This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Thomas Stanton (Medal of Honor) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Find a Grave is not acceptable as a source or reference. It fails;
Reverting this article without prior discussions is of course not required. Reverting this article with no regard to the listed policies, guidelines, and reasoning that resulted in the edit, while surely not the intent nonetheless was not proper and against those policies. I would like to ask that the reversion be reviewed and if the reversion is still deemed valid to leave a comment as to reasoning. Otr500 ( talk) 16:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I submitted the Find a Grave link to the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Otr500 ( talk) 04:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi and thanks. I have been working on article links but do plan to look at every one as time allows. Your question has become a concern of mine. The idea of Find a Grave was a good one. There are many articles on Wikipedia now that probably would never have been thought about without the dedication that was applied. The problem is that at a point the project went from creating articles to just completing a list. I have ran across articles that were simply cut and pasted from Find a Grave to create a stub. I have taken an interest in Find a Grave articles not as a Find a Grave project member but as an editor that found thousands of articles that need work. I work 60 to 90 hours a week so have to work this in as I can and of course start with articles I have interest in. I created the article George Bomford and am working on one for James Vote (Voty) Bomford. My plan is to create articles that are "start articles" from the beginning and not stubs--and get some practice along the way. Maybe you could take a look at it and let me know what you think? I also, as I stated several times, do plan to expand stub articles as I can. It is my opinion that a permanent stub does not enhance Wikipedia but just fills a space. I do not plan to delete (or seek deletion) any articles unless there is just no notability. I do not have the knowledge to create a project list so I can stop on what I am doing to work on an article and resume without getting lost. With this in mind I am working on tagging articles thus creating a list. Crude but works right?
One problem I have with the editors that weighed in on all the discussions as proponents of Find a Grave is that there also needs to be editors willing to go to the next step. This would be "doing something" with the article stubs that now fill thousands of pages on Wikipedia. I wasted a lot of time that could have been used for something better and most of it was a bunch of circular talk. I feel that there is headway and plan to continue. I really think Medal of Honor recipients deserve recognition. I think the Find a Grave editor Don, that offered help but project members don't seem interested, could be a great asset. I am not proficient at many aspects of Wikipedia yet and downloading many pictures to Commons would be monumental. Don is very interested in helping as I have been in personal touch (email) with him and members of his organization. I can only do so much though and apparently there was not any Find a Grave member interest. Correspondence with Don, an editor dedicated to Medal of Honor recipients, led me to conclude that there are Find a Grave editors dedicated to quality information and a reason I do not want the site banned. I just feel that work is needed to advance an article past a stub and look for something other than a one time wonder type thing for notability.
Let me know what you think of the article, feel free to rip it up as might be needed, and I can use this to work on the article about his son. Thanks for your interest and help. Otr500 ( talk) 10:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed the conversation here. I'm not sure if this is the best place for this lengthy discussion but... I noticed your comment about what did it break. Well it looks ok on the page but try clicking the link, it leads to a broken page. There are dozens more like that. Aside from that one of my primary intersts here in Wikipedia are the Medal of Honor recipients. If you haven't seen my Userpage here is a link to a page I created to identify which had articles and which did not. I need to update it a bit because some were created with alternate names than what I had but for the most part the ones with red links still need articles. Any help that can be provided in any form to cleanup and expand these is greatly appreciated. There are several users that actively work these (Myself, JWilbur, Packersfan, and a number of others). You are correct in the assessment that many are just a stub with the Medal of Honor citation and your right they need improving. Here are some of the things I did to clean them up:
Some other things that I am working on are to make sure they all have links to Marine Corps Whos who, DANFS, Hall of Valor, the Army Center of military history, etc where applicable.
I also do not agree with the use of the Home of Heroe's site. It is by all accounts a fan site and it typically contains the exact some information as the Army Center of military history or other sites. The Military times hall of valor site is also based on the data from teh Home of Heroes site but IMO is better to use since its supported by the Military times and they vett the information a bit before posting it. In fact I had it on my list to either remove from the article or move it to External links. The site is written by 1 person.
I also think it would be great to get the images from Don but IMO if we can't use the site then the data on teh site is fruit of the poison tree. -- Kumioko ( talk) 13:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Thomas Stanton (Medal of Honor) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Find a Grave is not acceptable as a source or reference. It fails;
Reverting this article without prior discussions is of course not required. Reverting this article with no regard to the listed policies, guidelines, and reasoning that resulted in the edit, while surely not the intent nonetheless was not proper and against those policies. I would like to ask that the reversion be reviewed and if the reversion is still deemed valid to leave a comment as to reasoning. Otr500 ( talk) 16:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I submitted the Find a Grave link to the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Otr500 ( talk) 04:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi and thanks. I have been working on article links but do plan to look at every one as time allows. Your question has become a concern of mine. The idea of Find a Grave was a good one. There are many articles on Wikipedia now that probably would never have been thought about without the dedication that was applied. The problem is that at a point the project went from creating articles to just completing a list. I have ran across articles that were simply cut and pasted from Find a Grave to create a stub. I have taken an interest in Find a Grave articles not as a Find a Grave project member but as an editor that found thousands of articles that need work. I work 60 to 90 hours a week so have to work this in as I can and of course start with articles I have interest in. I created the article George Bomford and am working on one for James Vote (Voty) Bomford. My plan is to create articles that are "start articles" from the beginning and not stubs--and get some practice along the way. Maybe you could take a look at it and let me know what you think? I also, as I stated several times, do plan to expand stub articles as I can. It is my opinion that a permanent stub does not enhance Wikipedia but just fills a space. I do not plan to delete (or seek deletion) any articles unless there is just no notability. I do not have the knowledge to create a project list so I can stop on what I am doing to work on an article and resume without getting lost. With this in mind I am working on tagging articles thus creating a list. Crude but works right?
One problem I have with the editors that weighed in on all the discussions as proponents of Find a Grave is that there also needs to be editors willing to go to the next step. This would be "doing something" with the article stubs that now fill thousands of pages on Wikipedia. I wasted a lot of time that could have been used for something better and most of it was a bunch of circular talk. I feel that there is headway and plan to continue. I really think Medal of Honor recipients deserve recognition. I think the Find a Grave editor Don, that offered help but project members don't seem interested, could be a great asset. I am not proficient at many aspects of Wikipedia yet and downloading many pictures to Commons would be monumental. Don is very interested in helping as I have been in personal touch (email) with him and members of his organization. I can only do so much though and apparently there was not any Find a Grave member interest. Correspondence with Don, an editor dedicated to Medal of Honor recipients, led me to conclude that there are Find a Grave editors dedicated to quality information and a reason I do not want the site banned. I just feel that work is needed to advance an article past a stub and look for something other than a one time wonder type thing for notability.
Let me know what you think of the article, feel free to rip it up as might be needed, and I can use this to work on the article about his son. Thanks for your interest and help. Otr500 ( talk) 10:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed the conversation here. I'm not sure if this is the best place for this lengthy discussion but... I noticed your comment about what did it break. Well it looks ok on the page but try clicking the link, it leads to a broken page. There are dozens more like that. Aside from that one of my primary intersts here in Wikipedia are the Medal of Honor recipients. If you haven't seen my Userpage here is a link to a page I created to identify which had articles and which did not. I need to update it a bit because some were created with alternate names than what I had but for the most part the ones with red links still need articles. Any help that can be provided in any form to cleanup and expand these is greatly appreciated. There are several users that actively work these (Myself, JWilbur, Packersfan, and a number of others). You are correct in the assessment that many are just a stub with the Medal of Honor citation and your right they need improving. Here are some of the things I did to clean them up:
Some other things that I am working on are to make sure they all have links to Marine Corps Whos who, DANFS, Hall of Valor, the Army Center of military history, etc where applicable.
I also do not agree with the use of the Home of Heroe's site. It is by all accounts a fan site and it typically contains the exact some information as the Army Center of military history or other sites. The Military times hall of valor site is also based on the data from teh Home of Heroes site but IMO is better to use since its supported by the Military times and they vett the information a bit before posting it. In fact I had it on my list to either remove from the article or move it to External links. The site is written by 1 person.
I also think it would be great to get the images from Don but IMO if we can't use the site then the data on teh site is fruit of the poison tree. -- Kumioko ( talk) 13:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)