User talk:Tol/Archives/2021/12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for your participation in the November 2021 New Pages Patrol drive[edit]

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For reviewing at least 25 articles during the drive.

Thank you for reviewing or re-reviewing 41 articles, which helped contribute to an overall 1276-article reduction in the backlog during the drive. And an extra thanks for creating the leaderboard software that made this drive possible! (t · c) buidhe 12:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious[edit]

review gnome

Thank you for quality reviewing of new pages, for gnomish improvements such as adding template:authority control, for explaining "you need to copy edit the draft for tone and remove vague but positive wording", for the quiet Stanley Kubrick RfC close that ended a decade+ of warring, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2675 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Gerda Arendt! I appreciate it very much. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mixing indentation types[edit]

Hi SilkTork, I've just fixed some comments on the Template:Talk header RfC. It looks like you've replied to bullet-pointed comments, but mixed the indentation type like this: 

* Comment
:: Reply

Please don't do this — it's discouraged by the accessibility MoS because it causes semantically incorrect HTML, leading to incorrect output on screen readers. Instead, please use the following syntax: 

* Comment
*: Reply

This still won't output a bullet point in your comment, but it will correctly identify it as a reply (sub-list) of the previous comment. Thanks! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I understand that you are trying to tell me something, but can you explain a bit further User:Tol as you are not being clear. What is "semantically incorrect HTML"? I assume you are a tech person. However, I'm not a tech person. Please don't assume that everyone has the same interests. Avoid jargon where possible. Now, in clear English if you can, avoiding phrases like "semantically incorrect HTML", explain to me when I can use "::" and when I should use "*:" instead. SilkTork (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork. Jumping in here since I am watching some threads higher up. See WP:TALKGAP. I am baffled by it sometimes too. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm replying at the original thread at User talk:SilkTork#Mixing indentation types (I've watched it). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Timeshifter - now I'm even more baffled. Tol says use "*:" not "::", while WP:TALKGAP says to follow advice at Help:Talk_pages#Indentation and use "::". SilkTork (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork. I am not the person to ask for help with this. I am still baffled by some of this. :)
WP:TALKGAP needs to summarize this concisely. The reasoning can be explained in detail elsewhere. Otherwise these rules will not be followed by many people.
--Timeshifter (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Albert Italspirits (13:15, 6 December 2021)[edit]

Hey Tol,

I am unsure as to how to add completely new content onto Wikipedia. Any advice on where to begin?

Thank you! --Albert Italspirits (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Albert Italspirits: If you're interested in creating a new article, Help:Your first article contains some information on that. Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia also has some general tips on how to contribute. If you want to expand an existing article, then Wikipedia:Article development may be helpful. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Special Barnstar
Thank you for coordinating the November 2021 New pages patrol backlog drive. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would be interested to hear your and other coordinators' thoughts on possible ways to improve participation in NPP (maybe at Elli's talkpage?). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Usedtobecool: Thanks for the barnstar! I'm sorry, but I really don't have any ideas. I think backlog is an inherent part of a volunteer-operated reviewing system, and I don't know what the solution to it is. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect COVID-19 data in Slovakia[edit]

Hi Tol, You're bot did make a mistake on the incorrect data on COVID-19 pandemic in Slovakia. The actual confirmed cases in Slovakia is 712,749 at the article entitled COVID-19 pandemic in Slovakia not 1,230,343 at the COVID-19 data. The COVID-19 data should have been corrected 712,749, not 1,230,343. On December 3, 2021 under "Current Events", it says "Slovakia reports a record 15,278 new cases of COVID-19 in the past 24 hours, thereby bringing the nationwide total of confirmed cases to 712,749." Here is the link from the Associated Press. [1] Could you fix your bot TolBot to correct the actual cases to 712,749. Now Google search every day and type COVID-19 data in Slovakia and make sure the confirmed cases in Slovakia is over 700,000 cases and be corrected at the COVID-19 data. I hope it will fix the problem the your bot to be corrected to 712,749. I will be happy for your reply. I thank you and have a great day. Steam5 (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Steam5: TolBot sources data from Our World in Data (OWID)'s COVID-19 pandemic data here. OWID sources data on cases from Johns Hopkins University (JHU)'s Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE), which sources its data (list of sources) on Slovakia from its Ministry of Investment, Regional Development and Information, here. I believe the number you're using is the number of positive PCR tests (currently 732,495). However, OWID includes the positive antigen tests (currently 502,487), bringing the total to 732,495 + 502,487 = 1,234,982. The news source you linked to appears to use the number of PCR tests, not the total number of PCR and antigen tests, as its count of cases. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox. Scrolling table with sticky header missing header cell borders[edit]

I noticed in Firefox that one of the 4 scrolling tables here in this section is missing header cell borders:

Specifically, this table of yours:

Also, there is a Phabricator thread you might be interested in:

User:Jroberson108 there in a recent comment mentions a sandbox:

In that sandbox in this section he mentions the Firefox sticky header border problem:

It looks like the sticky header border problem has been solved in the other 3 scrolling tables here: COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory#Statistics.

Can it be fixed in the problem table there? --Timeshifter (talk) 08:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Timeshifter: I'll take a look at this, but I am by no means a CSS wizard. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 01:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any more than these CSS files that are involved?
Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/styles.css
Template:COVID-19 pandemic death rates/styles.css
--Timeshifter (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Timeshifter: Yes, and I'm pretty sure Template:COVID-19 pandemic death rates/styles.css has nothing to do with it. The CSS in question is Template:Import style/sticky.css, from Template:Import style, an invention of mine. This simple style differs from Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/styles.css's much messier implementation (search in page for .covid-sticky). I'll try to fix Template:Import style/sticky.css with minimal bloat. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright; it looks like there's some sort of problem with Firefox's display of sticky headers. I'm investigating further and will try to fix this soon. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I can do anything to solve this, and every possible solution involves convoluted CSS tricks that tend to make the output look wrong in other browsers (there's a transparent gap above the header in Chrome while using the most common solution of a :before and :after with borders). I'm sorry. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need help ID-ing scrolling tables[edit]

Please see:

When I click on "Show all" on the "2021. 1st half" table there it expands the "2021. 2nd half" table. It makes sense because I copied both halves from the full 12-month table, and then deleted the relevant columns. So the half tables have the same ID.

I divided up the 2021 table to 2 halves because the full 12-month table is way too wide in some browsers versus others. And in narrower screens. Compare the scrolling tables:

The tables are in non-scrolling form here:

I am afraid to try to fix this myself, because I think it involves the CSS template styles, and I don't want to mess them up. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Timeshifter: This is going to be a rather large pain, because the templates use Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/styles.css, rather than their own styles. The solution here is to make a new stylesheet specific to this template (so that Template:COVID-19 pandemic data isn't messed up, and its stylesheet doesn't have more stuff layered on top). I think I can try to fix this. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks! It looks like only so much can be done via CSS. According to phab:T42763. The sticky headers in COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory aren't working on cell phones. I checked. The tables are expanded on cell phones. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problem has been solved in an easier way. Only the latest table is needed in the article. And less kilobytes to load on that page:

So I put just the table with the last half of 2021 on that page. And I mentioned that the other half is here:

Along with the 2020 table. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About that edit request you reverted in Wikipedia talk:Usernames for administrator attention/Header[edit]

Hi Tol,

I noticed you reverted my edit attempting to place an edit request for the header page. Were you aware of this? In case you missed it, here it is again:

Add the following text to the header: <div style="text-align: center;">The username blacklist can be found [[:meta:Title blacklist|here]].</div> Which renders as:

The username blacklist can be found here.

172.112.210.32 (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia talk:Usernames for administrator attention/Header was a redirect, I moved the edit request to Wikipedia talk:Username policy#Out-of-place edit request and restored the redirect. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notices[edit]

You can't possibly expect to go to talk pages of every. single. user.​ to complain about a "space being left between talk page posts"... it's completely unrealistic. (It might also be considered by some to be a waste of time and/or a nuisance.) If you really feel the issue is that important and want to have any chance of making a difference, I would suggest you raise the issue with the WMF and perhaps request they post a site-wide notice about the issue. Or else seek advice from the Help Desk. (jmho) - wolf 16:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: I don't really know how to (efficiently and politely) make more editors aware of this. I don't see how it should be any different from the rest of the talk page guidelines, but in practice it feels like many people are not aware of it. I really don't know if the WMF has any ideas to help with this — or if they even care — but I suppose it's worth a try. As for leaving talk page notices, I think I should put together a template, because I think my wording could be improved and standardised. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TolBot 9[edit]

I think your bot is still saying their edits are in a "trial" even though it is approved. Perhaps change that verbiage to "Task" or the like? — xaosflux Talk 00:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: Ah! I forgot to change the edit summary. I'll do that now. Thanks! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again :) Would you mind asserting the "bot" flag (but not adding the minor flag) to task 9 edits? This was they will hide from watchlist, but they will still trigger the new message notification to the users. — xaosflux Talk 19:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: Sure, I'll do that. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Breast tax[edit]

172.103.134.113 reverted u again also in Breast tax. He is attempting to remove the photo in commons. CoachEzhupunna (talk) 08:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CoachEzhupunna: Thanks for letting me know. It looks like the page has been semi-protected, and an account which continued reverting afterward was blocked, so there's nothing more to do. Noting c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thiyya woman in 1909.jpg (speedily kept). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - wolf 08:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC comment[edit]

As suggested, I'm initiating this discussion to ask why you wouldn't strike your comment when you realized it was an error? - wolf 22:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: I am generally strongly against editing existing comments, and am in general stricter than TPG in editing my own comments. Sometimes I feel I should add clarification; I try to only add content to a comment within a minute of posting it — otherwise, I post a new comment. For grammar fixes, especially if they're obvious, I give myself a longer window (~1 hr) unless the unfixed revision could be reasonably assumed to have a different meaning. And, nearly always, avoid editing the content of comments that have been replied to. If I do, I prefer to append "(Edit: [whatever])" instead of actually editing the existing comment, and add a timestamp for edits when others have replied. So, if an error is found, I prefer not to strike my comments, and instead usually reply to the comment in question with a clarification/retraction. In this case, I appended an edit to my comment after you took me to AN/EW in the hope that it would be a suitable compromise. It appears it is not. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why not, just revert way back to before the edit-spat & merely strike out the sentence-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: Like I said, I do not like to edit existing comments. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Was it worth it, not striking the sentence? It's your post & thus your choice. But look where your refusal ended up? You've an editor peeved with you. BTW - Why are our posts being boxed? -- GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: Well, I can be pedantic at times. I'm sorry about that. I do wish that the dispute could have been resolved amicably, but I think it's too late for that now. As for the boxing, it's some CSS that I've applied to my talk page. It boxes description list elements (indents) so it's clear which comments are replies to which. Also, it's easier see when a comment is incorrectly formatted so I can fix it. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Never "too late" to try and do right thing. You can strike those comments anytime... - wolf 20:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: Thank you for again suggesting that obvious and widely-used solution as a common-sense approach that any other collaborative, good-willed editor would take. "Tol" isn't gonna strike out their "accidental" comments, and it has nothing to do with the nonsense they're spouting here and elsewhere. No, it wasn't until they re-posted the same baseless accusation, not just a second time but a third time (in the same sub-thread!), that it became clear what this was all about. As such, I'm not wasting any more of my time with this. I'm moving on, I think you should too, but thanks again for the support. - wolf 20:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The simple fact is I don't believe you. From when I first asked you about the false accusation you posted, I don't think a single thing you've written in response is true. And since you clearly have no intention of fixing the mess you made at that RfC, or trying to reverse any of the ill-will you've created, I'm not going to spend any more time or effort on this. We're done here. - wolf 20:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thewolfchild: (In no particular order, in reply to your assorted comments at 20:33, 12 December 2021.) You can choose what you want to believe. The comments were not "accidental" as you said, they were intentional but based on a misunderstanding. I have not "re-posted the same baseless accusation" — after you clarified that your comment did not apply to column scope, I did not say that they did. I continued to quote your comment to refer to it, because you were disputing the context of it, and attempted to explain my misunderstanding. It was not "baseless" — your quoted comment was a reply to a comment of mine which mentioned reversion of column scope and wording changes, so I assumed your comment was directed at both changes, because it did not specify that it was only against my wording changes. It was not an "accusation", it was a misunderstanding of what your comment was directed at. Please don't say that I'm "spouting" "nonsense". Again (previous requests: 1, 2), please don't refer to me as "they"; I am fine with either "he" or "she". If you are "moving on", then I will too; I think we will both be glad for it. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question about rejection of Draft:Mort Fertel[edit]

Hi, I saw you just rejected Draft:Mort Fertel, and was wondering if you'd seen the discussion on its talk page. If so, may I ask why you felt it didn't meet WP:GNG criteria? Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yitzilitt (paid): As far as I can tell, most of the references are mainly about his companies (Marriage Fitness and SudShare), not about him. I had not seen the talk page discussion, but I still don't think that there's enough coverage that's primarily about him. His companies may be notable, but I don't think the sources demonstrate that he is. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:33:35, 14 December 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Davedave8[edit]


Hi Tol, thanks for your note on my recent Article for Creation. I was wondering if you could help me understand your decision because the message is somewhat vague - was the denial due to a lack of notability, or a lack of satisfaction of "significant coverage of the subject" in the references I selected? If it's due to the latter, can you please let me know what kind of article would satisfy this requirement? One of the articles I referenced [Bedford-Sackville Observer] was an article describing a show I was producing in depth and a description of me as the performer, not just a passing mention... What kind of article would be best? Something like "Halifax Comedian Dave Burke Performs at Massey Hall" where the subject is named in the title?

Thank you!

Davedave8 (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Davedave8: Currently, I don't think the article's references demonstrate notability. This is mainly due to the sources used, not that the sources don't cover Burke in depth (an exception is the CBC Ottawa source). I think the primary sourcing issue is currently that many sources are not independent (Massey Hall, Funny Business, Boston Comedy Festival). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

Hello, Tol,

I hope you are well. I just deleted some orphan talk pages that you helpfully tagged for speedy deletion. I was just wondering how you came across them. Some of them were not new pages so I can't see that they would pop up at the new page patrol or recent changes lists. I have no questions about the taggings, sometimes admins forget to look for a talk page, I was just curious. Thanks for your work! Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: You're welcome! It's a bit complicated, but I run a fork of the database reports code myself to get a version of Wikipedia:Database reports/Orphaned talk pages that I can update whenever I want. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that does sound complicated to a non-coder like myself. I don't really understand scripts and templates either! It's been kind of a mystery to me because I look at the Deletion log at various times during the day and see some admins deleting orphaned talk pages but when I look at them, they haven't been CSD tagged by editors like you. I know about the Database report that comes out at night (my time) but I thought there might be another bot report that I didn't know about that came out during the day.
As an aside, over the summer, I stumbled upon Wikipedia:Database reports/Orphaned talk subpages which hadn't been updated since March 2020 and it had around 1400 orphaned talk subpages that were YEARS old on it...frequently, the article and its talk page had been deleted but no one knew that these subpages even existed! Or subpages for WikiProjects that hadn't been active for a long, long time. Very interesting stuff hidden on these subpages, like To Do lists from 2007 or drafts of improvements that some editor wanted to implement. Since October 2021 though, this list is now updated weekly so it mainly contains some page redirects.
Well, thank you for running your code, it's very helpful. Pages like orphaned talk page or orphaned pages from deleted templates are easy to disappear from view. I'm glad there are tools that remind us they are there. Liz Read! Talk! 00:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Yes, sometimes you can find curious things in database reports! As for the code, I'm considering a bot task, but there are some cases where a speedy deletion isn't the best option (like Talk:James J. Curran, which I moved to Draft:James J. Curran because it looked like a draft), so I'd have to catch those somehow. Regardless, thanks — I always appreciate you taking care of my CSD tags! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from IHIRWE Samuel Tresor (02:57, 17 December 2021)[edit]

HI MY NAME IS TREASURE --IHIRWE Samuel Tresor (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IHIRWE Samuel Tresor: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Do you have any questions for me? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question about rejection of Article on Market Shaping[edit]

Hi,

thank you for reviewing my article on market shaping. Please enlighten me on your decision.

You state "Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner" as a reason.

I am very confused about that. The article contains no opinions or original research. Every point is backed up by articles in highly ranked scientific journals (e.g. Journal of Marketing) and written from a neutral point of view.

The article summarizes 20 years of research on market shaping and presents two main perspectives that emerged from the discipline. I would appreciate if you could elaborate a bit further how the article does not fulfill the requirements necessary to warrant publication.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObsidianBlack13 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ObsidianBlack13: I think that, some issues with the draft are that it doesn't distinguish very well between the term "market shaping" and market shaping itself, and doesn't really elaborate as to what market shaping is, instead focusing on what market shaping does. For example, the lead sentence could be reworded to state that "market shaping is a theory that considers markets...". The two sections are also written from the point of view that the theory of market shaping is correct, but doesn't really explain how it's been proven to be correct. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tol: Fantastic! Thank you so much for your guidance! This has been extremely helpful. I will try to improve the draft according to your suggestions! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObsidianBlack13 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ObsidianBlack13: No problem! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 16:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:COVID-19 vaccination data in Africa not updating[edit]

 – Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tol, it appears that Template:COVID-19 vaccination data in Africa has not been updated in over 2 months. If possible could you fix it. Thanks. TapticInfo (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TapticInfo: Sorry about that! TolBot task 1 was replaced by task 5, which uses a new data format to generate any type of table. I'll migrate that template to the new format. Thanks for letting me know! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia entry for John T. Shea[edit]

Thanks for your input regarding the John T. Shea Wikipedia entry. I believe there are many reliable sources in the entry, so would you please look it over again, as there are several reliable sources included that are legitimate and factual. Thanks for your consideration. 2601:206:4281:E100:9DB6:B941:1329:A4EF (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I reviewed it, the draft had no inline citations. Now, while the referencing has been greatly improved, I don't think that the draft demonstrates notability. Most of the general references are about Willie Mays rather than Shea, and the inline ones don't demonstrate significant coverage either. I would recommend that you work on the draft and add references that demonstrate notability — that is, significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question on rejection of article of noise in human judgment[edit]

Dear Tol,

Thank you for reviewing my article on noise in human judgment on October 18 and for your hard work on Wikipedia in general. I have now redoubled my efforts to write the article in an encyclopedic manner. I have done so by shortening it so as to summarise better, by deleting language such as "it has been argued", by referencing in a clearer manner (there was never any original research in the text) and by trying even harder to write from a neutral point of view. The latter is a bit difficult, since the central book discussing the concept still is less than a year old and there thus isn't much other literature on the concept as discussed here, but I hope I have now done a good enough job and that other authors can help improve the article further. Do you think these alterations will be enough or do you have any further pointers that could be helpful to me, a newbie editor?

All the best /Tim Isaksson (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim Isaksson: You're welcome! I think that the subject is going to be hard to write about because, as you mention, there's not much literature about the concept. More than half of the draft's inline citations are to the book. Another difficulty with this topic is that it's unclear whether "noise" is the common name for this — cognitive bias, for example, is an existing article about a similar concept — and, even if it's its own topic with that name, whether it's notable enough to have its own article. I'm personally not very familiar with the field, so I don't know if the topic of noise is notable (and it'd be hard to find out because the topic has soft boundaries with similar topics). I'd try to make sure that the draft and its references demonstrate that noise is both a widely used term and a notable one. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tol: Thanks for your reply, and Happy Holidays. Yes, it is indeed a problem that there's not overly much literature that specifically uses the term "noise" to denote the problem of unwanted variability in human judgment. However, noise is commonly used in statistics parlance, which is not only related to the topic at hand but integral to it. Moreover, hopefully more literature is on its way and the article as it stands can be seen as a good start – after all, the book is written by one of history's most famous psychologists.
Regarding whether 'cognitive bias' is too similar, my conviction is that it is not. This is because cognitive bias is one of the reasons for why noise in human judgment arises, but it is not the only reason. 'Taste' also plays in, which needs not be a function of cognitive bias. Furthermore, cognitive bias gives rise both to statistical bias and to statistical noise. Thank you for your advice. I do not quite see a way of demonstrating that better than I have tried to do in the current draft without increasing the length of the article. Hopefully other editors can come in with fresh eyes and be of help.
Thanks again
/Tim Isaksson (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim Isaksson: You're welcome, and happy holidays to you too! More published works on the topic would be very helpful in demonstrating notability as its own topic. Thanks for your work on the draft! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tol/Archives/2021/12&oldid=1077113581"