User talk:Stifle/Archive 0409: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
archiving |
Paulmcdonald (talk | contribs) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
*Please don't leave your email address. I cannot reply to messages by email. If you are requesting the text of a deleted article, then make sure your [[Special:Preferences|preferences]] include a valid, confirmed email address, as I will email the article to you at that address (only). |
*Please don't leave your email address. I cannot reply to messages by email. If you are requesting the text of a deleted article, then make sure your [[Special:Preferences|preferences]] include a valid, confirmed email address, as I will email the article to you at that address (only). |
||
__NOTOC__ <!-- please don't remove this, add new messages at the bottom --> |
__NOTOC__ <!-- please don't remove this, add new messages at the bottom --> |
||
== Question on WP:IINFO == |
|||
<!-- Please type a message title in the box above and your message below. Don't remove this line. R2 --> |
|||
I did leave a comment at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006-2008 Southern Oregon Raiders football teams]] but I wanted to also place a question here--it's a question to help on interpretation. |
|||
In [[WP:IINFO]] it states: "''In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader''" and my question is this--how can we tell when we as editors have provided that "sufficient explanatory text" so that we meet the standard? I'm curious on your take on it.--[[User:Paulmcdonald|Paul McDonald]] ([[User talk:Paulmcdonald|talk]]) 13:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:That's an "in addition". The data still has to be discriminate and encyclopedic. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 13:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::And that's where my hang-up is... what do "[[Wiktionary:indiscriminate|indiscriminate]]" and "[[Wiktionary:discriminative|discriminate]]" mean? If "indiscriminate" truly means "Without care or making distinctions, thoughtless" then the article in question certainly is not "indiscriminate" because the information is specifically focused on a topic, and the antonym seems to support that. Which brings me right back to the original quesiton--how do we know?--[[User:Paulmcdonald|Paul McDonald]] ([[User talk:Paulmcdonald|talk]]) 13:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::There's no one guideline that applies to everything — like most other things in Wikipedia, articles are analysed on a case by case basis. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 13:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Thanks for the comments. I'm actually ending up with more questions than before, but I'll sit and stew on them for a while...--[[User:Paulmcdonald|Paul McDonald]] ([[User talk:Paulmcdonald|talk]]) 13:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 13:56, 8 October 2008
 | Click here if you wish to leave me a message. |
- Older archives
- Archive: April 2008 (1st) (2nd-8th) (9th-11th) (12th-18th) (19th-20th) (21st-22nd) (23rd-30th)
- Archive: May 2008 (1st-9th) (10th-13th) (14th-16th) (17th-20th) (21st-31st)
- Archive: June 2008
- Archive: July 2008 (1st-7th) (8th-11th) (12th-22nd) (23rd-31st)
- Archive: August 2008 (1st-17th) (18th-31st)
- Archive: September 2008 (1st-2nd) (3rd-8th) (9th-21st) (22nd-23rd) (24th-30th)
- Archive: October 2008 (1st-7th)
Replies
- Please reply to me here if possible.
- If your message is about an AFD or other discussion that you want me to (re)contribute to, I will generally not reply other than by checking the page and adding a comment.
- If your message is just an FYI or similar, I'll reply here (only) to say "noted" or similar.
- Unless your message or your talk page advises otherwise, I will reply here and copy my reply to your talk page.
- Please don't leave your email address. I cannot reply to messages by email. If you are requesting the text of a deleted article, then make sure your preferences include a valid, confirmed email address, as I will email the article to you at that address (only).
Question on WP:IINFO
I did leave a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006-2008 Southern Oregon Raiders football teams but I wanted to also place a question here--it's a question to help on interpretation.
In WP:IINFO it states: "In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader" and my question is this--how can we tell when we as editors have provided that "sufficient explanatory text" so that we meet the standard? I'm curious on your take on it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- That's an "in addition". The data still has to be discriminate and encyclopedic. Stifle (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- And that's where my hang-up is... what do "indiscriminate" and "discriminate" mean? If "indiscriminate" truly means "Without care or making distinctions, thoughtless" then the article in question certainly is not "indiscriminate" because the information is specifically focused on a topic, and the antonym seems to support that. Which brings me right back to the original quesiton--how do we know?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- There's no one guideline that applies to everything — like most other things in Wikipedia, articles are analysed on a case by case basis. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. I'm actually ending up with more questions than before, but I'll sit and stew on them for a while...--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- There's no one guideline that applies to everything — like most other things in Wikipedia, articles are analysed on a case by case basis. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- And that's where my hang-up is... what do "indiscriminate" and "discriminate" mean? If "indiscriminate" truly means "Without care or making distinctions, thoughtless" then the article in question certainly is not "indiscriminate" because the information is specifically focused on a topic, and the antonym seems to support that. Which brings me right back to the original quesiton--how do we know?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)