User talk:Rhododendrites: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:36, 26 May 2014

Template:Archive box collapsible

This is the talk page for User:Rhododendrites.

Designer notability - sorry, this turned into an essaylet!

It's a very interesting point. Looking at WP:CREATIVE, it doesn't really mention designers at all. Due to technicalities, a great many fashion designers would probably fail notability despite being quite well known in their field/area. The issue with fashion designers (and indeed, other designers, but fashion is my specialism), is that an individual may frequently be interviewed or sought out for soundbites/quotes, but not receive coverage of the "right type" to demonstrate notability as per Wikipedia guidelines. My take on it is that if someone receives regular features/coverage in the main magazines, say - a fashion designer often has their collections covered in WWD, Vogue, or Harper's Bazaar, or in the fashion pages of the major press, but not with a great quantity of text or editorial commentary (except from unacceptable sources such as blogs (no matter how major the blog is) or rehashed press releases) then this exposure is something to mull over. Plus, a lot of the sources we might find acceptable in such cases are frequently inaccessible (unless you are prepared to subscribe), with titles that tend not to give a fair indicator of what's actually within the article.

For example, I have just been trying to rescue Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Auguste Soesastro - Indonesian fashion designers get a LOT of pretty good quality coverage in the Indonesian press, with good online digital archives enabling us to double-check them - but that coverage is so often in the form of interviews or "fashion press" which some people at AFD like to sneer at and dismiss offhandedly as PR/trivia/fluff. I think Soesastro is very much notable, especially in his field, and he has a small (but still significant, for a fashion designer) international presence. But I can see how others might not accept the sources simply because they are largely interviews, despite the fact they're pretty high quality ones. Another AFC I rescued was Boris Bidjan Saberi - again, the sources might give him a bit of a rough ride if it were taken to AFD, despite the fact that he clearly has notability and significant long-running respect within his field and is admired by those in the know.

The AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Truong is another example of a designer who, IMO, seems to have received sufficient third-party coverage, in a variety of sources, from different reporters, to be at least a keep, but who is receiving a lot of "delete" votes because people won't accept the sources. Personally, I think Truong is borderline, and most of those sources exist because he's got a good public relations agent, but it's STILL varied coverage over a period of years, in a variety of sources, and I can't dismiss that offhand or support a delete in good faith.

It would be nice to have clearer guidelines about what makes designers - not just fashion - notable. Mabalu (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mabalu: - Hi, I got distracted with other things for a little while and realized I dropped this thread. Has there been any progress at any of the policy/guideline talk pages in the last 2 weeks? (Perhaps you could point me to where the discussions are taking place currently, if anywhere). Thanks. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014 disambig contest: let's do it again!

Greetings fellow disambiguator! Remember back in February when we made history by clearing the board for the first time ever, for the monthly disambiguation contest? Let's do it again in May! I personally will be aiming to lead the board next month, but for anyone who thinks they can put in a better effort, I will give a $10 Amazon gift card to any editor who scores more disambiguation points in May. Also, I will be setting up a one-day contest later in the month, and will try to set up more prizes and other ways to make this a fun and productive month. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: - Hi there. I don't do as much disambiguating as many others, but I'm curious about how you're keeping track of these edits? (What "board" exists that I can go to to aid in "clearing"?) --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you asked - this month's contest is at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/May 2014, and the rules are at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WWII infobox

As you have edited that page, you are welcome to participate in a discussion that is taking place at Template_talk:WW2InfoBox#Allies. Thank you. ^walk victor falk^talk 03:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot 2 May 2014

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
117	TorSearch (talk)	Add sources
424	Heavy metal subgenres (talk)	Add sources
50	I Declare War (band) (talk)	Add sources
84	Encryption software (talk)	Add sources
124	Symphonic black metal (talk)	Add sources
1,329	M83 (band) (talk)	Add sources
2,304	WikiLeaks (talk)	Cleanup
361	Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (talk)	Cleanup
8	American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (talk)	Cleanup
227	Knowledge process outsourcing (talk)	Expand
1,442	Abrahamic religions (talk)	Expand
27	Physicians in US Congress (talk)	Expand
380	Symphonic metal (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
971	Semitic people (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
400	Tails (operating system) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
176	Drive-by download (talk)	Merge
115	Logo of Wikipedia (talk)	Merge
393	Tor Browser Bundle (talk)	Merge
221	10 Years (band) (talk)	Wikify
110	PolarSSL (talk)	Wikify
4	GARNOME (talk)	Wikify
7	Ylilauta (talk)	Orphan
2	Deskloops (talk)	Orphan
2	Hudson Mindell Kitchell (talk)	Orphan
124	Deathgrind (talk)	Stub
6	Murrays Bay (talk)	Stub
10	Lost Angel (album) (talk)	Stub
4	Nasty Crue (talk)	Stub
68	West Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands (talk)	Stub
4	Narcosis (UK band) (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Yovisto

Hello Rhododendrites. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Yovisto, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Rhododendrites. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 01:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Blatant solicitation

You commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exaltado. There are a number of other non-notable albums up for nomination. Would you be kind enough to add a similar comment to them if you feel it's called for? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: - Blatant indeed :) Well, I would never commit to a particular opinion in advance, but if there are specific others you'd like me to take a look at I'd be happy to (depending on the number -- evaluating XfDs is sometimes a relatively time-consuming activity). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nice thing about the articles, the editor who is promoting the group has attempted to record any information that might make the albums notable. There are about four articles that clearly meet WP:NALBUMS while these others do not.

I fully understand that it's only if you have the time. Thank you regardless. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. All the same band, all the same article creator. I didn't understand that there was a common thread other than that you felt they weren't notable. I don't have the same reservations about this since these could have probably been nominated as a group, even (though I tend to avoid that myself). Anyway. I'll take a look. Thanks. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did my own due diligence searching for sources for three of them without luck and added my !vote accordingly. Will look at the others later if I can. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to comment on important issue in Fractional Reserve Banking

Hi, I am just reaching out to a few people that have previously made edits on the fractional reserve banking page. There is an important issue being discussed on the talk page which IMHO needs some neutral opinions. If you could make a comment, that would be much appreciated.

Thanks, Reissgo (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of list of manufactures as not notable

Hi Rhodendrites, You removed a number of manufacturers of Scuba equipment from a list as "not notable as they have no Wikipedia article". I was not aware that this is a necessary notability criterion. Could you direct me to the policy page specifying this please. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbsouthwood: - Hi, WP:WTAF is an oft-cited essay that summarizes the idea. Basically, lists of "examples of x" have to include only notable entries to assure encyclopedic importance and neutral point of view. As it's not an exhaustive list (like Bob Dylan discography or List of continents, a list of manufacturers such as this one would be such a list of examples. As Wikipedia is often used for promotional purposes, with people inserting names of non-notable companies, products, or people into lists, removing commercial entities is particularly common. There is a gray area where an item is included on a list as a redlink but cites sources to show notability and relevance to the list subject, but none of the manufacturers were accompanied by sources.

I see that you're an experienced editor, so perhaps you disagree with my understanding or application of the above? It's possible there are exceptions or precedents I'm not aware of. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhododenrites, WP:WTAF is a personal opinion, possibly shared by several people, but not a policy. Some of the manufacturers that were removed from the listing have been major manufacturers of diving equipment for decades, but no-one has yet written an article about them, or possibly there is an article, but no link -did you check them all?. My opinion is that it is not necessary to write an article first, as the notability of a manufacturer may be determined adequately by other means. I also do not agree that a list must be exhaustive as Wikipedia is a work in progress, contributors add to the list as they see fit, and some additions are notable, others maybe not. Also, it is an industry where new players may enter and old ones leave, so a the list may change from time to time. Unless you can definitively show that the removal of the listings follows a policy agreed by consensus, I intend to reinstate the lists, and you may challenge any of the specific manufacturers for notability as is the accepted procedure as I understand it. If you feel that the list is inadequate or biased in some way, please let me know the details (list them on the talk page, for easy reference, and for everyone to see as is customary) and I will try to fix it, as I feel this is more constructive and useful to the reader than wholesale deletion. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 21:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed WTAF is an essay, one which synthesizes various policies and guidelines in such a way that has pretty significant consensus. As I'm sure you agree that it's not good practice to admit anything to a list, and as no policy specifically addresses the matter, past consensus is really all we have to go on: the burden is on the one who wants to include list items to demonstrate notability and relevance. (i.e. if I add myself to List of polymaths, it wouldn't be sufficient to just tag it with a citation needed tag -- I would fully expect someone to just remove my name). You are right, though, that including citations is another commonly accepted way to demonstrate notability.

My point about exhaustive lists isn't at all that every list should be exhaustive. Quite the opposite. Lists that CAN be exhaustive (where there are a fixed number of knowable items as with a discography, tournament winners, or U.S. state capitals) can be sensibly exempted from notability requirements for each individual item in favor of notability of the whole. Lists that aren't exhaustive (like the vast majority of lists) are the ones that must demonstrate a reason why a particular example is being included in the list.

Go ahead and reinstate if you want to also include sources (otherwise you're simply promoting certain manufacturers you personally decide are notable). As none of them had sources, the burden is not on me to argue what is not notable.

I think the issue here is that we have different levels of sensitivity to promotional activities on Wikipedia and the nature of encyclopedic lists. People insert themselves, their companies, etc. into lists constantly. Editors compile lists of this or that using only original research/anecdote all the time. My understanding of consensus, to which there are exceptions, is that the burden is on the one who wants to include the examples in non-exhaustive lists to show notability and relevance. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not searched through the history to identify who added each name to the listing, as I worked on the general principle that if the company was well known to me, it was probably sufficiently notable. I don't even know if I added any of them myself - it is possible. I try to remove anything that appears promotional and where possible retain any useful information. Obviously usefulness is also in the eye of the beholder. I will try to indicate notability by a reference or two for each listing, and would appreciate your comments if you think more rigorous evidence is necessary, preferably with an explanation of what you would consider satisfactory in each disputed case. Give me a few days to sort it out, as I have other priorities too. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbsouthwood: - Works for me. I apologize for lecturing. Seeing in particular a section for a list of resellers may have sapped my AGF meter a bit. I don't know how a resellers section is justifiable unless that means something different in the diving industry, but I won't quarrel with a list of manufacturers if you feel they're important for the article. They should all have citations or Wikipedia articles, yes, but you saying that it'll happen eventually is good enough for me to back off and stop being a pain about it. :)

Thanks. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 07:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, The article should be better as a result. I take your point about the resellers and have deleted that section until a better way of handling it comes up, if ever. I think the list of manufacturers is reasonable as there are not really that many. As it stands it is fairly representative of worldwide production by in house manufacturers who market under their own brands. There are also the usual few Asian generic manufacturers who sell to anybody with the label of your choice, which I will avoid. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Les Baux de Provence

Put link to Botinelly as there is a statue by him in Les Baux de Provence dedicated to Charles Rieu which you would have seen if you had followed the link. Why not put link back but add "Statue of Charles Rieu?

Weglinde (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Weglinde: - I did see the statue (and mentioned it in my edit summary). The see also section doesn't have to be limited to links directly about the subject of the article but at the same time shouldn't be too far removed. (WP:SEEALSO: The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number.). List of works is an awkward link to have there (like linking to List of aluminum ores because of bauxite). That said, the article could use some development, so I created a redirect and an anchor at the list of works so we can link to Monument of Charles Rieu. Is that the name you would have chosen, or would you go with Statue of Charles Rieu? --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in Education: May 2014

This Month in Education – Volume 3, Issue 5, May 2014
Headlines
Wiki Camp 2014 at Vanadzor EduWiki Conference in Belgrade 2014 Participation of "Servicio Social" students in Wikipedia grows at Tec de Monterrey Wikimedia Deutschland: Summary of activities in April 2014 Wikimedia Sverige: Meeting the educators Egyptian students and professors celebrate last term's accomplishments Articles of interest in other publications
To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot 16 May 2014

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
2,882	Microsoft SharePoint (talk)	Add sources
27	Ganttic (talk)	Add sources
7	FlightPath (software) (talk)	Add sources
3	Phil Kuehn (talk)	Add sources
131	Indiana, Pennsylvania (talk)	Add sources
609	IBM Notes (talk)	Add sources
54	Wrike (talk)	Cleanup
116	Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics (talk)	Cleanup
13	Vin Délimité de Qualité Supérieure (talk)	Cleanup
258	Zoho Office Suite (talk)	Expand
49	Comparison of PSA systems (talk)	Expand
111	Comparison of wiki hosting services (talk)	Expand
346	Comparison of wiki software (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
179	Williams sisters (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
28	Antonio Aquitania (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
244	Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire (talk)	Merge
251	Francesca Schiavone (talk)	Merge
58	Attachment-based therapy (children) (talk)	Merge
15	Thomas Wilson Dorr (talk)	Wikify
158	Nicolás Almagro (talk)	Wikify
41	Information sharing (talk)	Wikify
1	Okpale-Otta (talk)	Orphan
2	Charloun Rieu (talk)	Orphan
0	Květa Peschke career statistics (talk)	Orphan
11	Xing ren cha (talk)	Stub
3	Matthias von Lexer (talk)	Stub
2	Erich Lexer (talk)	Stub
13	Gaby Dellal (talk)	Stub
12	Dolan people (talk)	Stub
2	Josef Lexer (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	You are doing an exemplary job of respecting views, assuming good faith, and fostering productive discussion at Talk:Starchild skull. Thank you! VQuakr (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :)

...now if only we could get any third parties to respond... --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moving content between scythe & war scythe

When I read the main scythe article, I noticed there was a substantial amount of information about military uses outside of the article's section on war scythes, as I combined it with that section, I looked at the war scythe article and noticed that the combined war scythe section of the scythe article was almost as long as the war scythe article itself. I then cut that section down to size and moved it to the war scythe article, only noticing your message after I had finished editing that second article. Can we come to an understanding? 98.155.130.227 (talk) 05:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@98.155.130.227: - Thanks for the message. I have to apologize for my own ignorance. It's not an article I watch regularly, but I happened to see your edit removing a block of sourced content and leaving behind what in my haste I mistook for typos. In fact it was just my own unfamiliarity with the subject matter that was to blame. I undid my own edit. Thanks for your work to improve these articles. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, I usually submit multi-page edits all at once, but I got lazy this time :-p. Sorry for any confusion, you might want to be more cautious when using automated tools. 98.155.130.227 (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 837: / Line 837: @@
 When I read the main scythe article, I noticed there was a substantial amount of information about military uses outside of the article's section on war scythes, as I combined it with that section, I looked at the war scythe article and noticed that the combined war scythe section of the scythe article was almost as long as the war scythe article itself. I then cut that section down to size and moved it to the war scythe article, only noticing your message after I had finished editing that second article. Can we come to an understanding? [[Special:Contributions/98.155.130.227|98.155.130.227]] ([[User talk:98.155.130.227|talk]]) 05:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 :{{ping|98.155.130.227}} - Thanks for the message. I have to apologize for my own ignorance. It's not an article I watch regularly, but I happened to see your edit removing a block of sourced content and leaving behind what in my haste I mistook for typos. In fact it was just my own unfamiliarity with the subject matter that was to blame. I undid my own edit. Thanks for your work to improve these articles. --&mdash; <tt>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></tt> |&nbsp; 05:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
+:You're welcome, I usually submit multi-page edits all at once, but I got lazy this time :-p. Sorry for any confusion, you might want to be more cautious when using automated tools. [[Special:Contributions/98.155.130.227|98.155.130.227]] ([[User talk:98.155.130.227|talk]]) 05:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)