Video Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 58
RFC: kapan stasiun radio komunitas terkenal?
Comments are asked on the topic of unavailability of community radio stations, and does it make sense to expect a significant secondary source for radio stations that cover a small area, here. JMWt (talk) 10:08 am, Yesterday (UTC-8)
- The above sections have been deleted, without much comment edit, in this editing with Neutralhomer (talk Ã,  · contrib < span> Ã,  · delete contribs Ã, Ã,  · log Ã,  · edit the log filter  · block users Ã, Ã,  · block logs} . As far as I know such action is prohibited by WP: TALK and no exemptions apply. (That would not be better with editing comments, either.) I am aware that Neutralhomer has moved to close the RFC started by JMWWt but this seems to me very heavy. Additional notes here about steps to close will be appropriate. Jeh (talk) 14:29, December 9, 2015 (UTC)
Maps Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 58
Indiscriminate abandonment of topics
There is a section at the beginning of this guideline which says that notability serves "to avoid entry of the topic in vain". I think we should change the word "inclusion" to "inclusion or exclusion". I do not think this will change the meaning of the guidelines as people who really can not have indiscriminate inclusion without also having an indiscriminate exemption at the same time. What will be done is to more explicitly acknowledge that notability is functional to avoid accidental removal by making assumptions about deletion. It would be easier to turn the new words into a claim that notability is a deletionist charter, which is not and should not be. James500 (talk) 08:57, December 7, 2015 (UTC)
- Can you give an example of the playback of your hypothesis that never really happened? And where does your idea come from "contention for deletion"? EEng (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Exceptions" in the context of notability is not a valid approach. Uncertainty is just a test for stand-alone articles, not exceptions to topics that might be better discussed in a broader article. --M ASEM (t) 14:42, December 7, 2015 (UTC)
- And BTW, notability is only part of the test for stand-alone articles, because I'm having great difficulty getting people to understand now. EEng (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
This seems to be a consensus editing. That is not my personal interpretation. It was the original text until mid November. What User: EEng does is return the last change by Esquivalience that has not been discussed, let alone approved, on this talk page, as far as I know, unless I miss something. The editing summary of esquivalience even says that he made a "bold" change (ie not discussed). Where is the alleged discussion about the addition of Esquivalience? I can not see that. James500 (talk) 11:42, December 11, 2015 (UTC)
- I have looked again at archive 57 and I can not see any discussion about recent changes that have been recovered by Users: EEng, and there is no discussion on this page right now. They must be returned to the original text until November 13th. What should happen is "dare, go back, discuss" not "dare, back, back again, and then discuss", which has been done by EEng. James500 (talk) 12:10, December 11, 2015 (UTC)
-
- Without commenting on the content of the changes, I will only note that "edit battling consensus" is a very dirty misstatement of one editing. When you delete what someone wrote and the third person returned it, it's not a war editing - it's two people who disagree with you. And "against" the consensus will mean there is consensus on the addition of material (edit battles against consensus versions will also characterize a person who corrects typos and restores improvements to his removal as well). I think what you mean is Esquivalience and EEng has added some content that you personally reject and that you feel is a substantial enough change to get the discussion first. - Rhododendrit talk \\ 14:55, December 11, 2015 (UTC)
I do not have time to debate deeply for the rest of my changes, so I'll start at Special: Diff/690403454 first ( minus the 4 foot notes I added ). In this change, I do not change the meaning of any statement, but rewrite it; putting quotes around the keywords distorts them.
In addition to the above, I propose adding an intermediate example of significant coverage to emphasize that important topics do not require long-book coverage:
- Esquivalience t 01:48, December 21, 2015 (UTC)
- (1) This is not RfC. (2) The text above which should show the diff effects of 690403454 contains a number of additional changes not made in the diff. It's very difficult to ascertain what changes are actually being proposed. (3) I still strongly oppose the inclusion of "author or organizational" expression in the guidelines for the reasons I describe in the above thread. The phrase is nonsense because there are things like 'joint authorship' and 'company authorship'. Changes do not clarify the text, only increase the number of chirp, making it very unclear how the guidelines apply to the organization. I also do not think that the part that sounds "probably because it violates WP: NOT (see also WP: INDISCRIMINATE)" makes sense. The word "see also" is not correct because INDISCRIMINATE is part of NO. Words like "and especially" or "and especially" may be better. (4) I support the proposition that a single page dedicated to Grigori Perelman in the proposed example is of significant coverage, but... (a) I do not understand why this should be an example between. I think the long sample book that is already in the guide is too long and should be replaced altogether with a much shorter example. (B) I do not like the appearance of the word "only" in relation to one page. It's not just a single page, it's actually quite a lot of text, which I hope will be accepted without question. (C) I do not like the first sentence until the word "but". I'm not sure "relatively unusual" means so much. The only thing in the universe that is not uncommon is hydrogen. As for "the source to devote a book", our normal terminology is that the book is the source, not the output of the source. James500 (talk) 09:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Mixed message
Introduction to WP: N states:
- "A topic is considered worthy of an article if it meets either the general notation guidelines below, or the criteria outlined in the subject-specific guidelines listed in the box on the right" (including WP: ATHLETE).
The statement is contradictory. WP: ATHLETE opening paragraph says it is there to help determine if the subject meets the GNG. In the next sentence, it is said that the subject must meet either GNG or SSC, which reflects the intro to WP: N as above. It would be unreasonable to have GNG if certain people who only meet the SSC at the lowest level can thus cut GNG, so surely the subject's aim is to meet the GNG with the SSC as one form of evidence (ie, that it has reached a certain standard within Sports). It is not logical that WP: ATHLETE (and similar categories) can be intended as an alternative determinant factor.
I propose an amendment of the above statement to read:
- "A topic deemed worthy of an article if it meets the general notation guidelines below; evidence of linkage can be ensured by meeting the criteria outlined in the subject-specific guidelines listed in the box on the right."
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments