Talk:Frédéric Janssoone

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

	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 has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Canada Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Categorization and reliable sources

Hi Daniel. This article doesn't need Category:Beatified people because it already has Category:Franciscan beatified people, which is a subcategory of Beatified people. Pburka (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there. I understand your point, but the issue to me is whether someone looking at the wider category would necessarily look in the subcategories unless they already had specific information on a person, knowing, e.g., that he or she was a Franciscan or Dominican or Benedictine. That's why I feel the duplication is better. Daniel the Monk (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel. That's contrary to the guidelines at WP:Categorization. (Each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C.) Additionally, I'm concerned that your recent expansion of the article isn't supported by reliable sources. An archbishop's blog isn't a reliable source. For such a large addition, I would also strongly advise the addition of footnotes supporting each individual claim. Pburka (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, Pburka. To my mind, this falls into the area of a non-diffusing category, which the guideline points out can be an exception to the general rule. This categorization allows for a quick reference to someone looking for people in that specific category, rather than having to go through a whole list of, in this case, beatified people, trying to find the beati of a particular movement.

I am not clear why you say that the archbishop's blog is not a reliable source. In what way? In this case it is another secondary source, which is also being requested of the article, so excluding it is a kind of Catch 22. It certainly adds to the notability of the subject of the article.

It also has the advantage of giving an image of the subject of the entry. I just wish I could figure out how to add it to the article, if that were allowed. Daniel the Monk (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RS. Blogs are generally not reliable sources as there is no editorial oversight. Pburka (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am astonished that you removed practically the entire entry to which I had expanded this article based on one questionable rule. The bulk of the article was taken from the main source given. The blog reference was used to illustrate the accuracy of one single sentence. Did you bother to check anything? Daniel the Monk (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel: The entire addition included a single source to a priest's blog. This implied that all of the information was from this unreliable and potentially biased source. You're welcome to restore the deleted material, but I politely suggest that you provide an in-line citation for each claim in the article, as is done now. The deleted material is still in the article's history and can easily be restored. Pburka (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purbka, now I think I understand your issue. The blog was not the only reference given. I have to assume that you didn't look at the reference which is still given for the article. It is rather extensive and that is what I tried to convert for this entry, with ties to other articles in Wiki to flesh out the material. Seems we had a misunderstanding as you did not make clear that you had thought the whole article was based on that blog reference. Thanks for adding the photo. Daniel the Monk (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your good work on the article. Pburka (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"eighth and youngest of thirteen children"

The article states that "he was the eighth and youngest of the thirteen children...". How is this possible? If he was 8th of 13, then he must have had 5 younger siblings. pburka (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]