User talk:Hoary/Archive 21

Mechanical Turk is there now in Western Europe. As said if I were you I'd buy a box of Cohiba Robusto cigars and a bottle of single malt Glenfiddich and spend 24 hours on some coast. Then come back Monday and blind revert it all. Ceoil (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I've been out for much of the day, Ceoil, imbibing no such toxins; though I did treat myself to a tiny block of yōkan while waiting for a train. But yes, I think I'll largely ignore the article. Thank you for coming through with the Levitt check! -- Hoary (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Good to hear. Apologies again for the tardiness, but it was a pleasure working with you; I'm very impressed. Ceoil (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Ceoil, during the article's second Big Day, numerous editors busied themselves with very minor matters. I have to concede that on balance their alterations trivially improved the article. The fixes I made a few minutes ago were similarly trivial, and few. So no complaints about wording. To my mind the discrete ingredient of the article that most needs attention is the presentation of El Ajedrecista as part of the "legacy" of the Turk. I don't see it as that at all. But it's so interesting in itself and I've invested too much time in the little paragraph devoted to it for me to be keen to delete the latter. I am surprised though that no other editor has yet got rid of it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Thank you today for the article by several, introduced (in 2007!) as "on a bogus but still ingenious "automaton" that played chess: a device that concealed the fact that the chess was instead being played by a cooped-up human, thanks to magnets and candlelight. This is an article to which I have contributed nothing aside from liberal application of my fine-toothed comb, and therefore one that I can unashamedly praise."! - I hava a FAC open, also in the second round, about laughter for Cristmas, - what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I hope to take a look at Unser Mund sei voll Lachens, BWV 110 tomorrow, Gerda Arendt. -- Hoary (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

That would be nice, - sourcing was an issue, and I ran a peer review in between. - My story today is a Bach cantata, mentioned with the Christmas cantata, and the conductor of the video is mentioned by name in movement 1 of the Christmas cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, how about this for the intro?

Of course, feel free to adopt whatever you fancy (if anything) and to ignore the rest. -- Hoary (talk) 05:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Howdy!

I ended up bein' away for a little bit and so my Teahouse thread got archived before I could reply to anyone, but the writer for the "scintillating" quote on the George Freeman article isn't named. That'd be because the author's name isn't in its original source (best I can guess is that they're called "Samson," but I don't wanna brush with WP:OR since I can't prove it), which is their website. This was actually somethin' I had to tangle with when I combed through the first time-- I went back n' forth a lot as to whether to remove the quote entirely, since it's hard to evaluate if somethin's an RS when there's no named author, but opted to let it stay because that person is also quoted in the Guardian article that's cited to that same line (I know the number of cites on that one were also asked about-- that's the explanation for 2 of 3 of them, without havin' evaluated the third at present.) I assumed that'd be okay if they were both there together, but I'm open to being corrected.

The reason that there's still no name even then is because the Guardian article basically uses the exact same line that's in the Wiki article-- also referrin' to the quote's author only as a "music writer."

It might not've been worth comin' here to discuss it, so I apologize if I'm just pestering ya, but since you asked and it's a bit of a weird situation, I thought it wouldn't hurt to elaborate.

Thanks so much for the reply! ~Judy _{(call it in!)} 04:49, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Janitor Judy, that all sounded curiously complex, but I thought that the clouds might lift if I just looked at "the Guardian article that's cited to that same line". However, I don't see any citation of The Guardian either in the article as presented for reading or in its "source". (Apropos of "source" as humans type it here, this is not HTML or XHTML -- it's instead Mediawiki -- and has no need of <p>paragraph tags</p>.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Dear Sir Hoary, I don't know how you can say these aren't independent, reliable, and published sources. Instead, they're all documented and reliable, and the text reflects and complies with corrections made by other administrators. Please, if you intervene and block the draft every time and it's never the same, it's impossible to communicate. Please, I'll try to revise it, but all the demonstrations held abroad—there are so many and well-documented ones—should already mean a lot. Have a good day. Elanim (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello Elanim. I've moved your comment to the foot of this page (where it belongs, as it's new) and reformatted its title. I'll look at Draft:Gaetano Minale afresh tomorrow. -- Hoary (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

You are very kind and I would thank you if you reread my draft tomorrow. All the sources are true and justified with the titles. I would like to point out that almost all of them are news from before the 2000s, that is, before the advent of the Internet. Elanim (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Elanim:

• Promotional wording: The obviously promotional wording, which Drmies and Netherzone remarked on earlier, has gone. Good. But what's left seems self-promotional in its resemblance to a curriculum vitae in seeming eagerness to list anything that could be listed, regardless of its significance in an encyclopedia.
• Reference formatting: Back on 9 December, Drmies wrote "References are done poorly, if at all--bare URLs simply do not cut it." ("Bare URLs" and their drawbacks are described in Wikipedia:Bare URLs. "Do not cut it" is an idiom meaning 'are inadequate'.) On 13 December I commented "The formatting of the references is a mess. I have improved the formatting of one reference; now you improve the rest." I don't notice any improvement. Today I improved the formatting of a second reference; will this inspire you to do more?
• Trivial publications: On 13 December I also commented about what was in "Pubblications news papers and periodicals" (a title that I have since renamed) that "[i]f one of these articles says something significant, then summarize it and of course cite the article for the summary; if however it fails to say anything, then cut any mention of it". This doesn't seem to have had any effect.
• Obscure exhibitions and awards: The greater the number of somewhat obscure exhibitions and awards that are listed, the less convincing the resulting draft becomes. If an organization or event that held/holds an exhibition or gave/gives an award has an article in English-language Wikipedia, I suggest that you link it to that article. If it doesn't have one, but does have one in Italian- or other-language (French, etc) Wikipedia, I suggest that you use Template:Ill to link it to that/those article(s). If it has no article in any Wikipedia, I suggest that you cut any mention of the exhibition or award.
• Actual titles: If you're writing about, or citing, a publication with an Italian title and without an English title, then give the Italian title. (You're welcome to add an English translation of the title, but not in a way that suggests that this is the actual title. Template:Cite book and the other templates in that family make this easy.)
• Conflict of interest: The very first version of this draft was created by U:GAETANO MINALE. Revisions and augmentations since then have been by you, Elanim, which very obviously is "Minale" spelt backwards. Your list of contributions demonstrates that your sole interest in English-language Wikipedia is Gaetano Minale. Please read, digest, and act on Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide (particularly, Ethically, you need to disclose your conflict of interest. You have one if you are editing about yourself, or anyone you know personally. You can do so on your user page, or on the talk page of the article you have a conflict of interest with) and it:Wikipedia:Conflitto di interessi (whose content differs only slightly from that of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest).

-- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Dear Ms. Hoary, thank you very much for the many suggestions you suggested. I tried to eliminate some things and will try to do so again. As for the text, I will reduce it to a minimum, trying to make it less self-promotional. I will eliminate insignificant news titles. I have mentioned very few exhibitions, only those abroad. I will try to translate motivations or awards, etc., into English, even if it will be difficult for me. I will write the titles of the books I have done in English and improve everything before sending the new draft. It is true that I used the surname backwards and not Gaetano Minale because I have had unpleasant surprises in the past. I also used a profile expert, but Wikipedia blocked him because he does not accept payment. Now I am doing everything myself. I am inexperienced and thank you again for the suggestions. I hope, however, that when I send the draft again, it will not be another administrator who blocks it. Have a good day, see you later. Elanim (talk) 07:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Good morning, Hoary, I've made some corrections you suggested, and before resubmitting the draft, I'd ask you to take a look and let me know if I can, or make other corrections. My concern is that once resubmitted, it won't arrive. As always, another administrator will block it for other reasons; this has happened dozens of times already. I'm 87 years old, and I'd like to leave with this task accomplished. Thank you, and best regards. Elanim (talk) 10:29, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Elanim, here's my earlier list:

• Promotional wording: Has been cut. (Not perfectly, but well enough.)
• Reference formatting: Still needs plenty of improvement. (I wonder if you understood my earlier comment.)
• Trivial publications: Still needs plenty of improvement.
• Obscure exhibitions and awards: Good, this has been improved.
• Actual titles: What appear to be Italian books are still described with English and not Italian titles. If you're referring to a book (or magazine, article, etc) with an Italian title (and not an English one), you must provide the Italian title (you are welcome to add to this your translation of this title into English).
• Conflict of interest: From what you write above, I infer that you are Gaetano Minale. Please say this directly in User:Elanim, for anyone who might be interested.

Good luck with the draft! -- Hoary (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary for the clarification. Elamin, I'm Gaetano Minale, 87 years old, forced to write things that are difficult for my age, and fortunately, with your suggestions, I can correct them. I'll make a few more corrections and send them, hoping this time I can get to the end... I'm tired... Best regards. Elanim (talk) 12:10, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Dear Sir Hoary, as I expected, another new administrator took over and cancelled the draft today, and like everyone else, copied and pasted the same motif. How sad indeed! I thought the English Wikipedia was different. Thank you for your contribution. Elanim (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Elanim, like the great majority of draft reviewers, Vestrian24Bio is not an administrator. (No matter, as whether a reviewer is or isn't an administrator has no effect on a review.) A draft may be "accepted" (promoted to article status), "declined" (very common), "rejected" (much rarer), or deleted (very rare); not "cancelled". Yours has been declined.

The draft I have most recently accepted (promoted) is now the article Lovett Auditorium. This is the state the draft was in immediately before I made minor changes to it and promoted it to an article. As you can see, the draft cites quite a lot of sources. But it has no list of items similar to your:

Abruzzo periodical La Voce, no. 4, April 1978, page 3, features an article in giramondo frentano about Minale's solo exhibition, his first guest at Galleria 46 in Lanciano, held from March 4 to 24, 1978. Title header, - With an exhibition for the inauguration, Minale is the first guest at Gallery 46 some quotes: Minale, a young artist originally from Molise who has long lived in Abruzzo; he is defined by many critics as "a Georgian and modern painter, he can be defined as a complete artist, rich in talent and temperament." Signed F.D.P.

Indeed, I have never seen a list of such items in any article.

The word "Georgian" has a wide variety of possible meanings, but let's put aside its ambiguity for a moment. Then a possible use of this piece from La Voce would be:

Minale was described in 1978 as "a Georgian and modern painter ... a complete artist, rich in talent and temperament".^[1]

-- although the title (of course the original, Italian-language title) would have to be specified. (I've used "???" to show where the title should go.)

Simply, you shouldn't provide a list of sources, saying what's in each. Instead, you should construct a narrative and for each part of this you should provide a source. -- Hoary (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Dear Sir, thank you for your reply. La Vove wrote the article in 1978 as his first guest at Galleria 46 in Lanciano. I've now attached the entire written page for you to read, in Italian of course. "Georgian painter," not Georgian, "Georgian" means a painter from another era, but modern. I can attach all the reference pages, and I will. What's sore is that they all use identical catchphrases, and no one specifies what is or isn't wrong. In short, you're the only one who gave me some pointers. I'll try to attach more information, but I already know how it ends. Thanks if you can help me further. Elanim (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

No further comment, Elanim, until I have read and considered your reply to Netherzone's question. Be sure to make it candid and informative; and of course post it on your talk page, not here. -- Hoary (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archive 76#c-Hoary-20251217083600-~2025-40636-03-20251217070000

How did you do that font?

Erikgobrrr (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Are you asking about Template:Tq? -- Hoary (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, thank you!

Erikgobrrr (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Of course Template:Tq shouldn't be used just in order to change color or font. To change color, you can simply use any of a number of color terms (for example olive, with Template:Olive) -- although links within this won't be recolored. -- Hoary (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello [Hoary],

I’m reaching out to request guidance on how best to proceed with an ongoing notability discussion related to the article Terrell Groggins.

I am a COI/PAID editor and have been using talk pages and edit requests exclusively, per policy. I’ve provided multiple independent secondary sources for editor review, but discussion with one editor has become circular, with repeated dismissal of sources without clear direction on what would resolve the concern.

I want to ensure I’m following the correct dispute-resolution process and not inadvertently causing disruption. Could you advise whether this is best addressed through WP:3O, WP:DRN, or another venue, and whether my current approach aligns with policy expectations for COI editors?

Thank you for your time and guidance. VisualArchiveEditor (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

VisualArchiveEditor, on the talk page, you say you're "requesting" (of course just an innocent typo for "making" or similar) an RfC. But you aren't. To make that request, you have to use Template:Rfc. It's all rather involved; and it's been so long since I last made an RfC that in order to understand the process fully I'd have to read up on it just as you would. (Indeed, I'm not certain I've ever made an RfC.) Which takes me to the question you ask above. First, read up on RfCs and decide if you want to make one. If you do, then revise your request so that it will function as an RfC. If on further reflection you don't, then briefly say so at the foot of that section. If there's a dispute over notability of an article subject, the best place to settle it is I think an "AFD"; but of course it's a notability-disputing editor who would start that off. -- Hoary (talk) 09:44, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification regarding the RfC process. You’re right — my earlier wording reflected intent to seek broader input rather than the formal initiation of an RfC via {{Rfc}}. After reviewing your comments, I’ve decided not to initiate an RfC at this time.

Given your subsequent remarks on the article talk page — particularly that World Press Photo, the Center for Creative Photography, and the Smithsonian Institution are respected, independent institutions, and that awards or institutional recognition from them are “an achievement and worth mentioning” — I wanted to ask a narrow procedural question.

In light of that assessment, do you think the current maintenance tags on the article (general notability under WP:GNG and the BLP sourcing caution notice) remain appropriate, or would it now be reasonable for those tags to be removed pending further editorial review?

I’m not seeking to escalate or reopen disputes, only to ensure that the article reflects consensus-based application of policy. I appreciate your guidance on this.

— VisualArchiveEditor (talk) VisualArchiveEditor (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

After reviewing your comments, I’ve decided not to initiate an RfC at this time. Ironically, using the template started an RfC. I undid that. Polygnotus (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

VisualArchiveEditor, I've removed the "notability" warning and have commented on the article's talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for February 11, 2026. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2026, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2026. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Hoary, I was adding leads to pages with none when I came across a page nominated for the deletion. The editor has been on WP for a couple of months so is autoconfirmed. They've created a handful of pages which all of seem undeveloped and moved back to draftspace or nominated for deletion. I'd like to propose that they only be able to create articles through AfC. What's the best forum for this? Thanks MmeMaigret (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, Mme Maigret. This sounds like what we call "a CIR issue". If this editor really seems incorrigible (at least in the short term), then what you propose can and probably should be done; however, please observe this before proposing it (probably to WP:ANI). HTH. -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary, that was exactly what I needed. I've started at Repeated mistakes and put an explanation and suggestions on their talk page. Cheers MmeMaigret (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Your addition to the talk page is good, MmeMaigret. Just one little point for future postings of similar messages: I'm sure that many editors here will never have heard of Cliffs Notes. And (cough), completely irrelevantly, you wouldn't happen to be interested in coffeehouses, perchance? -- Hoary (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to read my story at User:Interstellarity/My Story and join in for some Wikipedia-related fun. I hope you like it. Interstellarity (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)