zero 0000 wrote
I agree 101%. Deletionism seems to be a sort of mental disease.
More radical incivility.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
On 1/4/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
zero 0000 wrote
I agree 101%. Deletionism seems to be a sort of mental disease.
More radical incivility.
Charles
Should be noted that deletionists are now pro-encyclopedists and inclusionists are pro-content
Oy vey, more factioning!
On 1/4/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/4/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
zero 0000 wrote
I agree 101%. Deletionism seems to be a sort of mental disease.
More radical incivility.
Charles
Should be noted that deletionists are now pro-encyclopedists and inclusionists are pro-content
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 04/01/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/4/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
zero 0000 wrote
I agree 101%. Deletionism seems to be a sort of mental disease.
More radical incivility.
Charles
Should be noted that deletionists are now pro-encyclopedists and inclusionists are pro-content
I can't agree to that definition. "Encyclopaedic" content is simply content presented in a particular style. IMO, one can write an article on a Pokemon character or a high school in an encyclopaedic manner.
There's nothing wrong with deleting articles, as long as attempts have been made to clean them up, or solve their problem some other way. A lot of articles that are nominated for deletion can be rescued by renaming, merging or simply adding a line to claim notability.
I'm not trying to step on the toes of the editors involved in this, but take for example the article on Michael Perham who became the youngest sailor to cross the Atlantic. That's clearly notable, but the article was deleted because it stated "he was believed to become the youngest person to cross the Atlantic". Clearly that's crystal-ballery, but a mere Google search would've shown he already finished the trip at the time and that there was plenty of news articles to use as sources.
I'd like to see people do more research on their nominations and give more than just two words in their nomination reasoning. Sometimes I believe nominators are rushing their nomination.
Mgm
On 1/4/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/01/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/4/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
zero 0000 wrote
I agree 101%. Deletionism seems to be a sort of mental disease.
More radical incivility.
Charles
Should be noted that deletionists are now pro-encyclopedists and inclusionists are pro-content
I can't agree to that definition. "Encyclopaedic" content is simply content presented in a particular style. IMO, one can write an article on a Pokemon character or a high school in an encyclopaedic manner.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 13:32:13 +0100, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not trying to step on the toes of the editors involved in this, but take for example the article on Michael Perham who became the youngest sailor to cross the Atlantic. That's clearly notable, but the article was deleted because it stated "he was believed to become the youngest person to cross the Atlantic". Clearly that's crystal-ballery, but a mere Google search would've shown he already finished the trip at the time and that there was plenty of news articles to use as sources.
Yes. I have an essay somewhere which uses Eric Moussambani as an example. As losing finalist in a single Olympic swimming event we would delete the article. As "Eric the Eel" it's an unambiguous keep.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Yes. I have an essay somewhere which uses Eric Moussambani as an example. As losing finalist in a single Olympic swimming event we would delete the article.
It continues to worry me that we would delete an article on any Olympian.
-Jeff
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 08:50:36 -0600 (CST), "Jeff Raymond" jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
It continues to worry me that we would delete an article on any Olympian.
Oh so we're now a directory of losing athletes as well are we?
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 08:50:36 -0600 (CST), "Jeff Raymond" jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
It continues to worry me that we would delete an article on any Olympian.
Oh so we're now a directory of losing athletes as well are we?
Yes. Or something.
-Jeff
It continues to worry me that we would delete an article on any Olympian.
Oh so we're now a directory of losing athletes as well are we?
This is getting a little off topic, but I'll contribute anyway. Anyone that qualifies for the olympics is notable for that reason alone. The problem with this particular case is that he didn't qualify, he got in on a wildcard. Basically, he reached the olympics by luck - you can't be notable simply by being lucky. However, it is a fairly unique case and got lots of press coverage, so it's notable for that reason even if he isn't notable for simply being an Olympian.
A similar situation - a Formula One racing driver that is always at the back of the field. He's not notable within F1, but he's very notable within racing in general, as he's reached the top competition. Reaching F1 (and similarly the olympics) is a major achievement, even if you lose.
On 1/4/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It continues to worry me that we would delete an article on any
Olympian.
Oh so we're now a directory of losing athletes as well are we?
This is getting a little off topic, but I'll contribute anyway. Anyone that qualifies for the olympics is notable for that reason alone. The problem with this particular case is that he didn't qualify, he got in on a wildcard. Basically, he reached the olympics by luck - you can't be notable simply by being lucky.
Sure you can! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolores_McNamara
However, it is a fairly unique case
and got lots of press coverage, so it's notable for that reason even if he isn't notable for simply being an Olympian.
A similar situation - a Formula One racing driver that is always at the back of the field. He's not notable within F1, but he's very notable within racing in general, as he's reached the top competition. Reaching F1 (and similarly the olympics) is a major achievement, even if you lose. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 04/01/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It continues to worry me that we would delete an article on any Olympian.
Oh so we're now a directory of losing athletes as well are we?
This is getting a little off topic, but I'll contribute anyway. Anyone that qualifies for the olympics is notable for that reason alone. The problem with this particular case is that he didn't qualify, he got in on a wildcard. Basically, he reached the olympics by luck - you can't be notable simply by being lucky. However, it is a fairly unique case and got lots of press coverage, so it's notable for that reason even if he isn't notable for simply being an Olympian.
Of course, there's [[Eddie the Eagle]] (to keep with the E theme) who not only didn't do anything to qualify, but made them put in the rule that you had to actually have some previous success to become an Olympian ;-)
Of course, there's [[Eddie the Eagle]] (to keep with the E theme) who not only didn't do anything to qualify, but made them put in the rule that you had to actually have some previous success to become an Olympian ;-)
Being so bad they had to make a rule to get rid of you sounds very notable to me.
[An old mail I forgot to send back in January, but it strikes me as worth mentioning]
On 04/01/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, there's [[Eddie the Eagle]] (to keep with the E theme) who not only didn't do anything to qualify, but made them put in the rule that you had to actually have some previous success to become an Olympian ;-)
Being so bad they had to make a rule to get rid of you sounds very notable to me.
Indeed :-)
Though now I think about it, it does show up an interesting bias in our assumptions. Today, Olympians are de-facto notable, by definition world-class athletes. But thirty-forty years ago - certainly back by the 1920s - in many respects, in some of the more obscure sports, they were "the chaps from --- who turned up". We often assert a kind of retroactive assumption that that the standards of notability inherent in something in the present were inherent in its past incarnations, and use the present "status" as a blanket acceptance criteria.
An example that springs to mind is the Victoria Cross, where we have a reasonably established assumption that winners of it are inherently notable, because of the scarcity of the award and the cultural importance attatched to it. But this is a modern thing, a product of the past century; the VC was originally (by contemporary standards) given out remarkably often - in one case in 1857, 24 in a single day. 18 of those were awarded by ballot, given to a unit and then selected from among their members - do we class those recipients as "notable" in the same way as someone who won it by more stringent standards a century later?
I don't think these small unintentional broadenings of what constitutes notability are a detrimental thing to any "notability rule" - it does, after all, mean we have a larger body of topics to draw on without bickering - but it is something we should perhaps be aware that we do.
On 5/13/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
do we class those recipients as "notable" in the same way as someone who won it by more stringent standards a century later?
Seriously, who cares?
These would obviously be of interest to anyone reading the list of recipients and following links. As long as the target article is well-written and well-referenced, the average reader who wanders in from the intarwebs will enjoy the article, rather than screaming "OMG non-notable, less than 1,750 google-hits!" and demanding that it be deleted. That sort of behavior I have only seen exhibited by a handful of our regular "contributors".
--C.W.
Examining [[List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign]], there were 522 before WWI, 626 during WW I, 10 between WWI and WW II, 181 in WW II, and 13 afterwards. I think we can deal with this. All that is needed is a sentence with these numbers to put it in perspective.
On 5/13/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/13/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
do we class those recipients as "notable" in the same way as someone who won it by more stringent standards a century later?
Seriously, who cares?
These would obviously be of interest to anyone reading the list of recipients and following links. As long as the target article is well-written and well-referenced, the average reader who wanders in from the intarwebs will enjoy the article, rather than screaming "OMG non-notable, less than 1,750 google-hits!" and demanding that it be deleted. That sort of behavior I have only seen exhibited by a handful of our regular "contributors".
--C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 13/05/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/13/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
do we class those recipients as "notable" in the same way as someone who won it by more stringent standards a century later?
Seriously, who cares?
*shrug*. I'm not saying it's important, or that we should do anything about it - it's just an anomaly in the way we determine "notability" that struck me as interesting. It never hurts to know the quirks of a system...
On 04/01/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 08:50:36 -0600 (CST), "Jeff Raymond" jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
It continues to worry me that we would delete an article on any Olympian.
Oh so we're now a directory of losing athletes as well are we?
Being an Olympian, whether they won or lost, is reason enough to have a Wikipedia article. Olympians represent some of the best athletes in a particular country at a particular time. If that is not "notability" [spit], what is?
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 04/01/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 08:50:36 -0600 (CST), "Jeff Raymond" wrote:
It continues to worry me that we would delete an article on any Olympian.
Oh so we're now a directory of losing athletes as well are we?
Being an Olympian, whether they won or lost, is reason enough to have a Wikipedia article. Olympians represent some of the best athletes in a particular country at a particular time. If that is not "notability" [spit], what is?
Some losers, like British ski-jumper Eddie the Eagle are especially memorable.
Ec
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
There's nothing wrong with deleting articles, as long as attempts have been made to clean them up, or solve their problem some other way. A lot of articles that are nominated for deletion can be rescued by renaming, merging or simply adding a line to claim notability.
Observing that would cut down the arguing.
I'm not trying to step on the toes of the editors involved in this, but take for example the article on Michael Perham who became the youngest sailor to cross the Atlantic. That's clearly notable, but the article was deleted because it stated "he was believed to become the youngest person to cross the Atlantic".
The youngest verifiable person to cross the Atlantic was probably a baby during early colonial days. ;-)
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
There's nothing wrong with deleting articles, as long as attempts have been made to clean them up, or solve their problem some other way. A lot of articles that are nominated for deletion can be rescued by renaming, merging or simply adding a line to claim notability.
Observing that would cut down the arguing.
I'm not trying to step on the toes of the editors involved in this, but take for example the article on Michael Perham who became the youngest sailor to cross the Atlantic. That's clearly notable, but the article was deleted because it stated "he was believed to become the youngest person to cross the Atlantic".
The youngest verifiable person to cross the Atlantic was probably a baby during early colonial days. ;-)
Did they do it solo, unassisted, etc? Please, stop trolling.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
I'm not trying to step on the toes of the editors involved in this, but take for example the article on Michael Perham who became the youngest sailor to cross the Atlantic. That's clearly notable, but the article was deleted because it stated "he was believed to become the youngest person to cross the Atlantic".
The youngest verifiable person to cross the Atlantic was probably a baby during early colonial days. ;-)
Did they do it solo, unassisted, etc? Please, stop trolling.
That wasn't stated in the quote. Your risk of exploding from over inflation, and deficient sense of humour do not support your accusation of trolling.
Ec
We really should stop throwing that word "trolling" around... it can be very offensive towards those who mean well.
On 1/5/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
I'm not trying to step on the toes of the editors involved in this, but
take
for example the article on Michael Perham who became the youngest
sailor to
cross the Atlantic. That's clearly notable, but the article was deleted because it stated "he was believed to become the youngest person to
cross
the Atlantic".
The youngest verifiable person to cross the Atlantic was probably a baby during early colonial days. ;-)
Did they do it solo, unassisted, etc? Please, stop trolling.
That wasn't stated in the quote. Your risk of exploding from over inflation, and deficient sense of humour do not support your accusation of trolling.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 05/01/07, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
We really should stop throwing that word "trolling" around... it can be very offensive towards those who mean well.
I thought the smiley in Ray's original post was a fairly strong and obvious hint that he wasn't trolling. Maybe we should start using humor warnings in addition to spoiler warnings.
On 1/5/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 05/01/07, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
We really should stop throwing that word "trolling" around... it can be
very
offensive towards those who mean well.
I thought the smiley in Ray's original post was a fairly strong and obvious hint that he wasn't trolling. Maybe we should start using humor warnings in addition to spoiler warnings.
-- Earle Martin http://downlode.org/ http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Don't we already have a humor warning? I thought it was this --> :-)
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
I'm not trying to step on the toes of the editors involved in this, but take for example the article on Michael Perham who became the youngest sailor to cross the Atlantic. That's clearly notable, but the article was deleted because it stated "he was believed to become the youngest person to cross the Atlantic". Clearly that's crystal-ballery, but a mere Google search would've shown he already finished the trip at the time and that there was plenty of news articles to use as sources.
While that was certainly a mistake, it (unfortunately) seems quite understandable to me. If you've ever done newpages patrol even briefly, you've probably encountered several kids who are "going to be the youngest person to" sail across the Atlantic, fly to the Moon, win the Nobel prize, etc. As a rule, they're all utterly non-notable.
Yes, Googling does often help catch the few that actually are notable. It was precisely for that reason that I originally wrote myself a user script that adds a "Google for this title" link to the toolbox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts/Goog...
Thursday, January 4, 2007, 1:22:49 PM, charles wrote:
zero 0000 wrote
I agree 101%. Deletionism seems to be a sort of mental disease.
More radical incivility.
Actually, according to a New York Times article, incivility is becoming one of the characteristic features of Web 2.0:
(I think this link was posted already on this list):
<< As a Web 2.0 site or a blog becomes more popular, a growing percentage of its reader contributions devolve into vitriol, backstabbing and name-calling (not to mention Neanderthal spelling and grammar).
Participants address each other as "idiot" and "moron" (and worse) the way correspondents of old might have used "sir" or "madam."