Talk:Daniel Terdiman

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 January 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Journalism

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Magazines

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

References to this article[edit]

Why would this ~~page~~article be referenced in Wikipedia#_note-33, Wikipedia:Press coverage 2005, and Virtual Air Traffic Flight Simulation Network if it didn't exist? -- Jeff G. 09:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the page exists, but why on earth would you need to create a Wikipedia article with information about itself? Seems like some sort of mind-blowing recursive exercise. Anyway, just because something is linked to, doesn't make it a viable topic. Wickethewok 09:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Use[edit]

We should be using {{inuse}} while we're editing. I'm just as guilty as the next guy. :) -- Jeff G. 00:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Do[edit]

Reorder the media list per his resume.
Research and document references for the media list.
Consolidate info about Wired.

-- Jeff G. 00:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would hold off on the micro-tuning until the fate is decided by AfD. I think that developing content and references should be Job One.

--Kevin Murray 06:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of him?[edit]

I didn't realize wikipedia was so hard up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 214.16.12.66 (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If, in making a determination as to the validity of a biographical article, Wikipedia uses a notoriety test (i.e, how many times someone's name appears in Google or Yahoo), then it is overlooking its fundamental responsibility as an open-ended encylopedia. It is not the quantity of contributions Mr Terdiman has made to the world's knowledge that are important, nor the number of times others have mentioned his name; it is the quality of his contributions, and whether his work has broadened the world's understanding of what he has written about.

I've not read his story for Time on Wikipedia; I did read his article on Second Life, and found it at least compelling enough to make me look at the site more closely. By his own admission, he has not received the Pulitzer prize yet; I've been writing for newspapers and magazines for over 40 years, and haven't received one either. But that doesn't mean he won't, and it would be a sad commentary on Wikipedia if it missed the chance to develop his biography as it happened, rather than depending on what others wrote about him after the fact.

Netminder 16:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia asks that the subject be notable only, not important. If people are discusssing someone, then it makes sense to offer further information from reliable sources, presented from a neutral standpoint, or offering a balance of opinions where diverse views exist. Without the physical limitations of a printed format, Wikipedia can be a bit more liberal in determining the importance of its content.

--Kevin Murray 17:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The {{importance}} tag notwithstanding. ;) -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 03:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes[edit]

In order to reduce the clutter of footnotes in the first paragraph, we created a section which displays links and references regarding the subject's works. We have one note from the text to a comment referring readers to that section. This was a compromise reached during an AfD process, where the inclusion of too many links to his work made the other references to article about the subject more difficult to evaluate. Clearly this is a compromise between standard style and practicality, but I think that it works in this case.

--Kevin Murray 17:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 7#Daniel_Terdiman[edit]

This article Daniel Terdiman was subjected to AfD a mere three minutes after I created it. Thankfully, it was kept. I don't know how long the link the former debate will continue to work, but the AfD Log should be around much longer.

As Serpent's Choice astutely guessed (preserved in the AfD Log), I did in fact "[decide] none of the authorlinks in the Wikipedia notes should be redlinks, and so created this [article] in an effort to fill the gap" after reading "Can German engineering fix Wikipedia?" Frankly, it was the first red authorlink I saw in Wikipedia#References, and now there are none.

If I had to do it all over again, I'd do much more research before actually posting a bio. Yes, I have learned from this experience.

Thank you to Daniel Terdiman for many notable contributions. Thank you to Kevin Murray for taking on the heavy lifting, shepherding this article through the AfD process, and involving the article's subject in the necessary research. And finally, thank you to everyone who contributed to the former debate which is now archived in the AfD Log.

-- Jeff G. 18:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism from The Register[edit]

12.25.211.1 posted a reference to critical article The Register(online), October 19, 2006, CNET hack severs ties with Second Life, by Ashlee Vance (staff writer). I'm not sure it belongs in the article. The critical article also references a Google search which is no longer relevant. Should criticism from such a tabloid as The Register be in any bio on Wikipedia? -- Jeff G. 20:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff,

I would say that if the source is not considered valid for praise, then it's not valid for critisism either.

Kevin -- The preceding comment was posted unsigned by Kevin Murray at 23:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I agree, thanks, I'm leaving it out. -- Jeff G. 17:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, too. 88.80.28.56 (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Daniel Terdiman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]