> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
> The Cunctator wrote:
>> In all seriousness, I think the policy should be that any special
>> needed to understand the article should be included somewhere in
>> For example, the above knowledge is included at [[key signature]]
>> and at
>> [[E-flat major]].
>> Thus if the example article read
>> "The [[key (music)|key]] of the score is [[E-flat major]]<ref>
>> [link to
>> Any person with the knowledge contained at those links would be
>> able to
>> understand the reference.
> That's perfectly sensible. Instead some people are intent on
> reinventing the wheels that they are already spinning too fast to see.
The essence of the matter is that a reader be able to verify that
there is a source that confirms the statement.
Nit-picks/genuine questions (my musical literacy is almost nil): what
is "the" key of a piece of music which modulates into many different
keys and has different key signatures marked within the score? Is it
a general rule or custom or convention that the first key signature
which appears in the score is "the" key signature?
Nit-pick number two: how do you tell by looking at the music whether
it is in C Major or A Minor? That is, can you always unequivocally
tell the key of a piece of music by glancing at it, or is judgement
After the success of this month's New York City meetup, with like 25
folks who showed up out of the almost 50 who expressed interest, I've taken
the liberty to set up something several users have brought up
and discussed in some way, shape or form and started the Wikipedia Club of
New York. We intend to get together at least once a month and see and
experience all that New York City and her metropolitan area has to offer
(especially the booze)
...and if we can't find it in New York...be compelled to take a trip out to
Come join the fun at:
Feel free to contact me via e-mail here at cdthieme(a)gmail.com to get updates
on what we're planning.
Christopher D. Thieme
I've compared the standard of some current deletion debates with some
from a year back, only informally of course and without much system,
but it seems to me that:
* really obvious deletions are much less common, suggesting that PROD
is doing its job
* blatant spam and band vanity is no longer a significant contributor
* quality of debate seems higher, with more references to policy and
guidelines and much less bald !voting
* more contextual knowledge is evident now, suggesting that
categorisation may also be working as intended
One thing which is not fixed: articles towards the end of the AfD day
attract much less input than articles at the beginning of the day.
Does anyone have a good idea for fixing that?
I understand that new articles get close scrutiny but just how do
deletable articles that have been around for a while come to the
attention to those who regularly nominate articles for deletion?
(especially if the article is otherwise well written)
I ask this because recently I came across a fairly well written
article about a computer term that had a prod tag on it for being an
unsourced neologism. It probably was since all the google hits for it
pointed to mirrors of its WP article but I still decided to replace
the prod with a sources tag to give the original author a chance to
add a source. However, I started to wonder why the person who first
prodded it suspected it was a neologism as it couldn't have been the
first term he ran across on wikipedia that he never heard about. Does
he prod them all?
The same could be asked about notability. Just what makes one suspect
that a particular person/band/school/company/webcomic etc. is not
notable? Please note that I am not saying that such articles should be
kept but there has to be something in an otherwise well written
article to cause someone to investigate the article's eligibility to
be in wikipedia besides "I've never heard if him/it"
Thanks for everyone's replies. I'll make a few comments.
1. The legal database (more properly, collection of legal journals)
I was using when the question came up was HeinOnLine. In my
small city, it is available in one public library and two university
libraries. I'm sure the access is similar in other cities. Similar
resources like Lexis are also widely available in public libraries.
So I don't think availability is an issue.
2. Jay is quite correct to discourage weasel words like "probably".
For one thing, it prevents objective verification.
3. Sarah points out the following text from WP:NOR :
"anyone--without specialist knowledge--who reads the
primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia
passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation
of primary source material requires a secondary source."
That seems to be broken. Examples of specialist knowledge
which might be required are the ability to read a foreign
language and the ability to understand mathematical notation.
Someone who can read music should be able to report from
a musical score that it is in E-flat, even though that requires
specialist knowledge. What the policy *should* require
(somehow) is that anyone who can read music will agree that
the score is in E-flat. The fundamental skills of the field
should be assumed, and the policy should reflect that, imo.
4. Sarah wrote: "We use writers as sources, not databases and
libraries." Nobody suggested libraries. I don't see that
databases are excluded by any existing policy, provided that
the process of extraction of the information from the database
Suppose I have a book about a serial killer, which lists all the
victims one by one. I think it is perfectly ok to write "all the
victims were women" after looking up each case in the book.
It comes under "research that consists of collecting and
organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary
sources is, of course, strongly encouraged."(WP:NOR) I can't
see how that is different *in principle* from reporting that all
the articles on a particular subject in a particular database
give the same story about something, provided that that
observation is one that anyone can verify. Of course this
criterion might not always be satisfied, but that shouldn't
eliminate the cases where it is.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
Here is something I would like to share with all of you:
To laugh is to risk appearing the fool.
To weep is to risk appearing sentimental.
To reach out to another is to risk involvement.
To explore feelings is to risk exposing our true self.
To place your ideas, your dreams, before the crowd is to risk loss.
To love is to risk not being loved in return.
To live is to risk dying.
To hope is to risk despair.
To try at all is to risk failure.
But to risk we must,
Because the greatest hazard in life is to risk nothing.
The man, the woman, who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is
Have a happy & healthy New Year,