User talk:Barkeep49

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Occupational Health Science

Barkeep49, I listened to the people who took down Occupational Health Science. The journal began in 2017. In early 2018, I tried to start a Wikiepedia entry for the journal. It was taken down as not notable enough. I waited a year to try again. I thought the journal would pass the notability test when two volumes would be published and a third volume would be arriving.

The journal meets the criterion "reliable sources to be influential in its subject area," the subject area being occupational health. The editor, Robert Sinclair, is an important figure in the field of job stress (teachers, soldiers) as are the associate editors. The journal is published by a reputable publishing company, Springer. OHES published a paper by Charlotte Fritz, an influential researcher in the area of the impact of work on sleep. The journal published work by Charlotte Fritz and Leslie Hammer on stress in correctional officers. Hammer is an important researcher on interventions to reduce ob stress in order to to improve worker health and well-being. It has published Kyle Page on work-family family conflict.

I would appreciate it if you would restore the journal. Iss246 (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Iss246 You have been working at this over a long period of time and so I can understand your frustration that has built. There is a concept on Wikipedia which says notability is not inherited. So the fact that Sinclair is an important figure and it's by a reputable company doesn't help establish its own notability. You are saying that The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area. - these reliable sources would have to be journal articles or other secondary sources independent of the Occupational Health Service saying it's influential. Do you have sources/links which show this? That would help to building an article that can be restored and kept restored. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I know about notability not being inherited. That is why I was accepted the taking down of the entry one year ago. But now the journal has a record of publishing two volumes and is in the process of publishing a third volume. The journal has a record of publishing papers relevant to the field of occupational health. A learned society, the Society for Occupational Health Psychology, considers the journal a reputable source. On those grounds you should restore the journal. Iss246 (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Iss246 You need independent sourcing that says it is influential - the society which sponsors it can't just say it. Do you have any kind of secondary sources that talk about the journal? Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I will look for secondary sources.Thanks. Iss246 (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I found additional information bearing on notability. Bear in mind that there is a time lag between when usage statistics become available and the journal's current publication year. Although the journal is in its third year, the publisher recently made available usage statistics for the first year of Occupational Health Science: https://static.springer.com/sgw/documents/1647537/application/pdf/41542_Journal+Metrics_2017_flyer.pdf. The statistics suggest that the journal is notable, and should be represented on Wikipedia. Iss246 (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Iss246 that is promising but I don't think it yet satisfies criteria 1 of WP:NJOURNAL. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, please explain to me what would satisfy criterion 1. What evidence would confirm for you that criterion 1 is satisfied? Iss246 (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I see you are busy. Please respond after February 22. Iss246 (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Iss246 Sorry for the slow response - I have been otherwise preoccupied. Happened to be on when this new message came in. Scroll down a bit at WP:NJOURNAL and you'll see examples and details on how all the criteria can be met. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

It was a good idea to propose a policy change about including subscriber counts for Wikipedia articles on new media publishers. This issue has been settled as a no almost forever, but I think that it is timely to reconsider the practice. Great job speaking up. Even if it does not pass I like the conversation that you have convened. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Thanks. I have found that despite being a no forever there is a loud contingent that think it's a yes. I am hopeful we'll still end up at a positive consensus. Thanks for taking the time to come here. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

NPP School Feedback

Hi - as promised, I've had a think about this, and have given some feedback below. As I've said before, the process was a tremendous learning experience, and I appreciate all the time you spent taking me through it.

What I particularly liked

Initial questions

At the beginning, when you asked me to think about where I was strong, and where I felt I needed to develop. In my teacher training, the importance of self-reflection was drilled into us, and this has reminded me of how useful it can be. Asking me to be specific about areas of strength and weakness to another person made me sit down and do some thinking about my editing so far, but it also forced me to engage actively with the NPP guidelines, comparing my current experience against the content - this was an effective way to make sure that I actually read and thought about them properly.

The initial stages where you identified articles to review

Early on in the course, you asked me to look at articles and just tell you what I would do with them, rather than actually making any changes. This is a good idea, as I didn't have to actually make changes to someone else's work, I just tell you what I thought. This is a safe way that someone can make be honest about their thought processes without fear that making a mistake will cause disruption or annoy another editor.

Ideas for improvements

Modelling

Another thing that was a big feature of my teach training was the importance of modelling to students - doing the thing that you expect them to do, so they can watch and learn. If anything is lacking from this course, it's probably that - it might help develop a trainee's confidence quickly in the opening stages if they were able to 'watch' you patrol a few new articles. You could patrol a page, and provide the trainee with a link to the relevant point in its history showing when you first looked at it; you could then explain your thinking as you navigated the flowchart, and invite them to look through the next few steps in its history to see the steps you took, and the outcome at the end of the patrolling process. Obviously, if the result was a CSD, the trainee would have to look at it fairly quickly, but it might be possible to coordinate the timings - you could say when you would have time to do it, and the trainee could confirm that they will be online at that point. Using IRC might even allow you to do this live with the student; obviously though, this would be an additional time burden on the trainer, and might be difficult where time zones aren't well-aligned.

Update the NPP flowchart

This isn't directly related to this course, but it would have helped me avoid stumbling over the confusion between notability and importance/significance. The NPP flowchart is a straightforward image - it's tremendously useful, but I think it could be further enhanced by embedding links within it to take readers directly to pages that would help inform thei decisions, such as relevant CSD criteria, WP:SIGNIF etc. I used to use Visio at work for making flowcharts, and I seem to recall that this is possible - if you think this would be a good idea, I might reach out to Insertcleverphrasehere to discuss it - I'd be interested in doing some work on it.

I hope this is useful; if there's ever anything I can do to help with this, please let me know. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing I meant to mention to you - I don't think that we touched on using 'Rater' anywhere in the course. It's something I'm planning to read up on - I've only tried it once, and it produced a talkpage banner that had a big red 'Don't use this banner' sign on it so I reverted myself - but maybe it should be included in the course. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 13:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Feedback Response

Thanks Girth Summit for the time you took to write that up - it's more detailed than I expected. It's truly appreciated. The idea of modeling is a good one - I will contemplate how to incorporate that for when I have another NPP school editor. Rater isn't strictly necessary for NPP but can be useful. If you have questions about it know I would be happy to lend help. As for the flowchart I actually played around with doing a JS version that could be built into Wikipedia itself - this could obviously handle the links as well. But I think having more links would be useful in the chart for sure. I would definitely reach out to ICPH. I watchlist his talk page so if you do I'll definitely see the discussion and chime in if I have anything useful to add. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Rough Patch (book)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Rough Patch (book) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Page move?

Hi, quick question - see Association of Black Humanists. This is a recently created page, but it's actually material copied over from this page, which is now a redirect. The organisation has had its name changed, so the title is probably right, but wouldn't this normally be done by a page move (in order to retain the history and talk page history)? What's the best thing to do - should I just do the page move myself? (Not something I've done much of, but I could probably figure it out). GirthSummit _(blether) 12:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit Good question. In most cases if it's been a c&p move you can just place Template:histmerge on the new page and put a twinkle warning about cut and paste moves on the user's talk page who did it. Sometimes the move should be undone altogether and the user directed to do a formal move request because the change of title is/will be contentious. And still other times the move is just wrong and should be undone and left at that. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - I had a look and can see what you've done, I'll remember that for next time. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hello Lighthouse

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hello Lighthouse you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Rough Patch (book)

The article The Rough Patch (book) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Rough Patch (book) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Rough Patch (book)

The article The Rough Patch (book) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Rough Patch (book) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nova Crystallis -- Nova Crystallis (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Inquiry on why the page Jake Manley was merged into The Order

Recently, I created a page for actor, Jake Manley and just as I was done with adding more references, I noticed that you merged his page to the television series. Can you please provide me a reason why that action was taken? Thanks. Elainasla (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Elainasla I would be happy to. The notability guideline use for actors requires that an actor has, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Since his only major role so far is in The Order, and that hasn't yet been released he does not appear to be individually notable. Because the TV show itself does seem to be notable I redirected his article there. Hope that makes sense. If you have more questions please don't hesitate to ask. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. I understand that but the actor has already had many recurring roles in various television shows. Sure, his first major role is The Order, but he has had roles in other films as well. What do you think is the best course of action for now? Do I still keep updating his page or is it all going to waste? Elainasla (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Elainasla I see you've updated his page with some of his other roles. I saw those roles before I redirected the first time. His work on iZombie comes closest but doesn't actually qualify as the significant role we'd be looking for. My recommendation is to wait until after the show premiers on Netflix. If he gets profiled from reliable sources that could make things different. As he gets more acting work he could become notable and your work will be there for you or another editor to improve. So your effort has not been wasted. However, for now he doesn't yet meet the criteria. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Alright, no worries. But I have one last question to ask, if that's fine with you. A while ago, I created the page for the actor Vandit Bhatt and I thought it would be a great example to bring this up to you. The actor, like Manley has not been in a major role on a television series yet. Though, it is interesting to point the differences here. His page was reviewed by someone else and it was deemed fine. Why is Vandit's page an exception to the above Wikipedia rule that you highlighted previously? I would love to hear your thoughts on that. Elainasla (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Elainasla I don't know exactly what that reviewer saw. Without looking too deepl two things jump out: 1 he had multiple recurring roles and film work. This combination seems to have been what got him to have multiple significant roles. Also for Manley the show he's starring in hasn't even come out yet so that doesn't help. It's one reason I said things might change after it debuts. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

NPP training

Hello, would you be willing to teach me about the policys and how to use the user right so I can help out more on Wikipedia? A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 18:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

A 10 fireplane I see you do some counter vandalism. Tell me a bit more about what interests you in NPP. Also I noticed you you recently changed the color scheme on your User Talk page. You might want to have a glance at Wikipedia:Accessibility dos and don'ts since it does present some accessibility challenges at the moment and you might run across users for whom this makes it harder to communicate when doing both CV and NPP. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

What interest me most about NPP is it's another way for me to help out on Wikipedia. I've tried to create some articles. (Both are start class) But I didn't really enjoy it. Fighting vandalism its simple, apart from all the policies of course.

Also I will look into Wikipedia:Accessibility dos and don'ts and change my talkpage accordingly A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 21:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

A 10 fireplane Would be happy to have you. You should know tha new page patrol and countervandalism frequently appeal to different people - I for instance am not super into CV, but love NPP, while I know users who are the exact opposite. This is similar to how content creation isn't for everyone. I just had my first successful graduate (who set a high bar) and based on that experience I'm working on putting together the criteria that'll help guide us. When I'm happy with that, I'll setup a space for us to work in soon and ping you there so we can get started. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Awesome thank you, looking forward to it A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 21:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

A 10 fireplane See User:Barkeep49/NPPSchool/A 10 fireplane. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

• From the editors: Help wanted (still)

• News and notes: Front-page issues for the community

• In focus: Wikimedia affiliate organizations seek community participation in 2019 board election

• Discussion report: Talking about talk pages

• Featured content: Conquest, War, Famine, Death, and more!

• Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbitration Committee

• Traffic report: Binge-watching

• Technology report: Tool labs casters-up

• Gallery: Signed with pride

• Recent research: Research finds signs of cultural diversity and recreational habits of readers

• Essay: Optimist's guide to Wikipedia

• From the archives: New group aims to promote Wiki-Love

• Humour: Pesky Pronouns

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Learned something...

...wasn't even aware of the hidden ping mechanic! :p - I have been wondering about the notability of these college softball clubs, especially if only bare bones-sourced to primary sources... but since the applicable wikiproject has a stated goal of creating an article for every single one, and no one seems to have seen fit to make a stink about it, I assume it's what we are going with for now. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Elmidae Glad I could teach you something - super handy at times :). WP:NSPORT says teams are based on GNG and I have a hard time believing that any D1 team wouldn't be able to meet GNG but obviously I have a WP:NSEASON slant to how the pages should be constructed even though it's technically not the guideline. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Your archives

Hi - I was just passing by and wondered if you realised that you have four archive pages, but that all your current talk archives are being moved over to User talk:Barkeep49/Archives/2, not User talk:Barkeep49/Archives/4, which seems a bit odd? Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Nick Moyes Thanks. I had noticed this too a while back and figured out it had to do with when I changed the size of the archive pages - the bot went back to make the previous ones larger. Haven't been sure of a good way to fix this and so it's been proceeding on for the time being. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Goucher College GA Nom

Thanks for your suggestions for Alan Dershowitz; I've already incorporated many of them into the article. I also nominated Goucher College a few weeks ago. Would you be willing to review this one, too? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920 Glad you found that helpful. I have a few articles that are at the top of my GA to-do list so I'm not sure I'll be able to get to Goucher anytime soon. My very quick read of the article raises far fewer red flags than what I saw at Dershowitz. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Bradv submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Barkeep49 to be Editor of the Week for his hard work in creating content in the area of children's literature, and for his valuable work at new page patrol (NPP). He has at least 7 good articles and 6 DYKs, and is currently working on a featured list candidate. He regularly writes new articles for award-winning authors and their works, and improves countless others. Barkeep49 is a prolific new page patroller, and even has taken a few other patrollers under his wing to teach them the ropes. With over 10,000 edits and nearly a year of consistently active editing, Barkeep49 has proven himself to be a strong asset to the Wikipedia community. As a trainer via the NPP school he is fantastically supportive and responsive. This nomination was seconded by User:L235 and User:Girth Summit.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 15:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)