Project Homepage | To Do Lists | Contributors | Questions and Comments | Training Videos and Resources |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiProject ConwayLibrary page. |
|
Please use this page for discussion or to ask questions.
Please remember to sign your messages on this talk page by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Create a new section on this page by clicking on the link in the infobox above to create a new discussion point.
To reply to an existing discussion, click 'edit' in the header of the section.
![]() | This user is a participant in WikiProject Conway Library |
Contributors to this project can display this page on their user page.
Thank you for your contributions!
This article needs additional citations for
verification. (April 2020) |
Welcome to Wikipedia, USERNAME! This is your Talk page, where other Wikipedia users might drop you a message from time to time related to any edits you make. You'll notice that we have dropped a 'badge' on this page, which shows that you are involved in the Conway project. Thanks for taking this first step! If you reply here, please make sure you type in {{U|ConwayDigi}} to your message which will give us a notification. Thank you!
Projects
![]() | This user is a participant in WikiProject Conway Library |
ShermanSLH created the article Zygmunt Świechowski, providing much good material but also saying that the book Romanische Reliefs von venezianischen Fassaden, "Patere e Formelle" provides "photographs of more than a thousand little-known Venetian architectural from the 11th–13th centuries". Architectural what? I might guess, but this isn't good enough. ShermanSLH then seems to have disappeared from en:Wikipedia. Can somebody with access to a copy of the book please examine it and rewrite accordingly? -- Hoary ( talk) 23:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I quote your project page:
Indeed. A lot of the drafts that I've seen show little if any sign that the person is notable (as defined by Wikipedia), whether generally or as an academic. I have to admit that these substandard drafts include some that are now substandard articles because I indulgently okayed them: if these are ever nominated for deletion, then either they'll need fast and radical improvement or they'll be deleted.
I quote your project page again:
Oh really? On citing yourself, see WP:SELFCITE. On citing blogs, see WP:USERGENERATED and WP:BLOGS.
The Digital Media blog is literate, thoughtful and fascinating, and for all I know may have rigorous editorial oversight. However, without either (i) strong evidence of such oversight or (ii) attribution to recognized experts, use of such blog entries contravenes Wikipedia policy, and articles depending on them are likely to fail at " AFD". -- Hoary ( talk) 23:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
To address point one: because I expect that many of the photographers will not be notable, this is why contributors are going through the AfC route rather than direct publication: I am keen that most articles (except for very obvious ones, eg. people hitting more than 1 notability criteria) go through this process, and, if they are rejected and cannot be fixed, I am collecting that information so that the Conway Library can use it internally (as biographical information of photographers is always useful for a library to have!). Contributors have been told that this may happen and not to be disappointed if it does.
After all, I am concerned with ensuring only suitable-quality articles are published - this is not a project that just wants to make as many pages as possible.
I am somewhat disappointed therefore to hear that some articles were approved 'indulgently'. This seems a shame: either an article is suitable for wikipedia (with consensus) or it isn't... hence the AfC route.
And your second point is an honest mistake on my part. I previously took part in a wikithon and a member of the wikimedia foundation gave me this as a tip for helping create sources for people who are notable, but may have a very limited web presence (especially, for instance, women, or scholars in very niche fields). The tip was specifically around blogs/ web sources that are hosted on university platforms, and may therefore have a little more credibility than your average blogspot. Of course, I would always expect (as noted above) that the wikipedia community would then decide whether or not the source was suitable, but I didn't realise it was a total no-no. I wonder, then, how you might suggest / if there is guidance out there on how to show that the blog has 'strong editorial oversight' by the professional library team? In the meantime, I have removed this line from the project page, so thank you for the heads up. With thanks, KerstingFan ( talk) 09:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Project Homepage | To Do Lists | Contributors | Questions and Comments | Training Videos and Resources |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiProject ConwayLibrary page. |
|
Please use this page for discussion or to ask questions.
Please remember to sign your messages on this talk page by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Create a new section on this page by clicking on the link in the infobox above to create a new discussion point.
To reply to an existing discussion, click 'edit' in the header of the section.
![]() | This user is a participant in WikiProject Conway Library |
Contributors to this project can display this page on their user page.
Thank you for your contributions!
This article needs additional citations for
verification. (April 2020) |
Welcome to Wikipedia, USERNAME! This is your Talk page, where other Wikipedia users might drop you a message from time to time related to any edits you make. You'll notice that we have dropped a 'badge' on this page, which shows that you are involved in the Conway project. Thanks for taking this first step! If you reply here, please make sure you type in {{U|ConwayDigi}} to your message which will give us a notification. Thank you!
Projects
![]() | This user is a participant in WikiProject Conway Library |
ShermanSLH created the article Zygmunt Świechowski, providing much good material but also saying that the book Romanische Reliefs von venezianischen Fassaden, "Patere e Formelle" provides "photographs of more than a thousand little-known Venetian architectural from the 11th–13th centuries". Architectural what? I might guess, but this isn't good enough. ShermanSLH then seems to have disappeared from en:Wikipedia. Can somebody with access to a copy of the book please examine it and rewrite accordingly? -- Hoary ( talk) 23:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I quote your project page:
Indeed. A lot of the drafts that I've seen show little if any sign that the person is notable (as defined by Wikipedia), whether generally or as an academic. I have to admit that these substandard drafts include some that are now substandard articles because I indulgently okayed them: if these are ever nominated for deletion, then either they'll need fast and radical improvement or they'll be deleted.
I quote your project page again:
Oh really? On citing yourself, see WP:SELFCITE. On citing blogs, see WP:USERGENERATED and WP:BLOGS.
The Digital Media blog is literate, thoughtful and fascinating, and for all I know may have rigorous editorial oversight. However, without either (i) strong evidence of such oversight or (ii) attribution to recognized experts, use of such blog entries contravenes Wikipedia policy, and articles depending on them are likely to fail at " AFD". -- Hoary ( talk) 23:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
To address point one: because I expect that many of the photographers will not be notable, this is why contributors are going through the AfC route rather than direct publication: I am keen that most articles (except for very obvious ones, eg. people hitting more than 1 notability criteria) go through this process, and, if they are rejected and cannot be fixed, I am collecting that information so that the Conway Library can use it internally (as biographical information of photographers is always useful for a library to have!). Contributors have been told that this may happen and not to be disappointed if it does.
After all, I am concerned with ensuring only suitable-quality articles are published - this is not a project that just wants to make as many pages as possible.
I am somewhat disappointed therefore to hear that some articles were approved 'indulgently'. This seems a shame: either an article is suitable for wikipedia (with consensus) or it isn't... hence the AfC route.
And your second point is an honest mistake on my part. I previously took part in a wikithon and a member of the wikimedia foundation gave me this as a tip for helping create sources for people who are notable, but may have a very limited web presence (especially, for instance, women, or scholars in very niche fields). The tip was specifically around blogs/ web sources that are hosted on university platforms, and may therefore have a little more credibility than your average blogspot. Of course, I would always expect (as noted above) that the wikipedia community would then decide whether or not the source was suitable, but I didn't realise it was a total no-no. I wonder, then, how you might suggest / if there is guidance out there on how to show that the blog has 'strong editorial oversight' by the professional library team? In the meantime, I have removed this line from the project page, so thank you for the heads up. With thanks, KerstingFan ( talk) 09:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)