Talk:Famous Birthdays

Websites: Computing Stub‑class Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Moved from article - Famous Birthdays as a source

I don't think this belongs in the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAMOUS BIRTHDAYS - Why this site should not be used as a WP:RS [1]

@Ronz:That's apparent from your removal from the "See also" section. Please tell us your rationale - fiat is not a reason. Toddst1 (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never got the ping, sorry.

This is not encycopedic information about the company, but rather information for editors working on other articles. Have you ever seen such a thing in any article, let alone GA or close? I don't believe I have. --Ronz (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE and it's contrary is neither a reason for inclusion or exclusion. You should know that. Toddst1 (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I wrote, nor what I meant, nor do I see how that's a helpful response. I'm saying it's a NOT vio. This is feeling like IDHT.

Please make a case for inclusion. An example from a quality article or a similar discussion would be helpful if you simply have no policy-based case of your own. --Ronz (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The case for inclusion was that it was there to alert editors to not use this as a source. The case for exclusion is WP:RONZDONTLIKEIT. Toddst1 (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You keep ignoring my words and intent, and now are clearly trying to make this into a personal dispute while ignoring DR. Please stop. --Ronz (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't given a valid reason for excluding it. Please start. Do you disagree that it shouldn't be used as a source? Toddst1 (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow DR. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 03:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you answer the question? That is part of DR. Let me be unambiguous about what question: Do you disagree that it shouldn't be used as a source? Toddst1 (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever seen such a thing in any article, let alone GA or close? --Ronz (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this should be excluded from the page as per WP:SELFREF. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "See also" content seems like a perfectly valid editorial note for other Wikipedia editors—which is why it belongs on the talk page. I'm not sure why this is a matter for debate. Anirvan (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I think MOS:ALSO identifies that the See Also section only contains links to other articles. WP:FAMOUS BIRTHDAYS is in administrative space, not an article space. --Ronz (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: It is correct that MOS:ALSO says the section is for internal links to mainspace articles only. Moreover, MOS:Internal links says: Do not create links to user, WikiProject, essay or draft pages in articles, except in articles about Wikipedia itself. Disambiguation pages (which don't count as articles), and disambiguating hatnotes could also have links to the Wikipedia namespace, but nothing else in the mainspace should have a link to the Wikipedia namespace. It also breaks from encyclopedic tone to provide advice to editors in a mainspace article. And a Wikipedia consensus is not a reliable source, so I think this violates NPOV and OR for mainspace inclusion. So this is a no-go on several counts. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate to cite Famous Birthday as an external link only? User:86.29.64.45 0:714, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Almost certainly not for the same reasons as it fails as a reference. See WP:ELNO. Using it for this article under WP:ELOFFICIAL criteria is fine. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based in Los Angeles vs American

I think the more specific, "based in Los Angeles" is better being more specific. --Ronz (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but needs to reference the country ... such as my recent edit which you reverted without explaining why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:9313:B900:A519:3077:CDC:7420 (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it safe to assume that "American" is completely redundant. --Ronz (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not,