User talk:Intgr/Archive 3: Difference between revisions
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
:::::If you want to cite a magazine that doesn't have copies of articles on the Internet then you shouldn't add a link at all — the current link is very confusing, hence why I didn't consider it a source. And you should use proper [[WP:CITE|citation style]]. -- [[User:Intgr|intgr]] 06:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC) |
:::::If you want to cite a magazine that doesn't have copies of articles on the Internet then you shouldn't add a link at all — the current link is very confusing, hence why I didn't consider it a source. And you should use proper [[WP:CITE|citation style]]. -- [[User:Intgr|intgr]] 06:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::::: The new yorker had a passing mention of dirty bird in October 2006. That is the best you will EVER FIND for a punk band. Now maganize is the link that I already have there, I'm sayiing it's not just on the internet. Sorry I'm not up with all the best wikipedia styles, that's not grounds for rmoval on notability. Anwyay, you should remove the notice, you can't dispute the New Yorker is a real print source. |
Revision as of 06:59, 8 April 2007
This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Intgr/Archive_3. |
Note: If I don't respond in a reasonable time frame or if you have something particularly urgent, you can try e-mailing me.
Coda size limits
Concerning facts without attribution (see Coda (file system) and volume size limits), I'd rather like people just to add "citation needed" tags (which are constructive) instead of simply reverting (which is kind of rude). BTW in this particular case, an (explained) statement about Coda's maximum volume size was present in older versions of the article but was removed without notice by someone doing refactoring. I find this "style before facts" tendency a bit odd (not that it matters a lot though). -- NotInventedHere 09:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I reverted it because Coda is a network file system — I wouldn't expect it to have any size limits like normal file systems do, and as I couldn't go and verify it due to the lack of a source, I reverted it. Rude or not, I found it very dubious. -- intgr 16:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Intgr, just thought I'd stop by and just let you know, a few days back I filed a note on WP:COI/N regarding the Optical Carrier article, I think this is why Cyberdyneinc had the message on their talk page, I actually posted a message advising of the post, but it was later blanked out without response (see [1]), just thought I'd stop by and let you know, and wondering if you might want to post your own 2cents on the COI in question. --NigelJ talk SIMPLE 10:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: Agnix
Deletion is fine with me. I didn't create the article, I don't mind, I just stumbled upon it when looking through some categories, and cleaned it up some and linked some words. -- Frap 13:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Right. I just contacted you since I couldn't find any other logged-on users who had made more than a single edit. -- intgr 13:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
re: Alpha Five
I just started on the article today and you want to play tit for tat on notability? Give me a chance to build the article and post my references. Alpha Five has been around longer then Filemaker Pro and Access, and they've sold over 1 million copies. Over the years it was more popular then the now dead Paradox. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeetMoss (talk • contribs).
- Sorry; fair enough — but in the future, you probably want to establish notability before adding links to prevalent templates, such as Template:Databases. -- intgr 04:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
dirty bird
look, i just created the dirty bird page, give me some time to finish it ok.--Notenderwiggin 05:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Then place a {{hangon}} on it and establish notability. -- intgr 05:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I placed a hangon (sorry, I have never created a page before and usually just add to pages that have already been created) I have references to Now magazine and the tropper website, is that sufficient notablity? I know they have been interviewed in Absolute Underground, but I dont have the print references handy. Because they are a punk band even though they are well-established there isn't a lot of print media referencs to them.--Notenderwiggin 05:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Err, none of the links would appear to be a "non-trivial published work" — these are normally reliable, secondary sources. Did you read the general notability guideline as well as notability of music?
- If there aren't enough secondary sources for the article then they are simply not content for Wikipedia — encyclopedia articles should be primarily based on secondary sources. You can read the attribution policy for more details. -- intgr 06:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I did read your links, the probelm is that a lot of the secondary references are print punk magazines which I don't have handy now. If you look at the other punk bands in canada music, most of them have way worse references, this page is already above the standard of other punk bands for refereces. Give me a week or so to get better ones.--Notenderwiggin 06:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Heh, the standard is still the notability guideline, although it's not enforced uniformly (WP:ININ), newer articles are generally subject to more scrutinity. Print magazines are fine for citing; we can let the article stay with {{notability}} meanwhile. Note that I already removed the speedy deletion template — this one ({{notability}}) is merely a notice for editors. Such notices do not require the {{hangon}} template, so you should remove the latter. -- intgr 06:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- All right, thanks, I'll try to get something better. Now magazine, by the way, is a real print magazine readily availible in Toronto. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Notenderwiggin (talk • contribs) 06:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
- If you want to cite a magazine that doesn't have copies of articles on the Internet then you shouldn't add a link at all — the current link is very confusing, hence why I didn't consider it a source. And you should use proper citation style. -- intgr 06:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- The new yorker had a passing mention of dirty bird in October 2006. That is the best you will EVER FIND for a punk band. Now maganize is the link that I already have there, I'm sayiing it's not just on the internet. Sorry I'm not up with all the best wikipedia styles, that's not grounds for rmoval on notability. Anwyay, you should remove the notice, you can't dispute the New Yorker is a real print source.