Please read WP:NB, if you haven't already, before creating any more articles on individual books. 71.204.176.201 ( talk) 18:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Given the standing of David Drake in the science fiction community and his well regarded body of work, sumaries on his individual books, particularly those that have been re-issued due to their popularity should meet the notability threashold, despite the guidelines of notability. There exists many books on Wikipedia that do not meet the guidelines for notability, but are still granted entries due to their otehr notable qualities, outside the realm of movie adpatations and awards.
Barton Foley (
talk)
19:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain to put arbitrary "notability" tags on book articles: it might look like you are just trying to illustrate a point in a not too subtle a way. Thanks, Goochelaar ( talk) 13:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Where is the discussion for this merge? The merge template used on the 4 articles has the default value Talk:THIS PAGE#Merger proposal and not a specific location. Possible locations could be on the Last Legionary redirect talk page which does not yet exist Talk:Last Legionary, or on the Douglas Hill talk page Talk:Douglas Hill. -- Captain-tucker ( talk) 17:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't presume to speculate on whether you're honestly confused about the notability guidelines, or whether you're trying to make a WP:POINT. But please refrain from tagging things like William Gibson novels for notability. He's arguably the most important science fiction writer of the last twenty years, and has won considerable acclaim even from the mainstream. All of his novels are notable (and of course, they all have scores of reviews in reliable sources.) < eleland/ talk edits> 23:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
To add to the *ahem*, if you are going to prod a bunch of articles, please take the time to do the appropriate notifications to the article creators per WP:PROD. It may not be required, but it is extremely rude not to do so, and gives the nominations a bad appearance. Also, prod tags go at the very top of the article, above infoboxes. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 20:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed you've been mass-prodding a bunch of film articles. A random sampling of these reveals many that certainly aren't suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, so I'm not going to argue with you about this. But I do have two pieces of advice. Firstly, I recommend using a slightly better explanation in the template than the one word, "notability". Secondly, please try to ensure that the article being prodded really isn't on a notable subject. Remember, if an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable, so adding prods to "just those that did not have their notability spelled out within the article" isn't a wholly appropriate use of the template. You should at least perform a cursory check of your own for good sources. To do otherwise is merely going to generate work for the film wikiproject and may come across as needlessly POINTy to others. All the best, Steve T • C 21:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see this at AN/I. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I saw the AN/I thread - I removed some of your prods, and gave some sources for the Drake book articles you created. IMHO you are now interpreting some rules incorrectly and overstrictly, perhaps based on advice which may not be accurate or mainstream. Your original "notability errors" you refer to above may not be as errroneous as you now think. For book notability, movies based on a book, awards, etc are not necessary - a more basic desideratum is reviews and other sources directly about the book, which one can find at google news etc. Very well known, bestselling authors' books are less likely to be good candidates for prodding.
The prod tag is there "to suggest that an article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate". The basic reason for deletion is lack of notability. By longstanding consensus and rules, notability does not depend on what is in the article, but essentially on whether reliable sources exist that can support the article. So "the prod tag for notability is for how the article currently exists" is not really a good formulation. Prodding depends on judgment, and that can take time to acquire, although there are many who loosely speedy or prod articles. The usual rough formulation is 2RS=N, two reliable sources equals notability. Basically when one prods an article, one is saying that it would fail an AfD, which means that reliable sources cannot be found. But for this, experience at AfD is very helpful, and I suggest hanging out there to see how things work out in practice. It is accepted to be good practice, although not actually required, to do a search before prodding, otherwise one is putting a task on the admin who eventually has to do the actual deletion. Cheers, John Z ( talk) 12:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
With the efforts put into this article to fully meet your concerns for notability, would you now consider withdrawing the nom? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to add to your woes here, but I couldn't help but notice that all of what you recently added to James Rouch is cut-and-paste copyright violation of the two references you used. I have undone your additions. You should read WP:COPYVIO. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 19:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
For the "chick lit" books you said you were moving on to an AN/I, I have found that some of them have even have academic references discussing them at Google Scholar. Please at least check Google and its related databases. You should also check WorldCat--it shows how many libraries holds the book--the figure includes mainly American libraries, and so is a minimum, but it gives an indication. Books held by several hundred libraries are very likely to be notable, and have reviews, since public libraries buy on the basis of reviews. Consult a local librarian for how to find reviews--there are databases for the purpose. And when you put a PROD tag on an article for deletion, it is required that you say so specifically in the edit summary so the editor and administrators can find them.
A user has decided to oppose an entire batch of article prods you placed on horror related movies for dubious reasons. After quite a bit of "discussion" both at talk pages and at ANI, along with a procedural keep of a group AFD the articles are currently left untagged for removal.
As the procedural keep was solemnly due to no inter article relations it is now up to you to decide what to do with them. As you were the original PROD tagger i guess its your call to decide if those articles should be forwarded to AFD; Any more involvement from me on this issue would probably raise COI and harassment issues. Excirial ( Talk, Contribs) 19:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I AfD'ed 13th Child but I think I may have confused myself as to procedure, given the AfD discussion page loaded the archived procedural keep discussion of the article. The instructions on the review page seemed to be unhelpful. If I mis-edited, many apologies. Barton Foley ( talk) 15:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I added the link for this movie from Turner Classic Movies. Do you still want it to be deleted? miniluv ( talk) 15:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
13th Child isn't listed in List of horror films:2000s. Can you please tell me what list you are using??? Thank you. miniluv ( talk) 16:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I looked at your article James Rouch hoping that I could find some sources to improve it. I didn't find any reviews from reliable sources. (I actually couldn't find any reviews even on blogs!!!) There just doesn't seem to be very much written about him or his books although there are lots of sites offering them for sale. I'm going to nominate the article for AFD discussion but I wanted to come here first and let you know. I don't want you to think that is because of the horror movies deletion attempt. I really did try to find sources!! Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. miniluv ( talk) 22:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated James Rouch, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Rouch. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. miniluv ( talk) 22:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Holiday Cheer | ||
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. |
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Please read WP:NB, if you haven't already, before creating any more articles on individual books. 71.204.176.201 ( talk) 18:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Given the standing of David Drake in the science fiction community and his well regarded body of work, sumaries on his individual books, particularly those that have been re-issued due to their popularity should meet the notability threashold, despite the guidelines of notability. There exists many books on Wikipedia that do not meet the guidelines for notability, but are still granted entries due to their otehr notable qualities, outside the realm of movie adpatations and awards.
Barton Foley (
talk)
19:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain to put arbitrary "notability" tags on book articles: it might look like you are just trying to illustrate a point in a not too subtle a way. Thanks, Goochelaar ( talk) 13:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Where is the discussion for this merge? The merge template used on the 4 articles has the default value Talk:THIS PAGE#Merger proposal and not a specific location. Possible locations could be on the Last Legionary redirect talk page which does not yet exist Talk:Last Legionary, or on the Douglas Hill talk page Talk:Douglas Hill. -- Captain-tucker ( talk) 17:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't presume to speculate on whether you're honestly confused about the notability guidelines, or whether you're trying to make a WP:POINT. But please refrain from tagging things like William Gibson novels for notability. He's arguably the most important science fiction writer of the last twenty years, and has won considerable acclaim even from the mainstream. All of his novels are notable (and of course, they all have scores of reviews in reliable sources.) < eleland/ talk edits> 23:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
To add to the *ahem*, if you are going to prod a bunch of articles, please take the time to do the appropriate notifications to the article creators per WP:PROD. It may not be required, but it is extremely rude not to do so, and gives the nominations a bad appearance. Also, prod tags go at the very top of the article, above infoboxes. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 20:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed you've been mass-prodding a bunch of film articles. A random sampling of these reveals many that certainly aren't suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, so I'm not going to argue with you about this. But I do have two pieces of advice. Firstly, I recommend using a slightly better explanation in the template than the one word, "notability". Secondly, please try to ensure that the article being prodded really isn't on a notable subject. Remember, if an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable, so adding prods to "just those that did not have their notability spelled out within the article" isn't a wholly appropriate use of the template. You should at least perform a cursory check of your own for good sources. To do otherwise is merely going to generate work for the film wikiproject and may come across as needlessly POINTy to others. All the best, Steve T • C 21:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see this at AN/I. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I saw the AN/I thread - I removed some of your prods, and gave some sources for the Drake book articles you created. IMHO you are now interpreting some rules incorrectly and overstrictly, perhaps based on advice which may not be accurate or mainstream. Your original "notability errors" you refer to above may not be as errroneous as you now think. For book notability, movies based on a book, awards, etc are not necessary - a more basic desideratum is reviews and other sources directly about the book, which one can find at google news etc. Very well known, bestselling authors' books are less likely to be good candidates for prodding.
The prod tag is there "to suggest that an article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate". The basic reason for deletion is lack of notability. By longstanding consensus and rules, notability does not depend on what is in the article, but essentially on whether reliable sources exist that can support the article. So "the prod tag for notability is for how the article currently exists" is not really a good formulation. Prodding depends on judgment, and that can take time to acquire, although there are many who loosely speedy or prod articles. The usual rough formulation is 2RS=N, two reliable sources equals notability. Basically when one prods an article, one is saying that it would fail an AfD, which means that reliable sources cannot be found. But for this, experience at AfD is very helpful, and I suggest hanging out there to see how things work out in practice. It is accepted to be good practice, although not actually required, to do a search before prodding, otherwise one is putting a task on the admin who eventually has to do the actual deletion. Cheers, John Z ( talk) 12:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
With the efforts put into this article to fully meet your concerns for notability, would you now consider withdrawing the nom? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to add to your woes here, but I couldn't help but notice that all of what you recently added to James Rouch is cut-and-paste copyright violation of the two references you used. I have undone your additions. You should read WP:COPYVIO. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 19:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
For the "chick lit" books you said you were moving on to an AN/I, I have found that some of them have even have academic references discussing them at Google Scholar. Please at least check Google and its related databases. You should also check WorldCat--it shows how many libraries holds the book--the figure includes mainly American libraries, and so is a minimum, but it gives an indication. Books held by several hundred libraries are very likely to be notable, and have reviews, since public libraries buy on the basis of reviews. Consult a local librarian for how to find reviews--there are databases for the purpose. And when you put a PROD tag on an article for deletion, it is required that you say so specifically in the edit summary so the editor and administrators can find them.
A user has decided to oppose an entire batch of article prods you placed on horror related movies for dubious reasons. After quite a bit of "discussion" both at talk pages and at ANI, along with a procedural keep of a group AFD the articles are currently left untagged for removal.
As the procedural keep was solemnly due to no inter article relations it is now up to you to decide what to do with them. As you were the original PROD tagger i guess its your call to decide if those articles should be forwarded to AFD; Any more involvement from me on this issue would probably raise COI and harassment issues. Excirial ( Talk, Contribs) 19:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I AfD'ed 13th Child but I think I may have confused myself as to procedure, given the AfD discussion page loaded the archived procedural keep discussion of the article. The instructions on the review page seemed to be unhelpful. If I mis-edited, many apologies. Barton Foley ( talk) 15:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I added the link for this movie from Turner Classic Movies. Do you still want it to be deleted? miniluv ( talk) 15:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
13th Child isn't listed in List of horror films:2000s. Can you please tell me what list you are using??? Thank you. miniluv ( talk) 16:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I looked at your article James Rouch hoping that I could find some sources to improve it. I didn't find any reviews from reliable sources. (I actually couldn't find any reviews even on blogs!!!) There just doesn't seem to be very much written about him or his books although there are lots of sites offering them for sale. I'm going to nominate the article for AFD discussion but I wanted to come here first and let you know. I don't want you to think that is because of the horror movies deletion attempt. I really did try to find sources!! Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. miniluv ( talk) 22:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated James Rouch, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Rouch. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. miniluv ( talk) 22:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Holiday Cheer | ||
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. |
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)