 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Recent edits by @ Magnolia677: constitute a drastic change, and in my opinion, the edits have significantly vandalized/harmed the article. Respectfully, it is clear that the user lacks information about the subject of the article. For context, I am an active member of the Ottawa Rowing Club.
The user cited WP:EL. Per my edit summary here, I had initiated the proper referencing format for the list of names; the rest was going to be added later. As for the user's removal of the list of names by citing WP:NOTDIRECTORY, I will point to WP:SOURCELIST and WP:LISTPEOPLE to reinforce the following position: the vast majority of the people on that list already have stand-alone articles about them, meaning their notability has already been established. As for those less notable people in the list (e.g., those without an article), they may be included per WP:LISTPEOPLE, which states "In a few cases, such as lists of people holding notable positions, the names of non-notable people may be included in a list that is largely made up of notable people, for the sake of completeness."
As for sources, there exist multiple reliable sources which link the vast majority of the names to the Ottawa Rowing Club, it's just that it's a cumbersome task and will require several hours in order to properly format the sources. For example, Alanna Fogarty, while not notable enough to have her own article, can easily be verified as being part of the ORC by looking here (page 16, 2:30 PM race), and her participation at the 2016 and 2018 World University Rowing Championships can be verified here. This is just one example. The dozens of other names can almost all be verified by similar means as being connected to the Ottawa Rowing Club, and their participation in the international events in question has already been proven using the World Rowing website. Additionally, there is an Alumni Search feature on the Ottawa Rowing Club's website, which can be used to verify the names.
In summary, I request/propose that a consensus be reached regarding the specific inclusion criteria for the list, such as restricting it to alumni only. As well, while I recognize that the article in its state before the user's edits was far from perfect (and I agree with some of the user's cleanup edits such as tidying wording and removing overlinking), the user's edits regarding content removal went too far. For this reason, I believe a more measured approach is warranted; one where consesus is reached before any drastic changes are unilaterally undertaken. Rowing007 ( talk) 20:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- @
Rowing007: May I ask what your position is at the rowing club? Thank you.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 20:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- @
Magnolia677: Sorry, I do not believe it is an appropriate or relevant question in this context. There is no
WP:COI, if that's what you're after. I'm pretty sure this is strictly a matter relating to policies on lists of notable people. Would you please address the substance of my initial message?
Rowing007 (
talk) 20:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- First,
WP:LISTPEOPLE is a policy for stand-alone lists, which this isn't. Second, Wikipedia is not a directory of every member in your club. Finally,
WP:BURDEN states that "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." In other words, "I had initiated the proper referencing format for the list of names; the rest was going to be added later", and "it's just that it's a cumbersome task and will require several hours in order to properly format the sources" are not valid reasons for adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Thank you for your understanding.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 20:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- Alright, per WP:LISTBIO, the criteria for embedded lists are to be determined by WP:SOURCELIST, in that each item on the list must meet the same criteria for inclusion in the text of the article. "Wikipedia is not a directory of every member in your club" This is correct, but it is very bluntly off-target, in my estimation. The list represents an extremely small subset of the Club's members. Namely, it is a list of notable members (i.e., members who participated in the Olympics, World Championships, or Pan American Games). If you'd like to propose a more rigorous definition of notability in this context, please do. As for your final point about verifiability, what I understand from that is that I can reinstate the list (or a modified version of it) if each element of it is properly sourced, by establishing a link to the Ottawa Rowing Club and establishing proof that the individual competed in the competition(s) in question. I really appreciate the courtesy you've shown, by the way. Rowing007 ( talk) 21:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- @
Magnolia677: I'm seeing your further edits, and I'm in awe at how much destruction you are undertaking. You are unilaterally destroying the article at this point. What happened to consensus?
Rowing007 (
talk) 21:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm ok if you want to add names of members who medaled in a notable competitions, with reliable sources showing they were indeed members. Just don't add unrelated biographical info about these people. Thanks.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 21:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with including all individuals who competed at the aforementioned competitions, as this constitutes notability in itself (though medalling is of course a tier above). No biographical information was included regarding these people.
- I'm ok if you want to add names of members who medaled in a notable competitions, with reliable sources showing they were indeed members. Just don't add unrelated biographical info about these people. Thanks.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 21:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- First,
WP:LISTPEOPLE is a policy for stand-alone lists, which this isn't. Second, Wikipedia is not a directory of every member in your club. Finally,
WP:BURDEN states that "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." In other words, "I had initiated the proper referencing format for the list of names; the rest was going to be added later", and "it's just that it's a cumbersome task and will require several hours in order to properly format the sources" are not valid reasons for adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Thank you for your understanding.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 20:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- @
Magnolia677: Sorry, I do not believe it is an appropriate or relevant question in this context. There is no
WP:COI, if that's what you're after. I'm pretty sure this is strictly a matter relating to policies on lists of notable people. Would you please address the substance of my initial message?
Rowing007 (
talk) 20:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- As for the barrage of other edits you've made/been making, some of them are constructive and helpful, like the coordinates, while others are wantonly destructive and lack consensus. For example, you removed the names of the members of the 1910 crew, dismissing them as "non-notable people", while they were among the most notable people associated with the club, hence the entire section of the article on that crew. You've made a flurry of other snap decisions and declarations regarding what is and is not pertinent to this Wikipedia article, and I think it's appalling and unjustifiable. I think that some of the destructive edits ought to be reverted, in order to be reworked after reaching a consensus, since you feel so strongly about them that you've bypassed any form of consultation. Rowing007 ( talk) 22:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- @
Magnolia677: Your monkey-guarding involvement on this article is now pernicious in nature, as you are contradicting yourself from the above discussion. As previously dicsussed and agreed upon, notability in this case constitutes participation in notable international rowing competitions (namely: Olympics/Paralympics, World Rowing Championships, World U23 Rowing Championships, World Junior Rowing Championships, World Rowing Cup, World University Rowing Championships/Summer Universiade, Pan American Games). Furthermore, in your destructive edit, you haven't even applied your own spontaneous and arbitrary rule consistently, as most of the people with their own article also participated in other regattas than the Olympics/Paralympics, yet you've blindly deleted those entries. Countless other articles list names of athletes that do not have their own articles, but they are included in those lists because they participated in a notable event (for example, just look at all the red links in
1977 World Rowing Championships, or any other international rowing competition article, or the countless other comparable articles for other sports). Therefore, there is no problem with including them in this list for completeness. There is currently no
guideline for rowing, but the criteria for some other sports are comparatively pretty lenient. I contend that participation in any of the aforementioned notable international rowing competitions is sufficient for mere inclusion in this list. You even conceded yourself above that they need not necessarily have their own article.
Rowing007 (
talk) 12:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- @
Rowing007: The depth of detail, and the quantity of text, given to listing non-notable members of the club, is
WP:UNDUE. Please revert your edit.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 22:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- @ Magnolia677: The edit should not be reverted, because, as I previously mentioned, your deletion completely erases all the competitions (which are each notable enough to have articles about them) other than the Olympics/Paralympics, which is undue weight towards the latter, when arguably World Rowing Championships are competitions just as (if not more) "notable" (i.e., prestigious/difficult/competitive) (and they include some non-Olympic boat classes) in the sport of rowing than the Olympics (comparative example: which is more notable/prestigious among soccer (football) people, the FIFA World Cup, or an Olympic gold medal? Same concept here). Further, the list is consistent with what we had agreed upon in the above discussion (i.e., no biographical details; strictly the name and event, with sources proving affiliation with the club and participation in the event). If you take issue with the current state of the list, please keep reading.
- @
Rowing007: The depth of detail, and the quantity of text, given to listing non-notable members of the club, is
WP:UNDUE. Please revert your edit.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 22:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- The burden of a well-articulated rationale behind a proposal for change falls upon you, but since you do not seem inclined to pursue such an explanation (and rather seem content to vaguely command others to implement revisions and criticize those revisions as you see fit), I'll explore this subject here. I see two main options if you are so vehemently opposed to the current state of that portion of the article.
- Option 1: the list could be moved into a standalone article, which is something done for countless other articles (while we're in Ottawa, here's an example: List of University of Ottawa people).
- Option 2: the list remains on this article, but it is revised in a precisely defined and agreed upon way which is consistent with previous discussions and standards set elsewhere on Wikipedia. Namely, a
guideline should be developed for criteria for notability for rowers. I believe constructing such a guideline would require various stages of approval and/or consensus (i.e., more than just you or me).
Rowing007 (
talk) 22:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- I don't feel either option is encyclopedic.
List of University of Ottawa people is a list of notable people, while your list is not.
WP:Notability (sports)#Professional sports people does not apply in this instance, as it lists the criteria for the creation of biographies. The only list criteria I feel would be appropriate for these embedded lists, would be including only notable members of the club, but you have already opposed this. The input of others would be welcome.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 00:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- You said "I'm ok if you want to add names of members who medaled in a notable competitions, with reliable sources showing they were indeed members", to which I responded that mere participation (not necessarily medalling) in these competitions is notable. Also notice that you have moved the goalposts from properly sourcing the content (done) to now complaining that there are too many entries (which all meet the previously agreed upon criteria). Once again, I'll refer to WP:Notability (sports)#Professional sports people, which I think is wholly applicable to this case. Biographical criteria are stronger than list criteria, so if the aforementioned guideline can be added for rowing, then this matter could be easily resolved. The delineation is the real dispute here. Participation in a notable international rowing competition? Top 5 in a notable international rowing competition? Making it to the "A" Final in a notable international rowing competition? Medalling in a notable international rowing competition? This is a question for those well-versed in this subject. Rowing007 ( talk) 01:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Further, your flat rejection of both options as unencyclopedic clearly misses the point of the second option. Option 2 advocates for a revision of the list according to criteria determined by consensus, not a blunt razing which even ignores the nuance that many of the Olympic athletes also participated in the other notable competitions. Rowing007 ( talk) 01:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Almost forgot, the example I used of List of University of Ottawa people, which you claim only includes notable people, includes several red links when it comes to the Chancellors and Presidents. To bring this back to rowing, like I mentioned above, there are countless sports-related articles (e.g., on notable international rowing competitions) that list names of non-notable people, specifically because those people participated in that competition. Rowing007 ( talk) 01:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- I don't feel either option is encyclopedic.
List of University of Ottawa people is a list of notable people, while your list is not.
WP:Notability (sports)#Professional sports people does not apply in this instance, as it lists the criteria for the creation of biographies. The only list criteria I feel would be appropriate for these embedded lists, would be including only notable members of the club, but you have already opposed this. The input of others would be welcome.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 00:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Option 2: the list remains on this article, but it is revised in a precisely defined and agreed upon way which is consistent with previous discussions and standards set elsewhere on Wikipedia. Namely, a
guideline should be developed for criteria for notability for rowers. I believe constructing such a guideline would require various stages of approval and/or consensus (i.e., more than just you or me).
Rowing007 (
talk) 22:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
I also find the number of non-notable, (presumably) living persons UNDUE and a violation of LISTPEOPLE. If any of them meet WP:ATHLETE, then by all means, create the article and we can keep them—assuming reliable, secondary sources say they are/were in the club. Until then, they should be removed. I'm also concerned with the large number of low-quality sources, especially as we're using them to make claims about living persons. Some examples include ottawarowingclub.com (a primary source, which should really only be used sparingly for WP:ABOUTSELF claims) and regattacentral.com (a business). Woodroar ( talk) 01:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Respectfully, this is another ill-informed interpretation of the subject at hand. I pointed to the countless other articles which list "non-notable" people, simply because those people participated in a notable competition. All of the people in this list are equal in that regard. No one has addressed that point yet. The regattacentral source is supplementary; it can be removed and the subject would still be properly sourced by the source immediately preceding it. Regardless, it is merely used to prove affiliation with the Ottawa Rowing Club by showing that the athletes in question indeed competed with the Ottawa Rowing Club. As for this "removal of non-notable people" crusade (which, once again, fails to address my point about the countless articles such as
1977 World Rowing Championships which list non-notable people), if the non-notable people are to be removed, specific attention should be paid to preserve the instances where the notable athletes also participated in the notable competitions other than the Olympics. In other words, the wanton destruction favoured by Magnolia677 is to be avoided.
Rowing007 (
talk) 02:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- See
WP:OTHERSTUFF and
WP:OTHERCONTENT. There are more than 6.6 million articles on the English Wikipedia and anybody can edit them, so you can't (or shouldn't) expect every article to be perfect. Our
core content policies—the policies that determine article content—and supporting policies/guidelines like
WP:N,
WP:BLP, and
WP:NOT enjoy broad support across the project. We should edit according to those standards, not some random article with
89 edits by 21 editors and ~2.5 views per day.
Woodroar (
talk) 02:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- That's a fallacious application of otherstuff and othercontent. I referenced this random other article to illustrate a point. If you would address my substantive arguments (such as the point I was trying to make by pointing to the red links on other pages, and the numerous other points I made above), maybe we could get somewhere. There is definitely a nuance here, so let's not be so hasty to throw the metaphorical wikipedia book at this situation and call it a day. It would also be beneficial if some sports-related editors would weigh in or help develop a guideline for rowing notability. Rowing007 ( talk) 03:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- To be clear, the key question here is what constitutes notability with regards to this list. I presented possible paths a few comments above that explore this (participation, medalling, top 5, A-final, etc.).
Rowing007 (
talk) 03:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Per discussion here and at
WP:NPOVN#Ottawa Rowing Club, I've removed all of the non-notable persons. If a consensus develops to include them, we can do that. Until then, Wikipedia policies (and a general consensus) suggest that we limit mentions to notable persons only.
Woodroar (
talk) 15:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- What is readily apparent is that you are failing to understand the subtlety of the list. You've committed the same mistake as Magnolia677 before you, in that you've removed all non-Olympic entries, crucially failing to recognize that many of the Olympians also competed in the other notable competitions. Further, there is no "discussion" at WP:NPOVN#Ottawa Rowing Club. It's one individual who presented their opinion without explaining the rationale behind it whatsoever, let alone addressing any of the arguments presented here, and you jumped on it as if it means anything. You've also failed to address any of the points I made in my last messages above. As I noted above, the question is about the criteria for inclusion in the list, for which I presented possible ideas, as well as an idea that resolves the WP:UNDUE gripe. Your set of behaviours reveals a bias in your method of approaching this situation. As your edit to the article is inappropriate, not internally consistent, and unfounded, I am reverting it. You are welcome to continue the discussion or try the edit again while properly filtering the list according to your criteria.
- Per discussion here and at
WP:NPOVN#Ottawa Rowing Club, I've removed all of the non-notable persons. If a consensus develops to include them, we can do that. Until then, Wikipedia policies (and a general consensus) suggest that we limit mentions to notable persons only.
Woodroar (
talk) 15:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- See
WP:OTHERSTUFF and
WP:OTHERCONTENT. There are more than 6.6 million articles on the English Wikipedia and anybody can edit them, so you can't (or shouldn't) expect every article to be perfect. Our
core content policies—the policies that determine article content—and supporting policies/guidelines like
WP:N,
WP:BLP, and
WP:NOT enjoy broad support across the project. We should edit according to those standards, not some random article with
89 edits by 21 editors and ~2.5 views per day.
Woodroar (
talk) 02:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- The main things to be determined are: what are the inclusion criteria for notable rowers? These criteria exist for many other sports, but not yet for rowing; this is a problem. The second thing, once the inclusion criteria are established, is that if there is a sentiment that the list is taking up WP:UNDUE space on this article, then the list can be moved to a standalone article and linked to, in this article. Rowing007 ( talk) 18:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- The baseline for notability typically used is "does this person have a Wiki article?" The exception to this in WP:LISTPEOPLE refers to scenarios where there's a finite group of people, some of whom may not be notable, but where leaving them out would be rather odd. For example, a list of the presidents of XYZ university shouldn't have gaps because some of the presidents weren't notable while others were. In this case, though, I'd certainly say that the default for inclusion would be rowers who have shown themselves to be notable by having a Wikipedia article.
BubbaJoe123456 (
talk) 18:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- That point has already been presented by others on numerous occasions, and it has already been argued against at length, because it misses several nuances.
Rowing007 (
talk) 19:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- It has been argued against. As an uninvolved editor, I haven't found the arguments persuasive.
BubbaJoe123456 (
talk) 20:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Congratulations? Maybe it's precisely because you aren't involved that you've missed the subtlety. Maybe not. Either way, your point is moot.
Rowing007 (
talk) 21:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- If the argument is too "subtle" to be understood by an uninvolved editor, that doesn't exactly make a compelling case for the argument. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 21:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Congratulations? Maybe it's precisely because you aren't involved that you've missed the subtlety. Maybe not. Either way, your point is moot.
Rowing007 (
talk) 21:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- It has been argued against. As an uninvolved editor, I haven't found the arguments persuasive.
BubbaJoe123456 (
talk) 20:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- That point has already been presented by others on numerous occasions, and it has already been argued against at length, because it misses several nuances.
Rowing007 (
talk) 19:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Exclude non-notable entries and lists per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:LISTPEOPLE #1; "notable" defined as at
WP:N. Noting that, per WP:SOURCELIST, sourcing & verifiability is necessary, but not sufficient. The exception at WP:LISTPEOPLE for
holders of notable positions
does not apply; "lightweight mens coxless double sculls" is not a notable position ("notable" as at WP:N). - Rotary Engine talk 01:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)- Thank you for joining the discussion. Here are my thoughts. Per WP:NNC, "Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies."
- Per WP:LSC, "Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance", which is why I am requesting/proposing that clear criteria be established and agreed upon for inclusion in the list. Magnolia677 had said anyone who medalled in one of these competitions could be included. I had contended that anyone who participates in these competitions is noteworthy.
- However, I am willing to reduce it to something such as medalling, top 5, or A-final (I'm still waiting for feedback on these options!) because as per the third option in
WP:CSC, the list would need to be less than 32K to be governed by such criteria, so the requirement of medalling/top 5/A-final would be able to adequately reduce the list and restore due weight. Please, everyone, provide feedback on which of the inclusion crtieria (medal, top 5, or A-final) is preferred, and I will get to work on properly reducing the list according to that criterion.
Rowing007 (
talk) 14:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Statements like
I am willing to reduce it
make it appear that you own the article, when that is not the case. Four long-term, experienced editors, citing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, have suggested trimming the article to notable persons based on reliable sources. That is the requirement for inclusion that we should be using. I've been involved in many listcruft discussions in past years and all of them have resulted in trimming the article to notable subjects. In cases where editors spun off the deleted content into standalone lists, those new articles were deleted. And those articles didn't even involve the names of living persons, which is something we take very seriously on Wikipedia. I've trimmed the article again. I suggest stepping back until a consensus develops to include the content you want to include. Woodroar ( talk) 15:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)- Completely incorrect assumptions. This is a discussion. My statement was a concession of my initial opinion in the interest of reaching consensus, since there are contrasting opinions on this subject. There has not been consensus yet. I have cited policies which clearly establish the validity of the inclusion criteria I am seeking. The only question now is precisely which type of criterion is acceptable (e.g., medal, top 5, A-final), because there is nothing obligating the list to be restricted to only "notable" subjects, per
WP:CSC. You have once again displayed a flagrant disregard for the arguments presented herein, and you have chosen to bypass consensus. The issue is still up for debate as I previously laid out. Attempting to ignore my arguments by getting caught up on specific language used is not productive dialogue. I suggest you take a step back from your stance that the duration of your account's existence holds any relevance. Once consensus is reached on which type of inclusion criterion is acceptable, then the list can be reduced accordingly. Your action has bypassed consensus and your messages towards me are condescending in nature.
Rowing007 (
talk) 16:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sure everyone understands your point of view, but nobody agrees. The third option at CSC is great for short, complete lists. It gives an example of 10 notable listed buildings and 2 non-notable listed buildings. (Though the actual article has expanded to 21 buildings.) That list is considered complete because a reliable source mentions them all. The version you keep reverting to has 259 entries—with slightly fewer people due to multiple wins/events/competitions, of course—and it's incomplete because no reliable source mentions them all. Even if we introduce stricter criteria to get the number below 100, the list would still be incomplete because no reliable source (that I've seen) mentions them all. That's not even taking into account the BLP considerations. For example, per
WP:BLPNAME, we generally shouldn't name people who received news coverage for a single event; it's only when their names are widely published outside the news that we should consider mentioning them. We also shouldn't name
low-profile individuals, which can include athletes who compete (and win) but otherwise avoid media coverage. Requiring that every living person be notable/blue-linked with reliable sources is a criteria with strong support across the project.
Woodroar (
talk) 18:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- "Nobody agrees". Actually, more precisely, none of the 4 people who have chosen to pronounce themselves so far have agreed. There are millions of other editors who could weigh in, but have not. This is called a biased sample. You thus cannot make such a generalization. I'm not sure what you're on about with the sources, as each individual entry is thoroughly sourced to demonstrate both affiliation with the Ottawa Rowing Club and participation in the event in question. It's not necessary (nor is it possible) to have a single source mentioning all of these international athletes (over decades) as being affiliated with the Ottawa Rowing Club and competing in the events in question. The only way such a source would exist would be a compendium maintained by the Ottawa Rowing Club itself. Further, the list is complete, because all the other rowers who competed in the international competitions in question can be verified as being unaffiliated with the Ottawa Rowing Club, although by its very nature the list may have more entries in the future if an Ottawa Rowing Club member competes internationally. Either way, this is a moot point about sources, as all the entries are properly sourced. For the nth time, the only question is the inclusion crieria. There's no question that notability is supported, as it's the absolute minimum level of inclusion. The step further is figuring out to which extent to include those athletes who are noteworthy (by virtue of having competed/medalled/etc. in these competitions) but not notable. Whatever you conjur up as a response to this, please answer this question: For those athletes who've currently survived your purge, why are we not keeping their appearances at non-Olympic events? Was this an oversight on your part in the haste of your edit? Is there a concrete rationale for favouring the Olympics over the other notable international rowing competitions? If so, this was never explained or discussed, thus no consensus was reached on it. If it's about due weight, then a consensus must be reached in order to conclude that Olympic participation deserves the space more than participation in the other international rowing competitions. Rowing007 ( talk) 19:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sure everyone understands your point of view, but nobody agrees. The third option at CSC is great for short, complete lists. It gives an example of 10 notable listed buildings and 2 non-notable listed buildings. (Though the actual article has expanded to 21 buildings.) That list is considered complete because a reliable source mentions them all. The version you keep reverting to has 259 entries—with slightly fewer people due to multiple wins/events/competitions, of course—and it's incomplete because no reliable source mentions them all. Even if we introduce stricter criteria to get the number below 100, the list would still be incomplete because no reliable source (that I've seen) mentions them all. That's not even taking into account the BLP considerations. For example, per
WP:BLPNAME, we generally shouldn't name people who received news coverage for a single event; it's only when their names are widely published outside the news that we should consider mentioning them. We also shouldn't name
low-profile individuals, which can include athletes who compete (and win) but otherwise avoid media coverage. Requiring that every living person be notable/blue-linked with reliable sources is a criteria with strong support across the project.
Woodroar (
talk) 18:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Completely incorrect assumptions. This is a discussion. My statement was a concession of my initial opinion in the interest of reaching consensus, since there are contrasting opinions on this subject. There has not been consensus yet. I have cited policies which clearly establish the validity of the inclusion criteria I am seeking. The only question now is precisely which type of criterion is acceptable (e.g., medal, top 5, A-final), because there is nothing obligating the list to be restricted to only "notable" subjects, per
WP:CSC. You have once again displayed a flagrant disregard for the arguments presented herein, and you have chosen to bypass consensus. The issue is still up for debate as I previously laid out. Attempting to ignore my arguments by getting caught up on specific language used is not productive dialogue. I suggest you take a step back from your stance that the duration of your account's existence holds any relevance. Once consensus is reached on which type of inclusion criterion is acceptable, then the list can be reduced accordingly. Your action has bypassed consensus and your messages towards me are condescending in nature.
Rowing007 (
talk) 16:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia.
per WP:CSC #1 is preferable (for the rationale at that guideline) to any of themedalling/top 5/A-final
options. Rotary Engine talk 18:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)- Actually,
WP:CSC does not specifically favour #1 over #3; it very plainly states that "Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of objective criteria". As such, it is sufficient to construct the list with the set of crtieria in option #3, which would be, at minimum, those who medalled.
Rowing007 (
talk) 19:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- No. I believe that, in this instance, a list of notable members is preferable to a list of medalling/top 5/A-final members because the former aligns with the rationale
doing so prevents Wikipedia from becoming a collection of indiscriminate lists; prevents individual list articles from becoming targets for spam and promotion; and keeps individual lists to a size that is manageable for readers
. I do not believe that a list of medalling/top 5/A-final members will be sufficientlyreasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers
. All quotes from WP:CSC. Rotary Engine talk 22:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)- You "do not believe". You're literally basing your opposition to this on a flimsy "belief". First I'll invite you to read my above reply to Woodroar. It is perfectly reasonable (i.e., not undue) to limit the list to those who medalled in these competitions. Magnolia677 literally admitted this in the original chain of messages from December, above:
I'm ok if you want to add names of members who medaled in a notable competitions, with reliable sources showing they were indeed members. Just don't add unrelated biographical info about these people. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
. In the absurd event that you somehow categorically reject this criterion, which is perfectly in line with option #3 of WP:CSC, and we are left with only the current desecrated version of the list, then there is no reason to prevent the inclusion of the other notable non-Olympic international competitions in which the existing Olympic athletes also participated. At a certain point, you have to drop this charade and realize how obtuse and convoluted this deletionist witch-hunt has become. Rowing007 ( talk) 23:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Perfectly in line with option #3 of WP:CSC
, except that it's not a stand-alone list; and isn'treasonably short
; and top 5/A-final criteria are arbitrary. There is nothing flimsy in my belief; nor does stating an opinion make it invalid. I'm quite certain that the best option for this section of this article is a simple list of notable members' names. Magnolia667 &/or Woodroar might well differ in their opinion of what would be best. That's part of forming a consensus. Rotary Engine talk 23:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)- You literally have no idea how long or short it would be with the criterion of medalling. What I can tell you from a preliminary drafting of the table to fit this criterion is that it would be significantly reduced to be well-under 32K. You've also conveniently ignored the inconsistency I've pointed out in the current version of the list, namely that there is no reason to prevent the inclusion of the other notable non-Olympic international competitions in which the existing Olympic athletes also participated. The top 5/A-final suggestions are somewhat. The point of my suggesting them (repeatedly and to deaf ears) was to present options not dissimilar to the crtieria established for other sports at
WP:Notability (sports)#Professional sports people. Anyway, the list is much shorter with medallists than it is with "mere" participants (just to be clear, participation in any of these competitions is nothint to scoff at). In fact, the length of the list under the medallist criterion is well within the bounds of "reasonably short".
Rowing007 (
talk) 23:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
What I can tell ... from a preliminary drafting of the table to fit this criterion is that it would be significantly reduced to be well-under 32K.
Post a draft on this Talk page.You've also conveniently ignored the inconsistency I've pointed out in the current version of the list...
A simple list of notable members' names addresses that point.Options not dissimilar to the crtieria established for other sports at WP:Notability (sports)#Professional sports people
WP:NNC also applies to "presumed notability".The length of the list under the medallist criterion is well within the bounds of "reasonably short"
Post a draft here; see if there's a consensus for inclusion. Rotary Engine talk 00:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)- No, because it's something that can just as easily be ascertained by anyone else on their own. Do it yourself if you'd like to see what it looks like.
Rowing007 (
talk) 01:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- You just said that you've done a
preliminary drafting of the table to fit this criterion
, so why not show it, rather than require others to do the work? BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 21:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)- Because, first of all, I am not subservient to the whims of other editors, and secondly, it hasn't been completed yet, so I will not be goaded and taunted into submission. My assessment that it would fall well within the "reasonably short" requirement is based on a partial completion of the draft and an extrapolation of the information obtained from a preliminary investigation into the rankings of several of the athletes on the list. If someone is so curious, they can put in the work and find out for themselves.
Rowing007 (
talk) 21:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Great, so we'll leave the article as it is, showing athletes who clearly meet notability standards, and look forward to your proposals for expanding it.
BubbaJoe123456 (
talk) 21:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Categorically untrue. You do not speak for the actions of myself or of anyone else, and you have no authority or basis to say what will or will not be done by anyone. And do not imply you and the gaggle of other editors who've weighed in hold any sort of authority or ownership over this article.
Rowing007 (
talk) 21:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
...you have no authority or basis to say what will or will not be done by anyone. And do not imply you and the gaggle of other editors who've weighed in hold any sort of authority or ownership over this article.
- And the same is true for you, I might add. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 22:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Categorically untrue. You do not speak for the actions of myself or of anyone else, and you have no authority or basis to say what will or will not be done by anyone. And do not imply you and the gaggle of other editors who've weighed in hold any sort of authority or ownership over this article.
Rowing007 (
talk) 21:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Great, so we'll leave the article as it is, showing athletes who clearly meet notability standards, and look forward to your proposals for expanding it.
BubbaJoe123456 (
talk) 21:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Because, first of all, I am not subservient to the whims of other editors, and secondly, it hasn't been completed yet, so I will not be goaded and taunted into submission. My assessment that it would fall well within the "reasonably short" requirement is based on a partial completion of the draft and an extrapolation of the information obtained from a preliminary investigation into the rankings of several of the athletes on the list. If someone is so curious, they can put in the work and find out for themselves.
Rowing007 (
talk) 21:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- You just said that you've done a
- No, because it's something that can just as easily be ascertained by anyone else on their own. Do it yourself if you'd like to see what it looks like.
Rowing007 (
talk) 01:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- You literally have no idea how long or short it would be with the criterion of medalling. What I can tell you from a preliminary drafting of the table to fit this criterion is that it would be significantly reduced to be well-under 32K. You've also conveniently ignored the inconsistency I've pointed out in the current version of the list, namely that there is no reason to prevent the inclusion of the other notable non-Olympic international competitions in which the existing Olympic athletes also participated. The top 5/A-final suggestions are somewhat. The point of my suggesting them (repeatedly and to deaf ears) was to present options not dissimilar to the crtieria established for other sports at
WP:Notability (sports)#Professional sports people. Anyway, the list is much shorter with medallists than it is with "mere" participants (just to be clear, participation in any of these competitions is nothint to scoff at). In fact, the length of the list under the medallist criterion is well within the bounds of "reasonably short".
Rowing007 (
talk) 23:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- You "do not believe". You're literally basing your opposition to this on a flimsy "belief". First I'll invite you to read my above reply to Woodroar. It is perfectly reasonable (i.e., not undue) to limit the list to those who medalled in these competitions. Magnolia677 literally admitted this in the original chain of messages from December, above:
- No. I believe that, in this instance, a list of notable members is preferable to a list of medalling/top 5/A-final members because the former aligns with the rationale
- Actually,
WP:CSC does not specifically favour #1 over #3; it very plainly states that "Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of objective criteria". As such, it is sufficient to construct the list with the set of crtieria in option #3, which would be, at minimum, those who medalled.
Rowing007 (
talk) 19:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Statements like
- However, I am willing to reduce it to something such as medalling, top 5, or A-final (I'm still waiting for feedback on these options!) because as per the third option in
WP:CSC, the list would need to be less than 32K to be governed by such criteria, so the requirement of medalling/top 5/A-final would be able to adequately reduce the list and restore due weight. Please, everyone, provide feedback on which of the inclusion crtieria (medal, top 5, or A-final) is preferred, and I will get to work on properly reducing the list according to that criterion.
Rowing007 (
talk) 14:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
|
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Recent edits by @ Magnolia677: constitute a drastic change, and in my opinion, the edits have significantly vandalized/harmed the article. Respectfully, it is clear that the user lacks information about the subject of the article. For context, I am an active member of the Ottawa Rowing Club.
The user cited WP:EL. Per my edit summary here, I had initiated the proper referencing format for the list of names; the rest was going to be added later. As for the user's removal of the list of names by citing WP:NOTDIRECTORY, I will point to WP:SOURCELIST and WP:LISTPEOPLE to reinforce the following position: the vast majority of the people on that list already have stand-alone articles about them, meaning their notability has already been established. As for those less notable people in the list (e.g., those without an article), they may be included per WP:LISTPEOPLE, which states "In a few cases, such as lists of people holding notable positions, the names of non-notable people may be included in a list that is largely made up of notable people, for the sake of completeness."
As for sources, there exist multiple reliable sources which link the vast majority of the names to the Ottawa Rowing Club, it's just that it's a cumbersome task and will require several hours in order to properly format the sources. For example, Alanna Fogarty, while not notable enough to have her own article, can easily be verified as being part of the ORC by looking here (page 16, 2:30 PM race), and her participation at the 2016 and 2018 World University Rowing Championships can be verified here. This is just one example. The dozens of other names can almost all be verified by similar means as being connected to the Ottawa Rowing Club, and their participation in the international events in question has already been proven using the World Rowing website. Additionally, there is an Alumni Search feature on the Ottawa Rowing Club's website, which can be used to verify the names.
In summary, I request/propose that a consensus be reached regarding the specific inclusion criteria for the list, such as restricting it to alumni only. As well, while I recognize that the article in its state before the user's edits was far from perfect (and I agree with some of the user's cleanup edits such as tidying wording and removing overlinking), the user's edits regarding content removal went too far. For this reason, I believe a more measured approach is warranted; one where consesus is reached before any drastic changes are unilaterally undertaken. Rowing007 ( talk) 20:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- @
Rowing007: May I ask what your position is at the rowing club? Thank you.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 20:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- @
Magnolia677: Sorry, I do not believe it is an appropriate or relevant question in this context. There is no
WP:COI, if that's what you're after. I'm pretty sure this is strictly a matter relating to policies on lists of notable people. Would you please address the substance of my initial message?
Rowing007 (
talk) 20:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- First,
WP:LISTPEOPLE is a policy for stand-alone lists, which this isn't. Second, Wikipedia is not a directory of every member in your club. Finally,
WP:BURDEN states that "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." In other words, "I had initiated the proper referencing format for the list of names; the rest was going to be added later", and "it's just that it's a cumbersome task and will require several hours in order to properly format the sources" are not valid reasons for adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Thank you for your understanding.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 20:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- Alright, per WP:LISTBIO, the criteria for embedded lists are to be determined by WP:SOURCELIST, in that each item on the list must meet the same criteria for inclusion in the text of the article. "Wikipedia is not a directory of every member in your club" This is correct, but it is very bluntly off-target, in my estimation. The list represents an extremely small subset of the Club's members. Namely, it is a list of notable members (i.e., members who participated in the Olympics, World Championships, or Pan American Games). If you'd like to propose a more rigorous definition of notability in this context, please do. As for your final point about verifiability, what I understand from that is that I can reinstate the list (or a modified version of it) if each element of it is properly sourced, by establishing a link to the Ottawa Rowing Club and establishing proof that the individual competed in the competition(s) in question. I really appreciate the courtesy you've shown, by the way. Rowing007 ( talk) 21:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- @
Magnolia677: I'm seeing your further edits, and I'm in awe at how much destruction you are undertaking. You are unilaterally destroying the article at this point. What happened to consensus?
Rowing007 (
talk) 21:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm ok if you want to add names of members who medaled in a notable competitions, with reliable sources showing they were indeed members. Just don't add unrelated biographical info about these people. Thanks.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 21:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with including all individuals who competed at the aforementioned competitions, as this constitutes notability in itself (though medalling is of course a tier above). No biographical information was included regarding these people.
- I'm ok if you want to add names of members who medaled in a notable competitions, with reliable sources showing they were indeed members. Just don't add unrelated biographical info about these people. Thanks.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 21:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- First,
WP:LISTPEOPLE is a policy for stand-alone lists, which this isn't. Second, Wikipedia is not a directory of every member in your club. Finally,
WP:BURDEN states that "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." In other words, "I had initiated the proper referencing format for the list of names; the rest was going to be added later", and "it's just that it's a cumbersome task and will require several hours in order to properly format the sources" are not valid reasons for adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Thank you for your understanding.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 20:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- @
Magnolia677: Sorry, I do not believe it is an appropriate or relevant question in this context. There is no
WP:COI, if that's what you're after. I'm pretty sure this is strictly a matter relating to policies on lists of notable people. Would you please address the substance of my initial message?
Rowing007 (
talk) 20:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- As for the barrage of other edits you've made/been making, some of them are constructive and helpful, like the coordinates, while others are wantonly destructive and lack consensus. For example, you removed the names of the members of the 1910 crew, dismissing them as "non-notable people", while they were among the most notable people associated with the club, hence the entire section of the article on that crew. You've made a flurry of other snap decisions and declarations regarding what is and is not pertinent to this Wikipedia article, and I think it's appalling and unjustifiable. I think that some of the destructive edits ought to be reverted, in order to be reworked after reaching a consensus, since you feel so strongly about them that you've bypassed any form of consultation. Rowing007 ( talk) 22:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- @
Magnolia677: Your monkey-guarding involvement on this article is now pernicious in nature, as you are contradicting yourself from the above discussion. As previously dicsussed and agreed upon, notability in this case constitutes participation in notable international rowing competitions (namely: Olympics/Paralympics, World Rowing Championships, World U23 Rowing Championships, World Junior Rowing Championships, World Rowing Cup, World University Rowing Championships/Summer Universiade, Pan American Games). Furthermore, in your destructive edit, you haven't even applied your own spontaneous and arbitrary rule consistently, as most of the people with their own article also participated in other regattas than the Olympics/Paralympics, yet you've blindly deleted those entries. Countless other articles list names of athletes that do not have their own articles, but they are included in those lists because they participated in a notable event (for example, just look at all the red links in
1977 World Rowing Championships, or any other international rowing competition article, or the countless other comparable articles for other sports). Therefore, there is no problem with including them in this list for completeness. There is currently no
guideline for rowing, but the criteria for some other sports are comparatively pretty lenient. I contend that participation in any of the aforementioned notable international rowing competitions is sufficient for mere inclusion in this list. You even conceded yourself above that they need not necessarily have their own article.
Rowing007 (
talk) 12:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- @
Rowing007: The depth of detail, and the quantity of text, given to listing non-notable members of the club, is
WP:UNDUE. Please revert your edit.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 22:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- @ Magnolia677: The edit should not be reverted, because, as I previously mentioned, your deletion completely erases all the competitions (which are each notable enough to have articles about them) other than the Olympics/Paralympics, which is undue weight towards the latter, when arguably World Rowing Championships are competitions just as (if not more) "notable" (i.e., prestigious/difficult/competitive) (and they include some non-Olympic boat classes) in the sport of rowing than the Olympics (comparative example: which is more notable/prestigious among soccer (football) people, the FIFA World Cup, or an Olympic gold medal? Same concept here). Further, the list is consistent with what we had agreed upon in the above discussion (i.e., no biographical details; strictly the name and event, with sources proving affiliation with the club and participation in the event). If you take issue with the current state of the list, please keep reading.
- @
Rowing007: The depth of detail, and the quantity of text, given to listing non-notable members of the club, is
WP:UNDUE. Please revert your edit.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 22:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- The burden of a well-articulated rationale behind a proposal for change falls upon you, but since you do not seem inclined to pursue such an explanation (and rather seem content to vaguely command others to implement revisions and criticize those revisions as you see fit), I'll explore this subject here. I see two main options if you are so vehemently opposed to the current state of that portion of the article.
- Option 1: the list could be moved into a standalone article, which is something done for countless other articles (while we're in Ottawa, here's an example: List of University of Ottawa people).
- Option 2: the list remains on this article, but it is revised in a precisely defined and agreed upon way which is consistent with previous discussions and standards set elsewhere on Wikipedia. Namely, a
guideline should be developed for criteria for notability for rowers. I believe constructing such a guideline would require various stages of approval and/or consensus (i.e., more than just you or me).
Rowing007 (
talk) 22:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- I don't feel either option is encyclopedic.
List of University of Ottawa people is a list of notable people, while your list is not.
WP:Notability (sports)#Professional sports people does not apply in this instance, as it lists the criteria for the creation of biographies. The only list criteria I feel would be appropriate for these embedded lists, would be including only notable members of the club, but you have already opposed this. The input of others would be welcome.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 00:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- You said "I'm ok if you want to add names of members who medaled in a notable competitions, with reliable sources showing they were indeed members", to which I responded that mere participation (not necessarily medalling) in these competitions is notable. Also notice that you have moved the goalposts from properly sourcing the content (done) to now complaining that there are too many entries (which all meet the previously agreed upon criteria). Once again, I'll refer to WP:Notability (sports)#Professional sports people, which I think is wholly applicable to this case. Biographical criteria are stronger than list criteria, so if the aforementioned guideline can be added for rowing, then this matter could be easily resolved. The delineation is the real dispute here. Participation in a notable international rowing competition? Top 5 in a notable international rowing competition? Making it to the "A" Final in a notable international rowing competition? Medalling in a notable international rowing competition? This is a question for those well-versed in this subject. Rowing007 ( talk) 01:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Further, your flat rejection of both options as unencyclopedic clearly misses the point of the second option. Option 2 advocates for a revision of the list according to criteria determined by consensus, not a blunt razing which even ignores the nuance that many of the Olympic athletes also participated in the other notable competitions. Rowing007 ( talk) 01:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Almost forgot, the example I used of List of University of Ottawa people, which you claim only includes notable people, includes several red links when it comes to the Chancellors and Presidents. To bring this back to rowing, like I mentioned above, there are countless sports-related articles (e.g., on notable international rowing competitions) that list names of non-notable people, specifically because those people participated in that competition. Rowing007 ( talk) 01:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- I don't feel either option is encyclopedic.
List of University of Ottawa people is a list of notable people, while your list is not.
WP:Notability (sports)#Professional sports people does not apply in this instance, as it lists the criteria for the creation of biographies. The only list criteria I feel would be appropriate for these embedded lists, would be including only notable members of the club, but you have already opposed this. The input of others would be welcome.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 00:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Option 2: the list remains on this article, but it is revised in a precisely defined and agreed upon way which is consistent with previous discussions and standards set elsewhere on Wikipedia. Namely, a
guideline should be developed for criteria for notability for rowers. I believe constructing such a guideline would require various stages of approval and/or consensus (i.e., more than just you or me).
Rowing007 (
talk) 22:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
I also find the number of non-notable, (presumably) living persons UNDUE and a violation of LISTPEOPLE. If any of them meet WP:ATHLETE, then by all means, create the article and we can keep them—assuming reliable, secondary sources say they are/were in the club. Until then, they should be removed. I'm also concerned with the large number of low-quality sources, especially as we're using them to make claims about living persons. Some examples include ottawarowingclub.com (a primary source, which should really only be used sparingly for WP:ABOUTSELF claims) and regattacentral.com (a business). Woodroar ( talk) 01:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Respectfully, this is another ill-informed interpretation of the subject at hand. I pointed to the countless other articles which list "non-notable" people, simply because those people participated in a notable competition. All of the people in this list are equal in that regard. No one has addressed that point yet. The regattacentral source is supplementary; it can be removed and the subject would still be properly sourced by the source immediately preceding it. Regardless, it is merely used to prove affiliation with the Ottawa Rowing Club by showing that the athletes in question indeed competed with the Ottawa Rowing Club. As for this "removal of non-notable people" crusade (which, once again, fails to address my point about the countless articles such as
1977 World Rowing Championships which list non-notable people), if the non-notable people are to be removed, specific attention should be paid to preserve the instances where the notable athletes also participated in the notable competitions other than the Olympics. In other words, the wanton destruction favoured by Magnolia677 is to be avoided.
Rowing007 (
talk) 02:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- See
WP:OTHERSTUFF and
WP:OTHERCONTENT. There are more than 6.6 million articles on the English Wikipedia and anybody can edit them, so you can't (or shouldn't) expect every article to be perfect. Our
core content policies—the policies that determine article content—and supporting policies/guidelines like
WP:N,
WP:BLP, and
WP:NOT enjoy broad support across the project. We should edit according to those standards, not some random article with
89 edits by 21 editors and ~2.5 views per day.
Woodroar (
talk) 02:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- That's a fallacious application of otherstuff and othercontent. I referenced this random other article to illustrate a point. If you would address my substantive arguments (such as the point I was trying to make by pointing to the red links on other pages, and the numerous other points I made above), maybe we could get somewhere. There is definitely a nuance here, so let's not be so hasty to throw the metaphorical wikipedia book at this situation and call it a day. It would also be beneficial if some sports-related editors would weigh in or help develop a guideline for rowing notability. Rowing007 ( talk) 03:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- To be clear, the key question here is what constitutes notability with regards to this list. I presented possible paths a few comments above that explore this (participation, medalling, top 5, A-final, etc.).
Rowing007 (
talk) 03:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Per discussion here and at
WP:NPOVN#Ottawa Rowing Club, I've removed all of the non-notable persons. If a consensus develops to include them, we can do that. Until then, Wikipedia policies (and a general consensus) suggest that we limit mentions to notable persons only.
Woodroar (
talk) 15:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- What is readily apparent is that you are failing to understand the subtlety of the list. You've committed the same mistake as Magnolia677 before you, in that you've removed all non-Olympic entries, crucially failing to recognize that many of the Olympians also competed in the other notable competitions. Further, there is no "discussion" at WP:NPOVN#Ottawa Rowing Club. It's one individual who presented their opinion without explaining the rationale behind it whatsoever, let alone addressing any of the arguments presented here, and you jumped on it as if it means anything. You've also failed to address any of the points I made in my last messages above. As I noted above, the question is about the criteria for inclusion in the list, for which I presented possible ideas, as well as an idea that resolves the WP:UNDUE gripe. Your set of behaviours reveals a bias in your method of approaching this situation. As your edit to the article is inappropriate, not internally consistent, and unfounded, I am reverting it. You are welcome to continue the discussion or try the edit again while properly filtering the list according to your criteria.
- Per discussion here and at
WP:NPOVN#Ottawa Rowing Club, I've removed all of the non-notable persons. If a consensus develops to include them, we can do that. Until then, Wikipedia policies (and a general consensus) suggest that we limit mentions to notable persons only.
Woodroar (
talk) 15:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- See
WP:OTHERSTUFF and
WP:OTHERCONTENT. There are more than 6.6 million articles on the English Wikipedia and anybody can edit them, so you can't (or shouldn't) expect every article to be perfect. Our
core content policies—the policies that determine article content—and supporting policies/guidelines like
WP:N,
WP:BLP, and
WP:NOT enjoy broad support across the project. We should edit according to those standards, not some random article with
89 edits by 21 editors and ~2.5 views per day.
Woodroar (
talk) 02:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- The main things to be determined are: what are the inclusion criteria for notable rowers? These criteria exist for many other sports, but not yet for rowing; this is a problem. The second thing, once the inclusion criteria are established, is that if there is a sentiment that the list is taking up WP:UNDUE space on this article, then the list can be moved to a standalone article and linked to, in this article. Rowing007 ( talk) 18:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- The baseline for notability typically used is "does this person have a Wiki article?" The exception to this in WP:LISTPEOPLE refers to scenarios where there's a finite group of people, some of whom may not be notable, but where leaving them out would be rather odd. For example, a list of the presidents of XYZ university shouldn't have gaps because some of the presidents weren't notable while others were. In this case, though, I'd certainly say that the default for inclusion would be rowers who have shown themselves to be notable by having a Wikipedia article.
BubbaJoe123456 (
talk) 18:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- That point has already been presented by others on numerous occasions, and it has already been argued against at length, because it misses several nuances.
Rowing007 (
talk) 19:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- It has been argued against. As an uninvolved editor, I haven't found the arguments persuasive.
BubbaJoe123456 (
talk) 20:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Congratulations? Maybe it's precisely because you aren't involved that you've missed the subtlety. Maybe not. Either way, your point is moot.
Rowing007 (
talk) 21:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- If the argument is too "subtle" to be understood by an uninvolved editor, that doesn't exactly make a compelling case for the argument. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 21:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Congratulations? Maybe it's precisely because you aren't involved that you've missed the subtlety. Maybe not. Either way, your point is moot.
Rowing007 (
talk) 21:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- It has been argued against. As an uninvolved editor, I haven't found the arguments persuasive.
BubbaJoe123456 (
talk) 20:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- That point has already been presented by others on numerous occasions, and it has already been argued against at length, because it misses several nuances.
Rowing007 (
talk) 19:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Exclude non-notable entries and lists per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:LISTPEOPLE #1; "notable" defined as at
WP:N. Noting that, per WP:SOURCELIST, sourcing & verifiability is necessary, but not sufficient. The exception at WP:LISTPEOPLE for
holders of notable positions
does not apply; "lightweight mens coxless double sculls" is not a notable position ("notable" as at WP:N). - Rotary Engine talk 01:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)- Thank you for joining the discussion. Here are my thoughts. Per WP:NNC, "Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies."
- Per WP:LSC, "Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance", which is why I am requesting/proposing that clear criteria be established and agreed upon for inclusion in the list. Magnolia677 had said anyone who medalled in one of these competitions could be included. I had contended that anyone who participates in these competitions is noteworthy.
- However, I am willing to reduce it to something such as medalling, top 5, or A-final (I'm still waiting for feedback on these options!) because as per the third option in
WP:CSC, the list would need to be less than 32K to be governed by such criteria, so the requirement of medalling/top 5/A-final would be able to adequately reduce the list and restore due weight. Please, everyone, provide feedback on which of the inclusion crtieria (medal, top 5, or A-final) is preferred, and I will get to work on properly reducing the list according to that criterion.
Rowing007 (
talk) 14:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Statements like
I am willing to reduce it
make it appear that you own the article, when that is not the case. Four long-term, experienced editors, citing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, have suggested trimming the article to notable persons based on reliable sources. That is the requirement for inclusion that we should be using. I've been involved in many listcruft discussions in past years and all of them have resulted in trimming the article to notable subjects. In cases where editors spun off the deleted content into standalone lists, those new articles were deleted. And those articles didn't even involve the names of living persons, which is something we take very seriously on Wikipedia. I've trimmed the article again. I suggest stepping back until a consensus develops to include the content you want to include. Woodroar ( talk) 15:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)- Completely incorrect assumptions. This is a discussion. My statement was a concession of my initial opinion in the interest of reaching consensus, since there are contrasting opinions on this subject. There has not been consensus yet. I have cited policies which clearly establish the validity of the inclusion criteria I am seeking. The only question now is precisely which type of criterion is acceptable (e.g., medal, top 5, A-final), because there is nothing obligating the list to be restricted to only "notable" subjects, per
WP:CSC. You have once again displayed a flagrant disregard for the arguments presented herein, and you have chosen to bypass consensus. The issue is still up for debate as I previously laid out. Attempting to ignore my arguments by getting caught up on specific language used is not productive dialogue. I suggest you take a step back from your stance that the duration of your account's existence holds any relevance. Once consensus is reached on which type of inclusion criterion is acceptable, then the list can be reduced accordingly. Your action has bypassed consensus and your messages towards me are condescending in nature.
Rowing007 (
talk) 16:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sure everyone understands your point of view, but nobody agrees. The third option at CSC is great for short, complete lists. It gives an example of 10 notable listed buildings and 2 non-notable listed buildings. (Though the actual article has expanded to 21 buildings.) That list is considered complete because a reliable source mentions them all. The version you keep reverting to has 259 entries—with slightly fewer people due to multiple wins/events/competitions, of course—and it's incomplete because no reliable source mentions them all. Even if we introduce stricter criteria to get the number below 100, the list would still be incomplete because no reliable source (that I've seen) mentions them all. That's not even taking into account the BLP considerations. For example, per
WP:BLPNAME, we generally shouldn't name people who received news coverage for a single event; it's only when their names are widely published outside the news that we should consider mentioning them. We also shouldn't name
low-profile individuals, which can include athletes who compete (and win) but otherwise avoid media coverage. Requiring that every living person be notable/blue-linked with reliable sources is a criteria with strong support across the project.
Woodroar (
talk) 18:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- "Nobody agrees". Actually, more precisely, none of the 4 people who have chosen to pronounce themselves so far have agreed. There are millions of other editors who could weigh in, but have not. This is called a biased sample. You thus cannot make such a generalization. I'm not sure what you're on about with the sources, as each individual entry is thoroughly sourced to demonstrate both affiliation with the Ottawa Rowing Club and participation in the event in question. It's not necessary (nor is it possible) to have a single source mentioning all of these international athletes (over decades) as being affiliated with the Ottawa Rowing Club and competing in the events in question. The only way such a source would exist would be a compendium maintained by the Ottawa Rowing Club itself. Further, the list is complete, because all the other rowers who competed in the international competitions in question can be verified as being unaffiliated with the Ottawa Rowing Club, although by its very nature the list may have more entries in the future if an Ottawa Rowing Club member competes internationally. Either way, this is a moot point about sources, as all the entries are properly sourced. For the nth time, the only question is the inclusion crieria. There's no question that notability is supported, as it's the absolute minimum level of inclusion. The step further is figuring out to which extent to include those athletes who are noteworthy (by virtue of having competed/medalled/etc. in these competitions) but not notable. Whatever you conjur up as a response to this, please answer this question: For those athletes who've currently survived your purge, why are we not keeping their appearances at non-Olympic events? Was this an oversight on your part in the haste of your edit? Is there a concrete rationale for favouring the Olympics over the other notable international rowing competitions? If so, this was never explained or discussed, thus no consensus was reached on it. If it's about due weight, then a consensus must be reached in order to conclude that Olympic participation deserves the space more than participation in the other international rowing competitions. Rowing007 ( talk) 19:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sure everyone understands your point of view, but nobody agrees. The third option at CSC is great for short, complete lists. It gives an example of 10 notable listed buildings and 2 non-notable listed buildings. (Though the actual article has expanded to 21 buildings.) That list is considered complete because a reliable source mentions them all. The version you keep reverting to has 259 entries—with slightly fewer people due to multiple wins/events/competitions, of course—and it's incomplete because no reliable source mentions them all. Even if we introduce stricter criteria to get the number below 100, the list would still be incomplete because no reliable source (that I've seen) mentions them all. That's not even taking into account the BLP considerations. For example, per
WP:BLPNAME, we generally shouldn't name people who received news coverage for a single event; it's only when their names are widely published outside the news that we should consider mentioning them. We also shouldn't name
low-profile individuals, which can include athletes who compete (and win) but otherwise avoid media coverage. Requiring that every living person be notable/blue-linked with reliable sources is a criteria with strong support across the project.
Woodroar (
talk) 18:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Completely incorrect assumptions. This is a discussion. My statement was a concession of my initial opinion in the interest of reaching consensus, since there are contrasting opinions on this subject. There has not been consensus yet. I have cited policies which clearly establish the validity of the inclusion criteria I am seeking. The only question now is precisely which type of criterion is acceptable (e.g., medal, top 5, A-final), because there is nothing obligating the list to be restricted to only "notable" subjects, per
WP:CSC. You have once again displayed a flagrant disregard for the arguments presented herein, and you have chosen to bypass consensus. The issue is still up for debate as I previously laid out. Attempting to ignore my arguments by getting caught up on specific language used is not productive dialogue. I suggest you take a step back from your stance that the duration of your account's existence holds any relevance. Once consensus is reached on which type of inclusion criterion is acceptable, then the list can be reduced accordingly. Your action has bypassed consensus and your messages towards me are condescending in nature.
Rowing007 (
talk) 16:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia.
per WP:CSC #1 is preferable (for the rationale at that guideline) to any of themedalling/top 5/A-final
options. Rotary Engine talk 18:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)- Actually,
WP:CSC does not specifically favour #1 over #3; it very plainly states that "Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of objective criteria". As such, it is sufficient to construct the list with the set of crtieria in option #3, which would be, at minimum, those who medalled.
Rowing007 (
talk) 19:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- No. I believe that, in this instance, a list of notable members is preferable to a list of medalling/top 5/A-final members because the former aligns with the rationale
doing so prevents Wikipedia from becoming a collection of indiscriminate lists; prevents individual list articles from becoming targets for spam and promotion; and keeps individual lists to a size that is manageable for readers
. I do not believe that a list of medalling/top 5/A-final members will be sufficientlyreasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers
. All quotes from WP:CSC. Rotary Engine talk 22:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)- You "do not believe". You're literally basing your opposition to this on a flimsy "belief". First I'll invite you to read my above reply to Woodroar. It is perfectly reasonable (i.e., not undue) to limit the list to those who medalled in these competitions. Magnolia677 literally admitted this in the original chain of messages from December, above:
I'm ok if you want to add names of members who medaled in a notable competitions, with reliable sources showing they were indeed members. Just don't add unrelated biographical info about these people. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
. In the absurd event that you somehow categorically reject this criterion, which is perfectly in line with option #3 of WP:CSC, and we are left with only the current desecrated version of the list, then there is no reason to prevent the inclusion of the other notable non-Olympic international competitions in which the existing Olympic athletes also participated. At a certain point, you have to drop this charade and realize how obtuse and convoluted this deletionist witch-hunt has become. Rowing007 ( talk) 23:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Perfectly in line with option #3 of WP:CSC
, except that it's not a stand-alone list; and isn'treasonably short
; and top 5/A-final criteria are arbitrary. There is nothing flimsy in my belief; nor does stating an opinion make it invalid. I'm quite certain that the best option for this section of this article is a simple list of notable members' names. Magnolia667 &/or Woodroar might well differ in their opinion of what would be best. That's part of forming a consensus. Rotary Engine talk 23:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)- You literally have no idea how long or short it would be with the criterion of medalling. What I can tell you from a preliminary drafting of the table to fit this criterion is that it would be significantly reduced to be well-under 32K. You've also conveniently ignored the inconsistency I've pointed out in the current version of the list, namely that there is no reason to prevent the inclusion of the other notable non-Olympic international competitions in which the existing Olympic athletes also participated. The top 5/A-final suggestions are somewhat. The point of my suggesting them (repeatedly and to deaf ears) was to present options not dissimilar to the crtieria established for other sports at
WP:Notability (sports)#Professional sports people. Anyway, the list is much shorter with medallists than it is with "mere" participants (just to be clear, participation in any of these competitions is nothint to scoff at). In fact, the length of the list under the medallist criterion is well within the bounds of "reasonably short".
Rowing007 (
talk) 23:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
What I can tell ... from a preliminary drafting of the table to fit this criterion is that it would be significantly reduced to be well-under 32K.
Post a draft on this Talk page.You've also conveniently ignored the inconsistency I've pointed out in the current version of the list...
A simple list of notable members' names addresses that point.Options not dissimilar to the crtieria established for other sports at WP:Notability (sports)#Professional sports people
WP:NNC also applies to "presumed notability".The length of the list under the medallist criterion is well within the bounds of "reasonably short"
Post a draft here; see if there's a consensus for inclusion. Rotary Engine talk 00:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)- No, because it's something that can just as easily be ascertained by anyone else on their own. Do it yourself if you'd like to see what it looks like.
Rowing007 (
talk) 01:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- You just said that you've done a
preliminary drafting of the table to fit this criterion
, so why not show it, rather than require others to do the work? BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 21:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)- Because, first of all, I am not subservient to the whims of other editors, and secondly, it hasn't been completed yet, so I will not be goaded and taunted into submission. My assessment that it would fall well within the "reasonably short" requirement is based on a partial completion of the draft and an extrapolation of the information obtained from a preliminary investigation into the rankings of several of the athletes on the list. If someone is so curious, they can put in the work and find out for themselves.
Rowing007 (
talk) 21:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Great, so we'll leave the article as it is, showing athletes who clearly meet notability standards, and look forward to your proposals for expanding it.
BubbaJoe123456 (
talk) 21:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Categorically untrue. You do not speak for the actions of myself or of anyone else, and you have no authority or basis to say what will or will not be done by anyone. And do not imply you and the gaggle of other editors who've weighed in hold any sort of authority or ownership over this article.
Rowing007 (
talk) 21:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
...you have no authority or basis to say what will or will not be done by anyone. And do not imply you and the gaggle of other editors who've weighed in hold any sort of authority or ownership over this article.
- And the same is true for you, I might add. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 22:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Categorically untrue. You do not speak for the actions of myself or of anyone else, and you have no authority or basis to say what will or will not be done by anyone. And do not imply you and the gaggle of other editors who've weighed in hold any sort of authority or ownership over this article.
Rowing007 (
talk) 21:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Great, so we'll leave the article as it is, showing athletes who clearly meet notability standards, and look forward to your proposals for expanding it.
BubbaJoe123456 (
talk) 21:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Because, first of all, I am not subservient to the whims of other editors, and secondly, it hasn't been completed yet, so I will not be goaded and taunted into submission. My assessment that it would fall well within the "reasonably short" requirement is based on a partial completion of the draft and an extrapolation of the information obtained from a preliminary investigation into the rankings of several of the athletes on the list. If someone is so curious, they can put in the work and find out for themselves.
Rowing007 (
talk) 21:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- You just said that you've done a
- No, because it's something that can just as easily be ascertained by anyone else on their own. Do it yourself if you'd like to see what it looks like.
Rowing007 (
talk) 01:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- You literally have no idea how long or short it would be with the criterion of medalling. What I can tell you from a preliminary drafting of the table to fit this criterion is that it would be significantly reduced to be well-under 32K. You've also conveniently ignored the inconsistency I've pointed out in the current version of the list, namely that there is no reason to prevent the inclusion of the other notable non-Olympic international competitions in which the existing Olympic athletes also participated. The top 5/A-final suggestions are somewhat. The point of my suggesting them (repeatedly and to deaf ears) was to present options not dissimilar to the crtieria established for other sports at
WP:Notability (sports)#Professional sports people. Anyway, the list is much shorter with medallists than it is with "mere" participants (just to be clear, participation in any of these competitions is nothint to scoff at). In fact, the length of the list under the medallist criterion is well within the bounds of "reasonably short".
Rowing007 (
talk) 23:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- You "do not believe". You're literally basing your opposition to this on a flimsy "belief". First I'll invite you to read my above reply to Woodroar. It is perfectly reasonable (i.e., not undue) to limit the list to those who medalled in these competitions. Magnolia677 literally admitted this in the original chain of messages from December, above:
- No. I believe that, in this instance, a list of notable members is preferable to a list of medalling/top 5/A-final members because the former aligns with the rationale
- Actually,
WP:CSC does not specifically favour #1 over #3; it very plainly states that "Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of objective criteria". As such, it is sufficient to construct the list with the set of crtieria in option #3, which would be, at minimum, those who medalled.
Rowing007 (
talk) 19:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Statements like
- However, I am willing to reduce it to something such as medalling, top 5, or A-final (I'm still waiting for feedback on these options!) because as per the third option in
WP:CSC, the list would need to be less than 32K to be governed by such criteria, so the requirement of medalling/top 5/A-final would be able to adequately reduce the list and restore due weight. Please, everyone, provide feedback on which of the inclusion crtieria (medal, top 5, or A-final) is preferred, and I will get to work on properly reducing the list according to that criterion.
Rowing007 (
talk) 14:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)