Talk:Depths of Wikipedia

potential COI Disclaimer

Just wanted to make clear that I have interacted with the owner of the Depths of Wikipedia account in the past, and have been interviewed by her for her newsletter (the interview has not yet been published; I have had no communication with her thus far about this page's existence). I don't think that's too much of a WP:COI to prohibit editing, but I want to be as open about this as possible, and will go through the full WP:AFC process in order to avoid any potential issue. Yitz (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Z1720 (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Depths of Wikipedia was created by a college student who spent time Wikiracing in high school?
  • ALT1: ... that the creator of Depths of Wikipedia was given a Siamese cat because of her work on the account?
  • ALT2: ... that sexy primes, chess on a really big board, and a list of sexually active popes can all be found in the Depths of Wikipedia?
    • ALT2a: ... that chess on a really big board, Nuclear Gandhi, and a list of sexually active popes can all be found in the Depths of Wikipedia?
  • Reviewed: Selwyn Ryan
  • Comment: More hooks welcome, especially from other authors. Moved to mainspace by Deansfa – Yitz and Jtwhite88 are other contributors, but it doesn't seem like the nominating gadget can handle that

Moved to mainspace by Jtwhite88 (talk), Yitzilitt (talk), Deansfa (talk), and Ezlev (talk). Nominated by Ezlev (talk) at 04:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - n
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - n
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: main okay, ALT1 okay, ALT2 is not cited - cannot find buffalo or sexy primes in fn 7. [1]. So article is not fully referenced either. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Yikes, Hawkeye7! Thanks for catching that. I've hopefully fixed the problem with a tweak to the article and a corresponding ALT2a above. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 21:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Good to go with main hook, ALT1 or ATL2a Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Promoted ALT2a to Prep 7. In the article, the NYT source did not verify the chess or Gandhi entries, so I swapped it with the Vice source which did verify the information. I also wikilinked the articles mentioned in the hook. Z1720 (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

List of featured articles?

Perhaps someone could add a "list of featured articles" tab to this page? Or even make a separate page for that purpose? "List of Articles Featured on Depths of Wikipedia"? Thoughts? FishandChipper (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

If you mean a "list of featured articles" section my knee-jerk reply is heck no. We can mention a few examples mentioned in independent RS, but having a more or less complete list would be WP:FANCRUFT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:FORBESCON interview and unreliable sourcing

I added a tag that flags a WP:FORBESCON source as potentially unreliable as it pertains to the claim that Calloway gifted Rauwerda a siamese cat. The source is considered to be self-published. Per WP:SPS, we should [n]ever use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, with the limited exception of WP:ABOUTSELF. Calloway was not a participant in the Forbes-published interview, so I don't really see a way that this could meet WP:ABOUTSELF for the claim involving Calloway. Are there any other sources that support the claim about the Siamese cat? — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

As a note to whoever else sees this, the closest thing I could find is a piece written by Rauwerda in which she said that she adopted her cat, but didn't indicate Calloway was involved. She also described it as likely being a Tonkinese cat rather than a true Siamese cat, so I'm not sure we should affirmatively say that it's a Siamese cat even if the FORBESCON source were OK for the claim that Calloway gave Rauwerda a cat. — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd be fine with just cutting the cat thing, since it seems there aren't other sources to support its relevance to Depths of Wikipedia (which would be through the Calloway connection). ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 01:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

No problem with removing that source and whatever content only found there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The New Yorker

[2] Could be good for something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit requests, 8 May 2022

I have two edit requests, which I cannot perform myself. Hopefully, neither of these are controversial. I would appreciate it if an editor can make these changes. Epicgenius (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit request 1

 Done

 – ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  18:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:CITELEAD, can an editor change the second paragraph of the lead to

Rauwerda has additionally hosted a Wikipedia editing workshop and live comedy shows in connection with Depths of Wikipedia.

and change the last sentence of the third paragraph of "Activity" to

She has also hosted live comedy shows based around trivia from Wikipedia.<ref name="mash" /><ref name="NYT2022" /><ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Zhou |first=Naaman |date=April 25, 2022 |orig-date=April 18, 2022 |title=Wikipedia, In The Flesh |url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/04/25/wikipedia-in-the-flesh |magazine=[[The New Yorker]] |publisher=[[Condé Nast]] |page=19 |access-date=May 7, 2022}}</ref>

The New Yorker reference supports the fact that Annie has hosted live comedy shows, but not that she has conducted an editing workshop. Epicgenius (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit request 2

 Not done:

 – I don't feel this improves the flow of the prose. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  18:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Can the following text in the last sentence of the second paragraph of "Creation" be changed to

Rauwerda apologized after Calloway reached out, and Calloway shared the account with her followers, leading to its rapid growth.

The word "subsequently" is redundant in this context, and this removes the need for an additional comma in this sentence.

Thanks in advance. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

To clarify re: request 1, do you just want to remove the citation? WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 01:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@WhinyTheYounger, I would prefer the citation be relocated instead of being removed. It could still be useful for citing things such as notable followers (e.g. John Mayer, Neil Gaiman, Julia Fox, and Grimes), as well as the name of the show, "Depths of Wikipedia Live!" (which is currently not in the article). However, those could be discussed separately. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

She's still doing the shows. I will be making a guest appearance this coming Sunday (October 1, 2023) at one in Madison, Wisconsin. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Should the intro mention Rauwerda created the accounts?

The first section read that

"Depths of Wikipedia is a group of social media accounts dedicated to highlighting strange, obscure, and interesting facts from Wikipedia."

...But while it is a group of accounts, they are all one person. I added in the name to clarify. If anyone disagrees, let me know.

2600:4041:54BD:E800:5DF0:14CF:DA4B:C22D (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The article is about the accounts, not Rauwerda, who is not personally notable. So no, I will remove the name from the lead. She gets more than enough mention and coverage in the corresponding section. Furthermore, the topic of the article are the Instagram accounts, run by her, not her. Bedivere (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, and since I, this IP, and Jacobin 357 believe her name should be included in the lead, I have restored it. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

You have started an edit war. The article has been fine without a mention of Rauwerda in the lead for a long time. She is sufficiently mentioned and covered in her own section already. Bedivere (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Looking through the article history i'm looking at some WP:OWN behavior trying to make this article only the instagram account with an example reverting an edit adding Category:Wikipedia people. categorization is its own issue but looking through that category I found Detention of Pavel Pernikaŭ to be an interesting one: should it just be about the detention? i suppose you can't talk about the thing without talking about the primary person involved with the thing. Same goes for instagram accounts but I guess you would disagree. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree I started an edit war. Regardless, I invite Jacobin and the IP to weigh in so we can reach a consensus. It seems to me we already have one by the number of people adding it back in, but I am fine with it being more explicitly discussed on the talk page. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see 0xDEADBEEF has already reverted it since their is a majority consensus is should be included. I believe that is the correct course of action. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

It is you who are pushing the article into something to promote Rauwerda. The article is about the social media accounts, run by her, not about her. I could actually stand a mention in the lead since she is later mentioned, but boldening the name given that she is not the focus of the article is unacceptable Bedivere (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure what "promotion" is going on here. It's a very strange accusation. It is common and recommended to bold redirectss. Rauwerda is commonly discussed hand in hand with the account; they are interlinked with each other in sources in a way that makes it logical for the article to feel free to talk and feature her prominently to reflect this. Your minority viewpoint that her role should be diminished does not seem to be supported by anyone else. Cerebral726 (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

It is funny that just today, two different users came out of nowhere only to call my point of view a "minority" one. I'm not the one to tell who you should be a fan of, but you should leave your supports aside when trying to "contribute" here. I do follow the Depths account on social media and could not care less about Rauwerda. Bedivere (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you are trying to imply, but I am hardly out of nowhere. Regardless, vague admonishments that don't WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH aren't constructive. Consensus has clearly been reached so there's not much to discuss anymore. Cerebral726 (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

You established consensus? It's mostly been you and me speaking here. I would expect further discussion before calling this anywhere near being "consensus". Bedivere (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I don't want to repeat the argument I made in my edit summary for my revert here, but I just wanted to point out that none of the three comments above by Bedivere were based on any policy/guidelines. I suppose it is more like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT? That said, I support inclusion of Rauwerda's name bolded, maybe even some prose on what she's done, per WP:RPLA. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 01:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Was the account deleted?

I'm not able to find it on instagram anymore. If it was, we should make this past tense. If this is something like an instagram algorithmic suspension, then the tense change wouldn't make sense. Has anybody reported on this? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

From their Twitter account: I forgot the password (oops) and Instagram's moderation is bad, so from what I can gather, my furious login attempts got the account temporarily suspended. I'm talking to a meta person who is somewhat confident it'll come back soon? idk, fingers crossed[3] Cerebral726 (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that! — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

You know

Wikipedia:Unusual articles would be relevant as a "see also" entry, except I don't know if it's bad form to link to such articles that are outside of the main namespace in this way (especially one marked as a humor article). This article is Wikipedia related, so I guess it is already kind of meta. Oh well. VintageVernacular (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

deleted reference to temporary suspension of account

I deleted these two sentences under the "Activity" section: "On April 19, 2023, the Depths of Wikipedia Instagram account was suspended for an unspecified violation of "community guidelines on business integrity." The account was restored two days later." I don't think a three-going-on-four-years-old Instagram account having been zucked (her words not mine) for two days was a particularly noteworthy occurrence. CongealedBox (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Jeopardy mention

Hey all! Per the edit request process and my connection to Depths of Wikipedia, I'd like to gather consensus for an edit here. Particularly, I'd like to propose the addition of this text at the bottom of the Reception section:

On December 28, 2023, Depths of Wikipedia was mentioned on Jeopardy! as a collection of "bizarre pages" such as Mozart and scatology and death by vending machine.

References

I've tried to ensure this sounds neutral enough. Let me know what the community thinks here! Bsoyka (t • c • g) 05:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

With no feedback, I'm now requesting this edit. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 17:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I question whether this would be WP:TRIVIA. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sdkb: It's definitely borderline depending on your interpretation of trivia. (And again, there's a reason I say I have a COI—I'll respect the consensus formed here.)

A source should cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item.
— Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections § "In popular culture" and "Cultural references" material

I could argue this fact falls a bit on both sides of the guideline; while it was technically a brief mention in a television show, it also has some description/commentary attached to it showing how Depths of Wikipedia has been perceived. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 20:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

 Declined No consensus for this change being made has been achieved. Regards,  Spintendo  18:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)