User talk:JoelleJay

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1; 2; 3; 4;

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mail call

Hello, JoelleJay. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request input

Hello. I am requesting your input here [1] (at the Village Pump).

Caution: If you provide an answer to this question you'll have Wikipedia-wide exposure and become famous! ---Steve Quinn (talk) 10:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorian Rhea Debussy was breathtakingly thorough. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Routine

I reverted your un-discussed addition to NSPORT. I have, however, thought some codification of routine coverage would be worthwhile. Your proposed change would assert that match coverage is always routine. That is incorrect. Match/game coverage can in some instances constitute SIGCOV and in other cases not. For example, passing mentions of players in game reports have long been considered routine. That is uncontroversial, but a blanket assertion that match/game coverage is always routine is grossly overbroad and unwarranted. Let me know if you would like to discuss. Cbl62 (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to your statement regarding "transfer" coverage. There has long been consensus that short announcements of a player's trade, signing, release, etc., don't represent SIGCOV. However, it is not uncommon for in-depth coverage to be written at the same time that a player is signed or traded to a new team. Rather than create carveouts that "transfer" and "match" coverage are in all case routine, the correct approach is to assess the depth of the coverage as it applies to the person in question. Of course, it is sometimes necessary to weight the totality of factors, such as how much real-world notability the player has. An example of the sort of totality approach is presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Averell Spicer where I voted to delete -- even though there was some depth of coverage, the player had no significant contributions to the sport, thus leading me to vote earlier today to delete. The general rules that supports such a common-sense determination are already in place. However, creating broad carve-outs of the type you sought to enact unilaterally (for "transfer" and "match" coverage) are not IMO a good approach. Cbl62 (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62, my edit specified that routine transfer or match coverage is considered trivial. Not that all coverage of those types is routine. If I had intended the latter I would have said "routine coverage such as of transfers or matches". JoelleJay (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I purposely used the same language as that in the local coverage section, which states must provide reports beyond routine game coverage, since that hasn't been interpreted as meaning all game coverage is routine. The whole reason I made the edit is to have something in our guidelines to reference when explaining to someone that, no, a two-sentence transfer update is considered "trivial" even if it technically is "more than a directory entry" and "doesn't require OR to interpret". It's the same thing with the earlier sports org edit I made that eventually was accepted--it helps to point to something. JoelleJay (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the sole intent, it serves no purpose. It's like saying "routine transfer coverage is routine". But it would inevitably be misconstrued as a general rule of thumb that "transfer" and "match" coverage are routine and therefore don't count. What would actually add some real value is to try to hash out a guideline with some specific detail on what types of coverage doesn't count as SIGCOV in the sports context. Ideas that immediately come to mind: statistical entries in all-inclusive databases; passing mentions in match/game coverage; paid death notices; and brief transfer/signing announcements. If such a proposed guideline were to be opened to discussion, it could have some real value. BTW, any thoughts on the Spicer AfD linked above? Cbl62 (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It serves the purpose of reminding people that transactional reports and matches are things that can be routine, since we get the "but ROUTINE applies to EVENTS!" resistance every time this comes up. It allows us to say "routine transfer news is explicitly excluded from counting toward notability" without having to go through the rigamarole of first convincing someone that ROUTINE can apply to coverage of people, and then convincing them that transfer coverage is something that can be routine. And we already use "routine match coverage" in multiple other places without anyone assuming all match coverage is routine.

I haven't looked at the sources in that AfD yet. JoelleJay (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Storm Before the Calm#Euro label

@JoelleJay: Share your thoughts regarding the album if you wish to. 2001:D08:2901:372C:176E:668A:26DB:24BF (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archives (Index)
1 2 3 4