User:Rus793/Harenam buxum ternario

█ █ █

http://www.vikings-history.com/viking-gods/

Copied and saved from Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_111#Our recent spate of new album stubs: a proposal

Our recent spate of new album stubs: a proposal Recently we've had a lot of new articles created about albums that are basically in this form:

<Album name> is the <nth> album from <name of artist or band>. The album was released on <date>. It was the artist's <nth> album of new material in <x> years. It was his/her/their <nth> album with <name of record label>. Sometimes there's a note about the album being the nth one with or without a particular group member, or with or not with a particular record label.

I don't think this shows notability of the album. However, rather than delete these articles, I propose we redirect them to the article for the artist or group. If we don't have an artist for the artist or group, we could create a stub article for them, but I think we do have articles for the artists of all the ones I've seen.

I know that expanding the album articles would be the best thing to do, but we have so many of these now that few of us would have the time (or interest) to do that.

I would appreciate comments below indicating "Support" or "Oppose", or making other suggestions. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Support - If these sort of stubs are unsourced, speedy delete per A3, as they don't establish notability. But I agree, we are getting an overabundance of album stubs. George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 07:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Yes, I didn't specify, but there are neither sources nor any claim of notability (I don't think just being from a notable group makes an album notable). --Auntof6 (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Support. A benefit of Aunt's method is that we don't have to keep re-deleting the same album. Most do qualify for QD, but one knows they will popup again sometime. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC) We might not have to keep re-deletng, but I bet we'd have to keep re-redirecting. By the way, I don't see a QD option that would cover these articles. The QD option for notability doesn't apply to albums. The "little or no info" one wouldn't apply, because there's enough info for a stub, it's just that none of the info there shows notability. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Support redirecting the articles. When there is no article for the artist yet, I think it might be better to just delete the album article instead of creating another meaningless stub. -Barras talk 12:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Support. Not only are they unsourced they often contain wrong information. Most frequently the album number is incorrect. If I do source them, I have yet to find anything supporting the "<nth> album of new material in <x> years" statement in any source. Most likely it's OR. I've had to correct (in one way or another) many of those I've patrolled. If we can redirect them to the group, then it becomes unnecessary to have to fix the errors. It's a good suggestion. I also like the suggestion above to delete the stub if there is no group article. Rus793 (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC) As for the "nth album of new material in x years" thing, I think the author just looked at the number of years since the previous album. That could be of interest if the gap was long, but it wasn't in most cases I've seen -- in one case, it was only one year! My guess is that this info was put in to keep the article from being so short. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC) ┌─────────────────────────────────┘ Thanks, everyone, for your comments. Since a week has passed and all comments have been in support of this idea, I am going to proceed with redirecting the affected articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Content Translation beta feature will be enabled on 21 April 2015

Hello, Content Translation will be enabled as a beta-feature in the Simple English Wikipedia on 21 April, 2015. It is currently available on http://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Special:ContentTranslation for testing translation. You need to create a new account for this wiki as it is currently not covered by the central authentication system. Once logged in please enable the beta-feature to see the tool. You can translate from any article in the available source languages. Please let us know your comments and feedback through the Content Translation talk page or Phabricator. Thank you.--Runa Bhattacharjee (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

FFR

• Wikipedia:An English Wikipedian's guide

• en:Wikipedia:Annotated article is a very good article, with notes that explain why it is good.
• en:Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes gives a list of common mistakes and how to avoid them.
• en:Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages should define your attitude toward page updates.
• en:Wikipedia:Editing policy explains Wikipedia's general philosophy of editing.
• en:Wikipedia:Perfect stub article shows the minimum things that should be on a new article.
• Style guide, the Wikipedia entry on style guides.
• Wikipedia:Citing sources explains how to cite references in articles.
• Wikipedia:Guide to layout is an example of how to lay out an article.
• Wikipedia:How to copy-edit gives ideas on how to help existing articles.
• Wikipedia:How to edit a page is a short guide on editing pages and explains what codes are available to help.
• Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages is a guide on how to write in Simple English.
• Wikipedia:Introduction is an introduction to the world of Wikipedia.
• Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines is the main page for policies and guidelines.
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not says what articles should not be.
• Meta:Reading level (discussion)

Checklist, punch list or decision tree

I have been toying with an idea: a checklist to help determine notability. A checklist, punchlist, decision tree; something to help editors who want to better understand the notability guidelines. I was wondering if you might want to help with this. I already borrowed a couple of your ideas. What I have so far is a rough list Borrowing from ideas below, this is what we have:
Factors relevant to notability:

1. An article clearly claims notability
2. Regardless of (1), the subject actually is notable (independent check)
3. The article proves notability with reliable source citations

Factors that are not relevant:

A. Unreliable or false source citations

B. The fact an article exists on other Wikipedias

C. Personal opinion (e.g. I like this subject)

Determination

• An article should not be QD's or Rfd'd if it can be fixed. See: en:WP:BEFORE
• For QD, factor 1 is the primary consideration. An article that does not claim notability may be QD:A4
  • If an article does not claim notability but an editor determines it is notable, the editor's responsibility is to make a claim of notability.
• For RfD, factor 1 and 3 are relevant. Article claims notability but does not prove notability is not notable.
• If there is any uncertainty whether to QD or RfD, it should go to Rfd

---

I don't know where to use this just yet. But I think it could be helpful. Could you add anything to this? Thanks. User:Rus793 (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Great idea. A couple of thoughts/questions:

• If an article claims notability, but only through not-relevant factor C, has it in fact claimed notability? (I ask this way because a claim of notability, along with A or B, is likely to pass QD, at least, as we won't have examined the sources.)
• Concerning #2: sometimes we just don't know. But when we're pretty sure #2 is true (for whatever reason), how much responsibility do we have as reviewers to do something about it to prevent deletion? (Let's say we're talking RfD, not QD.) StevenJ81 (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I think if an article claims notability through factor C , and says so, then it has claimed notability (e.g. Professor X is the the most learned scholar at Y University. He is the best...). An editor who has one should voice an opinion at the RfD. The more community participation the better. Proving notability through adding source citations would probably go further in some cases than just an opinion. But we want good pages here and sometimes a page is simply not worth saving. If it has more than one problem and is poorly titled, a better approach might be to let it be deleted, then recreate a better page in its place. Userfication is another alternative. An RfD is usually looking at the page as written, not the subject. User:Rus793 (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

If its notable it should never be deleted. If you know an article is obviously notable and it doesn't make a claim that it is, your first responsibility is to make it so it does. An article should not be Rfd'd or QD'd if it can be fixed. That is part of en:WP:BEFORE. -DJSasso (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Re #2: OK.

Re #1: I can see that. But "Professor X is the most learned scholar at Y University" is at least something one can sink one's teeth into as a claim. If the only thing it says is "He's a really cool professor," is that enough? The language at enwiki is "credible claim," and one way or the other "Professor X is the most learned scholar at Y University" is a credible claim. "He's a really cool professor" probably isn't, in my view...but is there any way to draw an actual line? StevenJ81 (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

If it is that hard to decide if it has crossed the line to making a credible claim then Rfd is the way to go. QD is only for slam dunk home run obvious deletion. If there is any ambiguity it has to go to Rfd. That is what is getting lost in all these discussions. -DJSasso (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. OK. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, and it seems we have another decision rule (see above). Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Copied and saved from en:Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 20V#Blogs_vs_Podcasts

Note all links are to enwiki pages and not simplewiki.

...A podcaster does not need to be notable to be reliable. If the podcaster is, for example, an editor at an established newspaper and the podcast is an official podcast of that newspaper, then we should consider the material therin to be reliable, just as we would the newspaper. Same with a blog. Blogs and podcasts are just words to describe a specific way to deliver content. They don't describe the content in any real way. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course blogs and podcasts published by reliable sources are themselves reliable, to the extent of postings by authorized representatives of the source (any section for commentary by the general public isn't reliable). However, most blogs and podcasts are self published, have no editorial control, and may not even be restrained by libel laws, if the blogger is using a series of open proxies and/or a publicly accessible computer that will hinder the discovery of his identity. John254 20:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I said that the question is whether the material is a reliable source or not. Whether or not it's called a "blog" or a "podcast" has no bearing on the reliability of the material. The reason we wouldn't use a self-published blog with not editorial control is because it's self-published and has no editorial control, not because it's a blog. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's quite easy to stage a faked audio interview, simply by finding someone with a voice that sounds similar to the purported interviewee. Since a self-published audio blog/podcast/etc has little reliability of its own (unless published by the interviewee himself), the only means by which we could verify the alleged interview would involve audio analysis whereby we would perform a qualitative and spectral comparison between the voice in the supposed interview and a known voice sample of the alleged interviewee, attempt to find any abrupt cut-outs which might indicate the splicing together of audio clips in a misleading fashion, etc. Because we would be performing our own determination of whether the purported interviewee's voice was authentic, and not relying on the representations of the source (the blog in which the audio interview was published), such audio analysis would constitute original research. Even if acceptable for articles concerning video games, or similar non-critical purposes where there would be little incentive to fabricate an audio interview out of whole cloth, the use of third-party audio blogs as sources should especially be avoided for the purpose of making controversial claims concerning living persons, where the temptations to fabricate an audio interview for the purpose of defamation are high, and the damage done to the subject of the controversial claims by the inclusion of bogus information from a faked audio interview may be considerable. Indeed, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source expressly prohibit the contemplated use of third-party audio blogs in biographies of living persons. John254 20:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In the page under discussion, the subject is an active editor on Wikipedia. If the interview had been faked it's reasonable to assume that he would say something. The assertion that it's "quite easy to stage a faked audio interview" seem unsupported. Do we have any evidence of any faked audio interviews? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The creation of a fake audio interview is self-evidently as easy having voice actors read from a script. It really shouldn't be necessary to create a fake audio interview, and upload it to Wikipedia, just to demonstrate that it can be done. Fortunately, Wikipedia requires positive evidence of source reliability, rather than assuming reliability as a null hypothesis unless a counterexample can be provided. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources,

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources.

TP messages

The instructions for how to simplify articles is found at Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages. Carefully go over it and realize it takes some practice to think and write in simple English again. If you have questions, you will find other editors willing to explain how to do something. However, it is unfair to ask other editors to do the work for you. Copying unsimplified or poorly translated articles from other projects is not at all helpful. We welcome editors who want to contribute and who are willing to follow our project guidelines. Thank you.

Links to English Wikipedia or Wikidata

(From Wikipedia:Simple talk)
Is it ever proper to link to the English Wikipedia or Wikidata until a simple English version of an article is created? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I think opinions differ on that. I prefer not linking to English Wikipedia ("enwiki") for a couple of reasons. First, if someone is looking for simple text, the text at enwiki could be too complex for them. Second, leaving a link red helps us see what articles would be good to create (see Special:WantedPages). If we link to enwiki, we usually don't ever go back to see what enwiki links could be changed to point to articles that have been created here.

As for Wikidata, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean Wiktionary? I prefer not linking there, either, for the same as my second reason above. I only link there when the word to be linked has little or no potential for an article to be created. If you're thinking of linking to Wiktionary, consider explaining the term instead. Does that answer your question? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

No you should never link to en.wiki because a redlink is preferable here to encourage article creation. -DJSasso (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2016/Zim, Minnesota"

• Comment - like what Auntof6 said, it would not be ideal for this particular RfD to set a precedent for future deletions involving similar articles. The community has, in the past, had issues when deciding on similar issues regarding notability: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Also, RfD is typically used to determine whether the subject itself meets notability criteria. Whether the article shows them or not should not be a major argument for (or against) the deletion of the article. Chenzw  Talk  17:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)