean up. Netherzone (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: I had actually noticed that yesterday and thought about transcluding that sandbox onto the main project page here, but from clicking on a random sample of a dozen or so pages, less than half were part of the walled garden. Now that you mention it though, I think it's worth transcluding, so I'll do it. Left guide (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they never made it to mainspace. Those templates don't actually "exist" in the real template-space, all the raw coding is there on that sandbox page. If you click the tiny "V" button in the top left corner of any of those templates, it's red-linked and non-existent. Left guide (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone hey, take additional notes of photos in articles that may have come from family collection that have not been published, but 70 years have not elapsed since the photographer's death in H. Family and carmel topics. Commons:Hirtle Chart suggests those are copyrighted. Graywalls (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I did say I'd take a step back from these articles, and so I won't be reverting any of them, but I do notice a few that, from my glancing, look potentially notable. Nathan Weston Spaulding, mayor of Oakland, California, with an in-depth obit from the San Francisco Chronicle, a prominent newspaper, and three pages in this book on important people of San Francisco, published by the San Francisco Journal; James Meadows (pioneer), who has a decent obit in the Chronicle as well as other stories I can't read, but sound like decent coverage ("Passing Of A Pioneer. James Meadows Called to His Final Rest After a Long and Useful Life"); Julian P. Graham, whose obit in the Oakland Tribune called him a "famous photographer"; and Augustus Van Pelt, who had a decent-length obit in The New York Times. I'm not going to try to revert these, just noting that a few of them looked as being potentially worth retaining. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that Spaulding and Graham have a good chance of passing GNG, but for Van Pelt, I couldn't find any other piece of SIGCOV other than the NYT. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11: thanks for supplying your feedback. I redirected the Spaulding article, so I'll take responsibility for it, and go over that book source when I have a chance, it's possible I may have missed something (remember, cleaning up 400+ articles is a monstrous task). Obituaries have been discussed many times within these walled gardens and consensus seems to be that there are major problems with using them towards notability, @Netherzone: do you think you can help summarize? Left guide (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BeanieFan11, I don't have a lot of spare time right now to go into the history of the overall problematics, so I will just speak to the obituaries. Obits should be carefully scrutinized, even those in major newspapers, because it is often difficult to distinguish between independent obits (that are like editorial copy), and paid obituary death announcements that may look like a neutral, independent obit. The first thing I look for is a by-line; the most reliable obits in publications like the NYT usually have a by-line and editorial oversight. The second thing I look for is how much an obit focuses on the actual notable accomplishments of the deceased person (rather than focusing on the bereaved family and extended family) and how in-depth and comprehensive the content is. That's the stuff that newspaper readers want to know about: what they did, not who they "left behind" or when or where the funeral took/is taking place. I always look to see if there is an announcement of when the funeral or memorial services will be held - this is a give-away that it's a paid death announcement. (As in the case of Augustus Van Pelt). Then I look for style of writing, whether it is overly complimentary. A neutral, balanced obit usually contains both the accomplishments (successes) and failures; a paid obit will usually only include the positive, and as we all know, everyone is a mixed bag of positive and negative. When using obits in articles we need to also keep in mind that styles of writings change with the time, and puffery was more acceptable in the late 19th & first half of the 20th c. than it is now. So words like "famous", "wealthy", "prominent", "distinguished reputation", "impeccable character", "an indefatigable worker", "would labor with zeal", etc. need to be taken with a grain of salt and analyzed in relation to the actual accomplishments of the person. These characterizations can be anachronistic quirks in independent obits, or can be family-crafted puffery in paid obits. Netherzone (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restored articles

I think all of the articles I WP:BLARed have just been restored by GreenC. The articles are Fred Ruhl, Mechanics Building (UC Berkeley), John Martin (pioneer), Ernest Schweninger, Driftwood Cottage, Frank P. Van Pelt, Bruce Boutlier McLean, John C. Fawcett, Augustus Van Pelt and Ellwood Walter (businessman). Theophilus Beebe was also restored but I re-redirected it because every single source is a passing mention. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take it personally. GreenC is solidly an experienced, good faith editor who has made thousands of improvements and creations for the encyclopedia. While I don't always agree with them, I have a lot of respect for GreenC and am 100% certain they had their reasons for reverting the redirects. Rather than getting into a redirect war (like what seems to be starting at the Beebe article), you can open a talk page discussion on any of these articles to present and discuss your rationale on the article talk pages to try to reach a community consensus. Netherzone (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the reason I didn't want to restore most of them is because I didn't want to war. I don't think I'll have much time to deal with all of those though. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Somebodyidkfkdt - Good choice to decide not to edit/revert war! In the future, and I'm sure you probably already know this so forgive me if it's redundant -- follow the Bold, Revert, Discuss model - WP:BRD. In a nutshell, if you do a Bold edit, like a blank and redirect, and it's Reverted because someone disagrees, instead of reinstating the edit (blanking and reverting again) because you feel it was correct or justified, start a Discussion on the article talk page to try to establish community consensus. Otherwise there is a possibility that things can flare up. It can save a lot of time and frustration. In all honesty, it took me a long time to actually wrap my head around this and for a while I thought it was the other way around, that the other person should start the discussion, (which they sometimes do), when in fact the onus is on the bold editor to open up a conversation. Just sayin'.... Thanks again for your help with clean up, it's appreciated. Netherzone (talk) 23:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do know but I appreciate the advice nonetheless, and don't thank me, it's been good fun. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct is bold. It was reverted. Taking it to AfD is discuss. Graywalls (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANYBIO #3

@Netherzone: and others — does an entry in this book count towards WP:ANYBIO #3?

The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography).

I've seen it pop up semi-regularly in some of these walled garden biography articles. Left guide (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question, and I will give it more thought tomorrow.

Here's what WP says about it: The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography is a multi-volume collection of biographical articles and portraits of Americans, published since the 1890s. The primary method of data collection was by sending questionnaires to subjects or their relatives. It has over 60,000 entries, in 63 volumes. The entries are not credited. The overall editor was James Terry White. It is more comprehensive than the Dictionary of American Biography and the American National Biography, but less scholarly because it does not cite the original sources used for the information.

So it seems to be that NCAB was the late 19th century to early-ish 20th c. user-submitted content, like Who's Who, and with only one person as editorial oversight. It's less scholarly than the Dictionary of American Biography and the American National Biography according to WP, and the NCAB does not cite its own sources. So I'm thinking it should be used with caution but may be also be OK. Anything in the RS Noticeboard archives? or in the WP:Notability or RSP talk page archives? Netherzone (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the RSN archives from what I searched. Might be worth raising there at some point. Left guide (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article: The National cyclopædia of American biography. It's not like Who's Who, which are essentially vanity press, people paid for an entry. This one, the editors chose who to include independently, the subjects did not pay for an entry. The subjects filled out a questionnaire providing the data, used by the editors to write the entries. It's probably a reliable source for many basic facts, but I don't think it rises to ANYBIO, that would be Dictionary of American Biography and the American National Biography. -- GreenC 05:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Newman Post Card Co. for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Newman Post Card Co. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newman Post Card Co. until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Left guide (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cottages by the sea book

Would this book be considered RS? It was published by Rizzoli. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also this from the same author and publisher. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very large Italian publishing company, doing business since 1927. As of 2014, it made up 11.8% of the global publishing market. We might expect about 10% of all books cited on Wikipedia were published by them, but probably not since they are publishing a lot of non-English books. The author is also published by Penguin Randomhouse. She appears to be some kind of expert with these types of books: Cottages by the Sea, Coastal Retreats, Desert Retreats, Cottages on the Coast, The Cabin Book, Island Living, and Lakeside Living. -- GreenC 04:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Unfortunately neither book covers any of the buildings Henderson wrote about other than Tor House and Hawk Tower. What are your thoughts on this published by Sterling Publishing? Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August Englund

Hi there. At NPP I focus on patrolling unreviewed pages created by indeffed users (where I often find some of the biggest issues), and August Englund came up after Somebodyidkfkdt (talk · contribs) reverted a BLAR on it. I agree with them that the substantial obituary coverage brings this across the line of GNG, but given the coordination happening here on cleaning up Greg Henderson's Carmel walled garden I thought I'd check before marking this page as reviewed. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! And thanks for reaching out, DClemens1971. Do I think he meets GNG, yes, based on available souring. Do I think Wikipedia needs an article on every police officer or person in the U.S. who dies from an injury on the job? No. However beloved he was in his community, it seems run-of-the-mill to me. Netherzone (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. In this case I am going to go ahead and mark as reviewed. Will leave to this task force to handle further in the future. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Walled Garden"

This term has a specific meaning on Wikipedia: WP:WALLEDGARDEN is "a set of pages or articles that link to each other, but do not have any links to or from anything outside the group", which does not fit most articles by Henderson. It's my understanding that possibly it is being used with a different meaning. However, it is unstated. Would it be possible for this task force to define what "walled garden" means? This has been a long source of confusion. I don't need a litany of complaints about Henderson, rather, what do you mean when you say "Walled Garden"? In a sentence or two. How might I look at a page (any page), and objectively determine it's a walled garden? -- GreenC 04:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up - proxy editing by email

The editor's email privileges have been revoked because of proxying by email, or similar types of solicitation. - Netherzone (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pushback at Commons

I don't do much at commons but I didn't realize there's such a major cultural differences/guideline differences. I'm getting major pushback from trying to clean up Greg's family genealogy project which uses categories like in envelope to justify contents about his family members. Seems like that person hasn't been allowed to edit on for a long time for things that appear to be Greg like behaviors (family search, findagrave, political graveyard, blogs, sps) Graywalls (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]