Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > That is why we really have to allow the community to decide what *it* > finds interesting, important, salient and not try to impose too much > from the top down. The community should be creating from the > bottom-up and our "rules" should merely reflect what the community is > doing in this type of case. > > If many members of the community want to know the names of Brad Pitt's > children, then we should allow that, if they can be sourced. Names do > not invade privacy when they have already been widely disseminated. I > can find the information in about two seconds. Reflection of what is > reality is not an "invasion" of privacy. > > Now, as our policy already states, if the only way to find a piece of > information is with a primary source, and if the door to that > information has not been already opened by a mention of some sort in a > secondary source, than we should not include it either. However many > sources mention that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have children, and > so we should as well. Some sources mention their names as well, and > so we should as well. > What is true is that reasonable people can disagree, in the abstract, on where "salience" begins or ends. I think it tends to be clearer in front of a concrete case, at least if the article is properly organised into sections. The point I was making is that our biographies amount to about 1% of the content of a book biography. I don't think we get far with the general case by taking Brangelina as an example: it is an obvious "outlier" for BLP discussions. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Carcharoth wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Anthony wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:15 AM, Ray Saintonge > wrote > > > >> > 2009/2/23 Carcharoth : > >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bowen > >> It's a great example of maudlinism run rampant. Why this 2-year old, > >> and not another who died of cancer? > > > > Just pure random luck. > > "luck" was probably not the right word there, in this context. > I was being sarcastic. Obviously there are reasons that there's an article about Ben Bowen and not about every 2-year old that died of cancer. In fact, there's at least one good one: There are not verifiable sources for every 2-year old that died of cancer. I was listening to Wikipedia Weekly from a short while ago when they were discussing what should be in Wikinews vs. what should be in Wikipedia vs. what should be in both, and I think a case could be made that the story of Ben Bowen is a good candidate for Wikinews instead of Wikipedia. I think it's a useful story, and belongs somewhere (along with, in my opinion, stories about even less publicized 2-year-olds so long as they can be derived from verifiable sources). But it does seem out of place in an encyclopedia - the impact of this particular child will likely not be historically significant 20 years from now, though I think it will provide a glimpse into the culture in which we live. Newspaper archives are a good source for such cultural information, I'd think. The [[StoryCorps]] project is also archiving this "slice of life" type information, although they're doing it in a way which doesn't enforce verifiability. That said, I don't think Wikinews is currently in a state where it can handle this type of content, and I have no problems with it living in Wikipedia until there's a more suitable home (I know, this notion is blasphemous, but I'm an outsider so I can make such blasphemous statements). A Wikinews article on Ben Bowen would likely look completely different from the Wikipedia article on him, and I think it'd necessarily be worse instead of better or even just different. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
-Original Message- From: Charles Matthews To: English Wikipedia Sent: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 2:23 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub." Delirium wrote: > This seems to really be an issue specific to biographies of living or > recently deceased people, for a variety of reasons. For non-recent > people, say someone who died in the 19th century or earlier, just about > everything that you can find in reliable sources is relevant. Certainly > book-length biographies consider anything they can find relevant: the > goal of a biography, properly speaking, is to try to give as full as > possible an illustration of all facets of a person's life, figure out > how they intertwined, etc. OTOH - biographies have been subject to a kind of mission creep. A biography of Beethoven used to be 200 pages where you'd learn something of his life and character. Then it was 300. Biographies are now commonly 600 pages. And _serious_ biographies are huge: often now they are even trilogies. I bought one of Melville that is around 2000 pages. Michael Holroyd started to shorten his own long biographies. To get back to the point: an article on Wikipedia is no substitute for a book-length treatment, if the latter and its detail is what you want. Defining it as "the WP biography of X should tell you whether or not you need to consult a full biography" says it better. I wish I knew the technique for filleting a biography to write the article (I don't write that way, but by building up a piece from various scraps and fragments); there is a big pile of biographies to the right of my desk and I'd be delighted to get rid of any from which the "salient" facts have been extracted already. The fact that I tend to use the biography of X to find verifiable facts about Y who crossed paths with X at some point tells its own story, I feel. I actually like the idea that Wikipedia articles printing to a few pages can give the essentials of a book. I'm not anti-academic - far from it - but there is a point in being anti-magpie. Charles>> That is why we really have to allow the community to decide what *it* finds interesting, important, salient and not try to impose too much from the top down. The community should be creating from the bottom-up and our "rules" should merely reflect what the community is doing in this type of case. If many members of the community want to know the names of Brad Pitt's children, then we should allow that, if they can be sourced. Names do not invade privacy when they have already been widely disseminated. I can find the information in about two seconds. Reflection of what is reality is not an "invasion" of privacy. Now, as our policy already states, if the only way to find a piece of information is with a primary source, and if the door to that information has not been already opened by a mention of some sort in a secondary source, than we should not include it either. However many sources mention that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have children, and so we should as well. Some sources mention their names as well, and so we should as well. If a marginally notable physicist had a messy divorce only covered in a small local newspaper and only tangentially mentioning "and their two children", and the only way to find more details on those children is by examining birth certificates, court papers or school records, then we should not be mentioning those details. However, if those same sources gush about how one daughter is a "famous art historian working for the KGB" then they themselves are opening the door to dig out the information. If they want to be private, they need to stay private and not display their peacock in public. Will Johnson ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
Delirium wrote: > This seems to really be an issue specific to biographies of living or > recently deceased people, for a variety of reasons. For non-recent > people, say someone who died in the 19th century or earlier, just about > everything that you can find in reliable sources is relevant. Certainly > book-length biographies consider anything they can find relevant: the > goal of a biography, properly speaking, is to try to give as full as > possible an illustration of all facets of a person's life, figure out > how they intertwined, etc. OTOH - biographies have been subject to a kind of mission creep. A biography of Beethoven used to be 200 pages where you'd learn something of his life and character. Then it was 300. Biographies are now commonly 600 pages. And _serious_ biographies are huge: often now they are even trilogies. I bought one of Melville that is around 2000 pages. Michael Holroyd started to shorten his own long biographies. To get back to the point: an article on Wikipedia is no substitute for a book-length treatment, if the latter and its detail is what you want. Defining it as "the WP biography of X should tell you whether or not you need to consult a full biography" says it better. I wish I knew the technique for filleting a biography to write the article (I don't write that way, but by building up a piece from various scraps and fragments); there is a big pile of biographies to the right of my desk and I'd be delighted to get rid of any from which the "salient" facts have been extracted already. The fact that I tend to use the biography of X to find verifiable facts about Y who crossed paths with X at some point tells its own story, I feel. I actually like the idea that Wikipedia articles printing to a few pages can give the essentials of a book. I'm not anti-academic - far from it - but there is a point in being anti-magpie. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
David Gerard wrote: > 2009/2/24 Delirium : > >> David Gerard wrote: >> > > >>> There was some coverage of this matter in WP:BLP - that only >>> noteworthy details of a noteworthy person should be included. (The >>> hypothetical example given is the subject having had a messy divorce - >>> for a minorly notable physicist it's probably not relevant, for a >>> politician it may have been a widely reported scandal.) >>> > > >> I this more than by subject area, it varies especially by fame of the >> person. For famous people, all aspects of their professional and >> personal lives are interesting to historians, who attempt to construct a >> full picture of their lives, tease out possible influences and >> motivations, and so on. You would be hard-pressed to find a book-length >> biography of a physicist or mathematician that fails to discuss their >> personal lives, for example. For less-famous people, it's not notable >> because frankly nobody really cares about them: since nobody is >> interested in teasing out possible influences and motivations, we don't >> need to know any of that info. >> > > > It has to be applied on a case-by-case basis. e.g. [[Mitchell Baker]] > - her hobby is trapeze. Is this relevant to mention? Well, it may not > be for most people, but quite a few biographical articles on her > mention it because it's an interesting thing about her. > > Similarly, a biographical article not listing the subject's family > would seem odd where that's uncontroversial public information. OTOH, > there have been cases like one I dealt with where someone put this > apparently uncontroversial info into an article, but it was actually > something unsourced the subject worked hard to keep out of the public > eye and had to be removed and the revs deleted unless and until a good > public source came up. > This seems to really be an issue specific to biographies of living or recently deceased people, for a variety of reasons. For non-recent people, say someone who died in the 19th century or earlier, just about everything that you can find in reliable sources is relevant. Certainly book-length biographies consider anything they can find relevant: the goal of a biography, properly speaking, is to try to give as full as possible an illustration of all facets of a person's life, figure out how they intertwined, etc. So something like a messy divorce would certainly be interesting in trying to determine why the career path and thought of a famous philosopher, physicist, politician, or mathematician took the path it did. It might turn out not to have had a big impact, but a biographer would at least mention it. Even somewhat shorter biographies consider this information relevant: if we recently discovered some personal drama in the life of a 14th-century archbishop, encyclopedia entries would be duly updated to mention it. I'd submit that in the cases where some of this information is considered *not* relevant, it's because we actually don't want a proper biography of the person at all. Either they aren't all that interesting, or the interestingness doesn't outweigh the privacy concerns. Instead, what we really want is something akin to an entry in a subject-specific biographical dictionary, like the Biographical Dictionary of North American Classicists (to pick one at random I've been consulting lately). Sources like that don't purport to be full biographies of their subjects, but instead to more narrowly describe their academic careers, perhaps with brief mentions of very notable things outside those academic careers. Less a biography of [[Personname]], and more an article on [[Personname's academic career]]. In extreme cases we do actually do this renaming, e.g. people known for one event are usually rolled into an article on the event. I suppose it'd be impractical to actually change the titles in the rest, but I think it's worth considering that these articles are still something different than real biographies. -Mark ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:15 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote > >> > 2009/2/23 Carcharoth : >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bowen >> It's a great example of maudlinism run rampant. Why this 2-year old, >> and not another who died of cancer? > > Just pure random luck. "luck" was probably not the right word there, in this context. Someone mentioned John Travolta's son, and another public figure (David Cameron) recently had a similar tragedy befall them. The other example I've been following (someone likened it to a car crash) is Jade Goody. Lots of editing activity at those articles, but seems to turn out OK in the end. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:15 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote > > 2009/2/23 Carcharoth : > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bowen > It's a great example of maudlinism run rampant. Why this 2-year old, > and not another who died of cancer? Just pure random luck. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > "Need"? No, not at all. The political career makes her notable, and if she > is notable enough that someone has written her biography, including those > details, then we "can" include them. We don't "need" to include them. If > the > only sources commenting on her children (at all) are primary ones, than we > should not include them. Primary sources extend, amplify, clarify and > specify > details, they should not be used to introduce details not otherwise present > in > the secondary sources. > > So if secondary sources mention "her husband the plumber", and "her five > children are named Marjory, Bruce, Wayne, Robin and Ambidextrous", then we > can. > If they don't, we shouldn't. That would be the first line of attack for > anyone who wants to remove these details. The problem with this approach is that it brings us back to the primary vs. secondary sources debate. As long as we are dealing with a pre-defined range of uncontroversial information we should remain above that in the absence of a specific challenge. That the names of her middle three children were linked to her presidency of a Batman fan club, or that her last was named because of her peculiar educational campaigns would require stronger evidence. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
David Gerard wrote: > 2009/2/24 Delirium : > >> David Gerard wrote: >> >>> There was some coverage of this matter in WP:BLP - that only >>> noteworthy details of a noteworthy person should be included. (The >>> hypothetical example given is the subject having had a messy divorce - >>> for a minorly notable physicist it's probably not relevant, for a >>> politician it may have been a widely reported scandal.) >>> >> I this more than by subject area, it varies especially by fame of the >> person. For famous people, all aspects of their professional and >> personal lives are interesting to historians, who attempt to construct a >> full picture of their lives, tease out possible influences and >> motivations, and so on. You would be hard-pressed to find a book-length >> biography of a physicist or mathematician that fails to discuss their >> personal lives, for example. For less-famous people, it's not notable >> because frankly nobody really cares about them: since nobody is >> interested in teasing out possible influences and motivations, we don't >> need to know any of that info. >> > It has to be applied on a case-by-case basis. e.g. [[Mitchell Baker]] > - her hobby is trapeze. Is this relevant to mention? Well, it may not > be for most people, but quite a few biographical articles on her > mention it because it's an interesting thing about her. > > Similarly, a biographical article not listing the subject's family > would seem odd where that's uncontroversial public information. OTOH, > there have been cases like one I dealt with where someone put this > apparently uncontroversial info into an article, but it was actually > something unsourced the subject worked hard to keep out of the public > eye and had to be removed and the revs deleted unless and until a good > public source came up. I very much support the case-by-case principle instead of a hard rule that applies for all cases. That still leaves room for the exception in the example. Family information generally humanizes a subject. What there is in [[Natascha Engel]] seems about right for developing that human perspective. There is no suggestion there of anything that might be problematical in her personal life. It seems to me that this thread started by being about stubs in general, and drifted into a discussion about BLPs where, understandably, considerably more caution is necessary. The narrow should not become the rule for the wide. If there is a reasonable chance that more can be said about the subject we should not be so hasty to delete the article. The Baby Duke stub, may be a good example of one that exceeds its informational value. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
2009/2/24 Delirium : > David Gerard wrote: >> There was some coverage of this matter in WP:BLP - that only >> noteworthy details of a noteworthy person should be included. (The >> hypothetical example given is the subject having had a messy divorce - >> for a minorly notable physicist it's probably not relevant, for a >> politician it may have been a widely reported scandal.) > I this more than by subject area, it varies especially by fame of the > person. For famous people, all aspects of their professional and > personal lives are interesting to historians, who attempt to construct a > full picture of their lives, tease out possible influences and > motivations, and so on. You would be hard-pressed to find a book-length > biography of a physicist or mathematician that fails to discuss their > personal lives, for example. For less-famous people, it's not notable > because frankly nobody really cares about them: since nobody is > interested in teasing out possible influences and motivations, we don't > need to know any of that info. It has to be applied on a case-by-case basis. e.g. [[Mitchell Baker]] - her hobby is trapeze. Is this relevant to mention? Well, it may not be for most people, but quite a few biographical articles on her mention it because it's an interesting thing about her. Similarly, a biographical article not listing the subject's family would seem odd where that's uncontroversial public information. OTOH, there have been cases like one I dealt with where someone put this apparently uncontroversial info into an article, but it was actually something unsourced the subject worked hard to keep out of the public eye and had to be removed and the revs deleted unless and until a good public source came up. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > So if secondary sources mention "her husband the plumber", and "her five > children are named Marjory, Bruce, Wayne, Robin and Ambidextrous", then we > can. > If they don't, we shouldn't. That would be the first line of attack for > anyone who wants to remove these details. > > Actually, since WP:NOT states this: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information/As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." there is a "first line of attack" from fundamentals. No one will quite be able to formulate what "indiscriminate" means universally, across all types of topics, but I think we are pretty good at [[duck test]]s. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/2/23 Carcharoth : > >> So what would you do with this article? >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Stuart,_Duke_of_Kintyre >> >> That is one of several articles where the child seems to be notable >> because they were born into nobility or royalty or some other >> hereditary position. Even if they die in childhood, they still seem to >> get separate articles. >> > He was a duke, that's not a single event. It is very unusual for > someone that died an infancy to be notable, but this is such a case - > there are always exceptions. > Being a duke is not an event at all. What did HE do to make himself famous? All that's there could have been included in his parents' article. What's so notable about his having been given a silly title? >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Murdered_children >> >> How would you approach those articles? The same as for any other murder? >> > Murder is a difficult one because in many cases it just boils down to > a matter of what you call the article. Should it be [[Joe Bloggs]] or > [[Murder of Joe Bloggs]]? I would say the latter is preferable because > most of the article will be about the murder and what happened > afterwards, rather than about the person, but it makes little > difference. In the case of multiple murders, there should certainly be > one article discussing them all. > Or [[Joe Bloggs murder]] to avoid having too many articles beginning with "Murder". These mostly have a place, since there are enough events surrounding the murder that merit telling. Still, the naming issue is somewhat less significant than having the article in the first place. >> And then there are the child saints: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Child_saints >> > > Being a saint is like being a duke, it's notable and is not a single event. > It's more akin to the child murder cases, since there is often a question of martyrdom involved. >> And how would you cover the story given in this article? >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bowen >> > That article seems pretty good to me. This is an example of a child > whose life was actually notable, not just one event in his life (one > aspect of his life, sure, but that's the case with most notable > people). It's a great example of maudlinism run rampant. Why this 2-year old, and not another who died of cancer? It's not a unique fate. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
David Gerard wrote: > There was some coverage of this matter in WP:BLP - that only > noteworthy details of a noteworthy person should be included. (The > hypothetical example given is the subject having had a messy divorce - > for a minorly notable physicist it's probably not relevant, for a > politician it may have been a widely reported scandal.) > I this more than by subject area, it varies especially by fame of the person. For famous people, all aspects of their professional and personal lives are interesting to historians, who attempt to construct a full picture of their lives, tease out possible influences and motivations, and so on. You would be hard-pressed to find a book-length biography of a physicist or mathematician that fails to discuss their personal lives, for example. For less-famous people, it's not notable because frankly nobody really cares about them: since nobody is interested in teasing out possible influences and motivations, we don't need to know any of that info. -Mark ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
I'd agree with the decision that an article about the son would be overboard. He is notable both for being the son of a celebrity and for dying perhaps in a mysterious way or at least at a fairly young age. That isn't enough for a separate article. However on the flip side, the son, and his death, were prominently mentioned in several news stories, and so the son's existence (and death) should be mentioned within the John Travolta article. Prior to the media spotlight, I might have said that we don't have any decent sources for anything interesting about the son. Will -Original Message- From: Phil Nash To: English Wikipedia Sent: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 4:32 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub." WRT children; the infobox templates for modern personalities (e.g Television presenters) tend to specify that children should only be listed of they are notable; for example, [[Michael Douglas]] is listed as a notable child of [[Kirk Douglas]]. But this is because [[Michael Douglas]] is notable in himself, rather than any inherited notabilit; anmd os we list him theree When we consider inherited aristocratic titles, there seems to be an assumption of necessary notability, as exemplified by examples already given; this, as far as we are concerned, provides historical continuity. The problem is discontinuous inheritance, such as is shown by [[Earl of Salisbury]], and there are worse example to be found. Back to modern times; should the infobox for [[John Travolta]] mention his children? We had a debate about this a couple of months ago when his son died suddenly; there was nothing notable about him except his parentage, and consensus is that notability is not inherited, so IIRC, although it was mentioned in the JT article, any attempt to create an article about the son, or his death, was quashed. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
WRT children; the infobox templates for modern personalities (e.g Television presenters) tend to specify that children should only be listed of they are notable; for example, [[Michael Douglas]] is listed as a notable child of [[Kirk Douglas]]. But this is because [[Michael Douglas]] is notable in himself, rather than any inherited notabilit; anmd os we list him theree When we consider inherited aristocratic titles, there seems to be an assumption of necessary notability, as exemplified by examples already given; this, as far as we are concerned, provides historical continuity. The problem is discontinuous inheritance, such as is shown by [[Earl of Salisbury]], and there are worse example to be found. Back to modern times; should the infobox for [[John Travolta]] mention his children? We had a debate about this a couple of months ago when his son died suddenly; there was nothing notable about him except his parentage, and consensus is that notability is not inherited, so IIRC, although it was mentioned in the JT article, any attempt to create an article about the son, or his death, was quashed. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
politicians are a special case: people tend to judge them holistically, and consider their personal life relevant to their professional career. this is an extension of the rule that , even relatively minor criminal matters are usually appropriate if adequately sourced where they might not be for most other people--it applies to the good but relatively unimportant things for them as well., I wouldnt want to use them as the basis for a general rule. On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:21 PM, wrote: > < sam.blacke...@googlemail.com writes: > > do we really need to know the names and dates of birth of her > children? And what of the career details of her husband, who is not notable > in his own right? On the other hand, details of campaigns she worked on > before being elected are highly salient to political views, and it's her > political career that makes her notable.>> > > "Need"? No, not at all. The political career makes her notable, and if she > is notable enough that someone has written her biography, including those > details, then we "can" include them. We don't "need" to include them. If > the > only sources commenting on her children (at all) are primary ones, than we > should not include them. Primary sources extend, amplify, clarify and > specify > details, they should not be used to introduce details not otherwise present > in > the secondary sources. > > So if secondary sources mention "her husband the plumber", and "her five > children are named Marjory, Bruce, Wayne, Robin and Ambidextrous", then we > can. > If they don't, we shouldn't. That would be the first line of attack for > anyone who wants to remove these details. > > Will Johnson > > > > **Get a jump start on your taxes. Find a tax professional in your > neighborhood today. > (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=Tax+Return+Preparation+%26+Filing&ncid=emlcntusyelp0004) > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
<> "Need"? No, not at all. The political career makes her notable, and if she is notable enough that someone has written her biography, including those details, then we "can" include them. We don't "need" to include them. If the only sources commenting on her children (at all) are primary ones, than we should not include them. Primary sources extend, amplify, clarify and specify details, they should not be used to introduce details not otherwise present in the secondary sources. So if secondary sources mention "her husband the plumber", and "her five children are named Marjory, Bruce, Wayne, Robin and Ambidextrous", then we can. If they don't, we shouldn't. That would be the first line of attack for anyone who wants to remove these details. Will Johnson **Get a jump start on your taxes. Find a tax professional in your neighborhood today. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=Tax+Return+Preparation+%26+Filing&ncid=emlcntusyelp0004) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
David Gerard wrote: > 2009/2/23 Ben Kovitz : > > >>> I'm feeling pretty hot about salience at the moment. I'll take a crack >>> at a short essay tonight, incorporating what people have posted here. >>> > > >> Couldn't wait. List of topics is now here: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BenKovitz/Salience >> Thanks, Charles, for suggesting the word "salience". :) >> > > > There was some coverage of this matter in WP:BLP - that only > noteworthy details of a noteworthy person should be included. (The > hypothetical example given is the subject having had a messy divorce - > for a minorly notable physicist it's probably not relevant, for a > politician it may have been a widely reported scandal.) > > There was also something, once upon a time, at [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]] - I was rather proud of "Wikipedia is not paper, and nor is it a Christmas newsletter". Stuff that resembles "vanity" may do so because it lacks salience. If it looks like newslettercruft it probably should go. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
2009/2/23 Ben Kovitz : >> I'm feeling pretty hot about salience at the moment. I'll take a crack >> at a short essay tonight, incorporating what people have posted here. > Couldn't wait. List of topics is now here: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BenKovitz/Salience > Thanks, Charles, for suggesting the word "salience". :) There was some coverage of this matter in WP:BLP - that only noteworthy details of a noteworthy person should be included. (The hypothetical example given is the subject having had a messy divorce - for a minorly notable physicist it's probably not relevant, for a politician it may have been a widely reported scandal.) - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
> I'm feeling pretty hot about salience at the moment. I'll take a crack > at a short essay tonight, incorporating what people have posted here. Couldn't wait. List of topics is now here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BenKovitz/Salience Thanks, Charles, for suggesting the word "salience". :) Ben ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
On Feb 23, 2009, at 9:10 AM, Sam Blacketer wrote: > On 2/23/09, Carcharoth wrote: >> WP:SALIENCY? :-) > > Dunno about a policy but an essay on that subject might not go amiss. I'm feeling pretty hot about salience at the moment. I'll take a crack at a short essay tonight, incorporating what people have posted here. Ben ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
On 2/23/09, Carcharoth wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Charles Matthews > wrote: > > wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > >> > >> Notability is used to establish whether or not the person gets an > >> article. It doesn't establish what all goes into that article. > > It is correct that you need different terminology: notability relates to > > topics. There is a separate notion of salience, for facts. Articles > > should consist of salient facts on a notable topic. > > WP:SALIENCY? :-) > Dunno about a policy but an essay on that subject might not go amiss. For an example of saliency failure you could look at an article I briefly intervened on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natascha_Engel The subject is a low-profile backbench British MP. Check the family life section: do we really need to know the names and dates of birth of her children? And what of the career details of her husband, who is not notable in his own right? On the other hand, details of campaigns she worked on before being elected are highly salient to political views, and it's her political career that makes her notable. -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Charles Matthews wrote: > Carcharoth wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Charles Matthews >> wrote: >>> And another thing - I'd resist this in all cases where there was a place >>> for a person in a line of succession boxes. It is really no good merging >>> an article if it messes up some useful navigation. >>> >> >> Succession boxes are useful navigation? :-) In some places, and for >> some things, yes, but succession boxes can be misused and overused, >> like anything else. In particular, I hate those articles where someone >> held multiple offices and titles and you see 5 or 6 succession boxes >> (or those big list templates) crammed in at the bottom of the article. >> Sure, I use them sometimes to find other articles, but they *look* >> horrible and unprofessional. >> > Oops - you'd better stay away from [[Pope Julius II]], then. I'd argue > that it is exactly in such cases, where someone has a career with > numerous spells holding different offices, that succession boxes show > their greatest value. It is much more clumsy to express such careers in > full detail in the main text. Climbing the greasy pole does belong in > displayed form, I'd say, since those who don't want the details should > be able to ignore them. 15 succession boxes? That must be some kind of record. Personally, I'd find a good timeline there easier to read than trying to work out which bits overlap where from the succession boxes. And its the timeline I want, really, not who came before and after (though that information should still be present if salient and accessible even if not). When you click open the templates at the bottom of Pope Julius II, only about 60% of the article's screenspace is actually the article itself. The other 40% is the succession boxes and templates. Maybe I need to switch to a skin that puts categories somewhere more visible? I wonder if there is also a record for the number of navbox footer templates shoehorned in at the bottom of an article? I found five here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_I_of_England But I'm sure I've seen more. And there is invariably massive redundancy between the template listings, the succession boxes, and the categories (different ways of presenting the same, or nearly the same, information). A better-designed system would give the reader the option to switch on and off the bits they want to see - in a more permanent fashion than "show/hide". Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Charles Matthews wrote: > wjhon...@aol.com wrote: >> >> Notability is used to establish whether or not the person gets an >> article. It doesn't establish what all goes into that article. > It is correct that you need different terminology: notability relates to > topics. There is a separate notion of salience, for facts. Articles > should consist of salient facts on a notable topic. WP:SALIENCY? :-) Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > > Notability is used to establish whether or not the person gets an > article. It doesn't establish what all goes into that article. It is correct that you need different terminology: notability relates to topics. There is a separate notion of salience, for facts. Articles should consist of salient facts on a notable topic. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
Carcharoth wrote: > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Charles Matthews > wrote: > >> Thomas Dalton wrote: >> >>> If there is only one noteworthy fact about the subject, the article >>> should probably be merged per BLP1E. If there isn't more than a >>> paragraph worth of stuff to say about a subject, you need to think >>> long and hard about whether there should be an article. In some cases, >>> there probably should, but I think it most cases such a lack of >>> information is a sign that the article should be deleted or merged. >>> >>> >> This is certainly not the case in, for example, medieval history. It's >> all relative to a background: what expectation is there of ample factual >> material? >> >> And another thing - I'd resist this in all cases where there was a place >> for a person in a line of succession boxes. It is really no good merging >> an article if it messes up some useful navigation. >> > > Succession boxes are useful navigation? :-) In some places, and for > some things, yes, but succession boxes can be misused and overused, > like anything else. In particular, I hate those articles where someone > held multiple offices and titles and you see 5 or 6 succession boxes > (or those big list templates) crammed in at the bottom of the article. > Sure, I use them sometimes to find other articles, but they *look* > horrible and unprofessional. > Oops - you'd better stay away from [[Pope Julius II]], then. I'd argue that it is exactly in such cases, where someone has a career with numerous spells holding different offices, that succession boxes show their greatest value. It is much more clumsy to express such careers in full detail in the main text. Climbing the greasy pole does belong in displayed form, I'd say, since those who don't want the details should be able to ignore them. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
2009/2/23 Carcharoth : > So what would you do with this article? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Stuart,_Duke_of_Kintyre > > That is one of several articles where the child seems to be notable > because they were born into nobility or royalty or some other > hereditary position. Even if they die in childhood, they still seem to > get separate articles. He was a duke, that's not a single event. It is very unusual for someone that died an infancy to be notable, but this is such a case - there are always exceptions. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Murdered_children > > How would you approach those articles? The same as for any other murder? Murder is a difficult one because in many cases it just boils down to a matter of what you call the article. Should it be [[Joe Bloggs]] or [[Murder of Joe Bloggs]]? I would say the latter is preferable because most of the article will be about the murder and what happened afterwards, rather than about the person, but it makes little difference. In the case of multiple murders, there should certainly be one article discussing them all. > And then there are the child saints: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Child_saints Being a saint is like being a duke, it's notable and is not a single event. > And how would you cover the story given in this article? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bowen That article seems pretty good to me. This is an example of a child whose life was actually notable, not just one event in his life (one aspect of his life, sure, but that's the case with most notable people). ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/2/23 Ben Kovitz : >> On Feb 22, 2009, at 9:23 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: >>> If there is only one noteworthy fact about the subject, the article >>> should probably be merged per BLP1E. If there isn't more than a >>> paragraph worth of stuff to say about a subject, you need to think >>> long and hard about whether there should be an article. >> >> Well, I checked and it turns out that two of the articles that I had in >> mind are (a) longer than one paragraph, and (b) do not have the stub >> tag on the main page. :) They are, however, rated Stub-Class on their >> talk pages. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dora_Kent (5 paras) >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Nickel (2 paras) > > Dora Kent should redirect to Alcor_Life_Extension_Foundation#Dora_Kent > (the section already exists and contains details not given in the Dora > Kent article - it also misses some details, so a merge may be > appropriate). The person is only notable because of one event - her > death and preservation - in those cases, we generally merge (I know > she isn't living, so BLP1E doesn't strictly apply, but the logic > behind it still does). > > Laura Nickel is also only notable for one event, but there isn't an > obvious merge target. A new article on the discovery of Mersenne > Primes could be created listing all the known examples with details of > their discovery, but unless someone actually wants to do that the > current article may as well remain. So what would you do with this article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Stuart,_Duke_of_Kintyre That is one of several articles where the child seems to be notable because they were born into nobility or royalty or some other hereditary position. Even if they die in childhood, they still seem to get separate articles. There was a list somewhere of people sorted by age. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Template_computed_age But then someone "fixed" the system and it broke. I *think* it was this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Age&diff=next&oldid=244879456 So I can't currently find a list of all the articles we have of children who died while very young, though distressingly most of them seem to be articles about murders of children. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Murdered_children How would you approach those articles? The same as for any other murder? And then there are the child saints: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Child_saints Compare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fausta_of_Sirmium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnes_of_Rome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Nikolaevich,_Tsarevich_of_Russia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Vicuna And how would you cover the story given in this article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bowen Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
2009/2/23 Ben Kovitz : > On Feb 22, 2009, at 9:23 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: >> If there is only one noteworthy fact about the subject, the article >> should probably be merged per BLP1E. If there isn't more than a >> paragraph worth of stuff to say about a subject, you need to think >> long and hard about whether there should be an article. > > Well, I checked and it turns out that two of the articles that I had in > mind are (a) longer than one paragraph, and (b) do not have the stub > tag on the main page. :) They are, however, rated Stub-Class on their > talk pages. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dora_Kent (5 paras) > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Nickel (2 paras) Dora Kent should redirect to Alcor_Life_Extension_Foundation#Dora_Kent (the section already exists and contains details not given in the Dora Kent article - it also misses some details, so a merge may be appropriate). The person is only notable because of one event - her death and preservation - in those cases, we generally merge (I know she isn't living, so BLP1E doesn't strictly apply, but the logic behind it still does). Laura Nickel is also only notable for one event, but there isn't an obvious merge target. A new article on the discovery of Mersenne Primes could be created listing all the known examples with details of their discovery, but unless someone actually wants to do that the current article may as well remain. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
But you're not disagreeing with anything I said. The amount of balance in an article between "accomplishments" (that is, what makes the person notable) and "biography" (that is, the story of their life) is handled by UNDUE. It doesn't really have anything to do with notability. And it doesn't enforce, nor preclude, including whatever biographic details the editors think is warranted. If someone was a great lawyer, involved a number of famous cases, and their article is half discussing their descent from the King of Portugal or something, that is undue. It's also OR unless it is well-sourced, and even so those sources might be unreliable ones. A person's biography becomes important because they are, not the other way round. Once the person has become important, that is when people want to read their biography. Pick any biography in the Encyclopedia Brittanica and they include mundane details that could apply to thousands of non-notable people (born in London, married at an early age, slain in battle, blah blah) and yet they include them. Those details are each not notable. It is because they happened to a *person* who is notable, that is what makes those mundane details encyclopedic. Will Johnson In a message dated 2/22/2009 5:31:15 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, dgoodma...@gmail.com writes: Couldn't disagree more. Articles about people are intended to give the information that readers want. What they want ito know is what is important about them. What is important about them is what they are notable for. The personal life is not the important part. The professional (artistic, political ,scientific, business,...) life is the important part. Please excuse my putting it almost all in words of one syllable, but it's that basic. For an example, look at Shakespeare: the textual part of the article is 2/3 about the works, 1/3 about the biography. Same ratio for the lede paragraphs. About the same ratio for the illustrations. About the same ratio for the bibliography. And this is for a literary author, the sort of personal where the facts of the personal biography are generally thought especially relevant to the work. And not any literary author, but one whose disputed personal life has been of particular public interest for centuries. It will be even higher for most other personal subjects. Just for fun, I checked Bob Dylan, an article where the personal and professional material is presented together, and it seems to be about he same ratio. For Einstein, it's about 50-:50--I think because the work needs to be discussed more technically, so it's mostly in separate articles. We write about what's notable. The personal life of a person is only notable in relation to his accomplishments--if it were not for the person's accomplishments, we wouldn't care about the life & we wouldn't have an article i the first place. According to your principal , we'd have the fullest articles for he people about whose personal lives more was known, not the one's with the most accomplishments. On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 7:53 PM,wrote: > An article about a person (i.e. a biography), should be about their life. > That is what biography means. The story of a life. > Paris Hilton is not "notable" for going to jail, lots of people go to jail. > She is notable, and also she went to jail. > Once a person is notable enough to have an article here at all, then we > should present their biography. > If we wanted to only present, in a person's article, what they are notable > for, then we shouldn't have an article on the person at all, but rather on the > incident, mentioning the person with that incident-article. > > Notability is used to establish whether or not the person gets an article. > It doesn't establish what all goes into that article. > > Will Johnson > > > > In a message dated 2/22/2009 3:09:56 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, > dgoodma...@gmail.com writes: > > An article about a person should primarily be about what the person is > notable for. > > > **Need a job? Find an employment agency near you. > (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusyelp0003) > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l **Need a job? Find an employment agency near you. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusyelp0003) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wiki
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
On Feb 22, 2009, at 9:23 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/2/22 Ben Kovitz : >> A one-paragraph article that >> crisply tells the noteworthy fact or two about its subject can be an >> excellent article. > > If there is only one noteworthy fact about the subject, the article > should probably be merged per BLP1E. If there isn't more than a > paragraph worth of stuff to say about a subject, you need to think > long and hard about whether there should be an article. Well, I checked and it turns out that two of the articles that I had in mind are (a) longer than one paragraph, and (b) do not have the stub tag on the main page. :) They are, however, rated Stub-Class on their talk pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dora_Kent (5 paras) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Nickel (2 paras) These are the kinds of good short articles that I have in mind, though: they tell what made the person notable, they provide a couple links for further info, and that's it. Expanding them with trivia would obscure the notable facts. "The more you write, the less chance that people will read it." (Hmm, I'm not sure that the fact in the Laura Nickel article about the Midnight Special Law Collective is really notable. Before it was added, the article really was one paragraph.) Ben ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
Ben "notable" is not the same as "encyclopedic." Encyclopedic is a style of writing, so we don't get things like "I love Britney Spears, isn't she great?" or "Everyone agrees that Paris Hilton is super-fabulous." Even though these people are notable, that does not mean that each sentence within their articles has to separately pass some "notability" bar. Each sentence should be sourced and cited. It's up to the authors who work on the article to create an article they can all pass. Our standards on notability define what articles we include, not what is within those articles. Two separate concepts. In a message dated 2/22/2009 5:37:20 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, bkov...@acm.org writes: On Feb 22, 2009, at 7:53 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > Paris Hilton is not "notable" for going to jail, lots of people go to > jail. > She is notable, and also she went to jail. I can agree with this: some facts about a person become notable simply because the person is notable. As David Goodman mentioned, Einstein's children are notable simply because they are Einstein's. > An article about a person (i.e. a biography), should be about their > life. > That is what biography means. The story of a life. > Once a person is notable enough to have an article here at all, then we > should present their biography. Here's an opposing idea: A full-blown biography of a person, such as a book, should indeed tell a vast number of details, in order to present a full picture of the subject's life. But a biographical article in an encyclopedia does not aim at giving such a full picture. It's much shorter than and doesn't try to go as far as a full-blown biography. Also, telling the story of a life in rich detail requires a kind of literary finesse that we can't likely achieve on a large-scale wiki. A serious, rich biography requires the personal touch of an author to, among other things, select thousands of extremely fine-grained facts and weave them into a textured narrative. No other biographer would do it the same way. Stylistic choices blur with content. That's not compatible with a large number of authors, and it's especially incompatible with the way coarse guidelines enable authors to resolve editing disputes. > Notability is used to establish whether or not the person gets an > article. > It doesn't establish what all goes into that article. I'm very surprised to read this. It seems to me that every fact reported on Wikipedia must meet an encyclopedic standard for notability--a standard much higher than, say, the standard for a newspaper article or a book about that topic or even a chapter about that topic. Exactly where that line is cannot be defined precisely and must be continually negotiated, but in order to have a sense of common purpose, we need to understand that the "encyclopedic bar" for notability is much higher than those other bars. I'd like to hear some other folks' opinions about this. I had taken what I just said as "goes without saying" among Wikipedians for a long time. WP:NNC? Ben ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l **Need a job? Find an employment agency near you. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusyelp0003) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
On Feb 22, 2009, at 7:53 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > Paris Hilton is not "notable" for going to jail, lots of people go to > jail. > She is notable, and also she went to jail. I can agree with this: some facts about a person become notable simply because the person is notable. As David Goodman mentioned, Einstein's children are notable simply because they are Einstein's. > An article about a person (i.e. a biography), should be about their > life. > That is what biography means. The story of a life. > Once a person is notable enough to have an article here at all, then we > should present their biography. Here's an opposing idea: A full-blown biography of a person, such as a book, should indeed tell a vast number of details, in order to present a full picture of the subject's life. But a biographical article in an encyclopedia does not aim at giving such a full picture. It's much shorter than and doesn't try to go as far as a full-blown biography. Also, telling the story of a life in rich detail requires a kind of literary finesse that we can't likely achieve on a large-scale wiki. A serious, rich biography requires the personal touch of an author to, among other things, select thousands of extremely fine-grained facts and weave them into a textured narrative. No other biographer would do it the same way. Stylistic choices blur with content. That's not compatible with a large number of authors, and it's especially incompatible with the way coarse guidelines enable authors to resolve editing disputes. > Notability is used to establish whether or not the person gets an > article. > It doesn't establish what all goes into that article. I'm very surprised to read this. It seems to me that every fact reported on Wikipedia must meet an encyclopedic standard for notability--a standard much higher than, say, the standard for a newspaper article or a book about that topic or even a chapter about that topic. Exactly where that line is cannot be defined precisely and must be continually negotiated, but in order to have a sense of common purpose, we need to understand that the "encyclopedic bar" for notability is much higher than those other bars. I'd like to hear some other folks' opinions about this. I had taken what I just said as "goes without saying" among Wikipedians for a long time. WP:NNC? Ben ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
Couldn't disagree more. Articles about people are intended to give the information that readers want. What they want ito know is what is important about them. What is important about them is what they are notable for. The personal life is not the important part. The professional (artistic, political ,scientific, business,...) life is the important part. Please excuse my putting it almost all in words of one syllable, but it's that basic. For an example, look at Shakespeare: the textual part of the article is 2/3 about the works, 1/3 about the biography. Same ratio for the lede paragraphs. About the same ratio for the illustrations. About the same ratio for the bibliography. And this is for a literary author, the sort of personal where the facts of the personal biography are generally thought especially relevant to the work. And not any literary author, but one whose disputed personal life has been of particular public interest for centuries. It will be even higher for most other personal subjects. Just for fun, I checked Bob Dylan, an article where the personal and professional material is presented together, and it seems to be about he same ratio. For Einstein, it's about 50-:50--I think because the work needs to be discussed more technically, so it's mostly in separate articles. We write about what's notable. The personal life of a person is only notable in relation to his accomplishments--if it were not for the person's accomplishments, we wouldn't care about the life & we wouldn't have an article i the first place. According to your principal , we'd have the fullest articles for he people about whose personal lives more was known, not the one's with the most accomplishments. On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 7:53 PM, wrote: > An article about a person (i.e. a biography), should be about their life. > That is what biography means. The story of a life. > Paris Hilton is not "notable" for going to jail, lots of people go to jail. > She is notable, and also she went to jail. > Once a person is notable enough to have an article here at all, then we > should present their biography. > If we wanted to only present, in a person's article, what they are notable > for, then we shouldn't have an article on the person at all, but rather on the > incident, mentioning the person with that incident-article. > > Notability is used to establish whether or not the person gets an article. > It doesn't establish what all goes into that article. > > Will Johnson > > > > In a message dated 2/22/2009 3:09:56 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, > dgoodma...@gmail.com writes: > > An article about a person should primarily be about what the person is > notable for. > > > **Need a job? Find an employment agency near you. > (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusyelp0003) > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
It was mentioned in this thread earlier as something we shouldn't do, and I'm countering that, because I personally think it's very germane to the writing of a biography. If I read a biography which did not mention at all a subject's marriage, children, parents, I would think it was quite sub-standard. People do not spontaneously appear fully formed and they don't die that way either. That way of writing is 19th century. In a message dated 2/22/2009 5:13:03 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk writes: (Why are we having this discussion for the thousandth time, anyway? It's not desperately germane to the issue of how to define stubs...) **Need a job? Find an employment agency near you. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusyelp0003) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Ben Kovitz wrote: > On Feb 22, 2009, at 7:50 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > >> I disagree. Our obligation should be to report what is reported. >> Not to >> obscure merely for the sake of some rather ill-defined notion of >> "privacy" or >> some such thing. >> >> Do you think we should not report the names of the children of Edward >> III >> who died as infants? >> I think it's interesting to see what he and his wife named each of his >> children. >> In addition, if a biography subject had no children, one child, or 12 >> children, is very important to presenting a full picture of the person. >> >> Children have a great impact on parents. If our sources discuss the >> children, then we should as well. >> If they don't, then we shouldn't either. > > This worries me. As Charles Matthews said, it would terrible to make a > rigid, general rule about this, but most mentions of subjects' children > strike me as unnotable. That is, they clutter the bandwidth. Sources > tell much, much more than is suitable for an encyclopedia. We are > summarizing the highlights, not attempting to report every fact. For contemporary and living people, I agree. Family details can be irrelevant and intrusive (though in some articles it sounds like the family details have been added by the subject of the article, or copied from some official website). Historical stuff is less certain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_I_of_England#Children The strange thing is, we have an *article* on the 4-month-old, but not the 2-year old: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Stuart,_Duke_of_Kintyre The template at the bottom of that article seems overkill. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
It would worry me if people are leaving out the names of children long long dead over some sense of notability. Notability does not apply to each sentence within an article. It applies to the article as a whole. If anyone is concerned about cluttering the bandwidth, it might be good to look at the list of largest articles, some exceed 100K. That a subject had children is quite important in my view, in writing a biography. In a message dated 2/22/2009 5:05:04 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, bkov...@acm.org writes: This worries me. As Charles Matthews said, it would terrible to make a rigid, general rule about this, but most mentions of subjects' children strike me as unnotable. That is, they clutter the bandwidth. Sources tell much, much more than is suitable for an encyclopedia. We are summarizing the highlights, not attempting to report every fact. **Need a job? Find an employment agency near you. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusyelp0003) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
2009/2/23 : > I disagree. Our obligation should be to report what is reported. Not to > obscure merely for the sake of some rather ill-defined notion of "privacy" or > some such thing. I rather thought it was some notion of "editorial common sense", but I understand this seems to be unfashionable in some circles these days. (Why are we having this discussion for the thousandth time, anyway? It's not desperately germane to the issue of how to define stubs...) -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
On Feb 22, 2009, at 7:50 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > I disagree. Our obligation should be to report what is reported. > Not to > obscure merely for the sake of some rather ill-defined notion of > "privacy" or > some such thing. > > Do you think we should not report the names of the children of Edward > III > who died as infants? > I think it's interesting to see what he and his wife named each of his > children. > In addition, if a biography subject had no children, one child, or 12 > children, is very important to presenting a full picture of the person. > > Children have a great impact on parents. If our sources discuss the > children, then we should as well. > If they don't, then we shouldn't either. This worries me. As Charles Matthews said, it would terrible to make a rigid, general rule about this, but most mentions of subjects' children strike me as unnotable. That is, they clutter the bandwidth. Sources tell much, much more than is suitable for an encyclopedia. We are summarizing the highlights, not attempting to report every fact. Ben ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
An article about a person (i.e. a biography), should be about their life. That is what biography means. The story of a life. Paris Hilton is not "notable" for going to jail, lots of people go to jail. She is notable, and also she went to jail. Once a person is notable enough to have an article here at all, then we should present their biography. If we wanted to only present, in a person's article, what they are notable for, then we shouldn't have an article on the person at all, but rather on the incident, mentioning the person with that incident-article. Notability is used to establish whether or not the person gets an article. It doesn't establish what all goes into that article. Will Johnson In a message dated 2/22/2009 3:09:56 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, dgoodma...@gmail.com writes: An article about a person should primarily be about what the person is notable for. **Need a job? Find an employment agency near you. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusyelp0003) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
I disagree. Our obligation should be to report what is reported. Not to obscure merely for the sake of some rather ill-defined notion of "privacy" or some such thing. Do you think we should not report the names of the children of Edward III who died as infants? I think it's interesting to see what he and his wife named each of his children. In addition, if a biography subject had no children, one child, or 12 children, is very important to presenting a full picture of the person. Children have a great impact on parents. If our sources discuss the children, then we should as well. If they don't, then we shouldn't either. Will Johnson In a message dated 2/22/2009 1:23:12 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com writes: Why do you say that? In most cases we should not mention children by name. **Need a job? Find an employment agency near you. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusyelp0003) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Charles Matthews wrote: > Thomas Dalton wrote: >> If there is only one noteworthy fact about the subject, the article >> should probably be merged per BLP1E. If there isn't more than a >> paragraph worth of stuff to say about a subject, you need to think >> long and hard about whether there should be an article. In some cases, >> there probably should, but I think it most cases such a lack of >> information is a sign that the article should be deleted or merged. >> > This is certainly not the case in, for example, medieval history. It's > all relative to a background: what expectation is there of ample factual > material? > > And another thing - I'd resist this in all cases where there was a place > for a person in a line of succession boxes. It is really no good merging > an article if it messes up some useful navigation. Succession boxes are useful navigation? :-) In some places, and for some things, yes, but succession boxes can be misused and overused, like anything else. In particular, I hate those articles where someone held multiple offices and titles and you see 5 or 6 succession boxes (or those big list templates) crammed in at the bottom of the article. Sure, I use them sometimes to find other articles, but they *look* horrible and unprofessional. Those big "list" or "topic" template (footer boxes?) are bad in other ways as well. They mess up "what links here". There was a time when "what links here" for a random Nobel laureate would get you relevant links to articles related to that person. Now you get all the other Nobel laureates in the list as well, and when the footer bloat is bad you get totally unrelated articles appearing in "what links here" because those articles appear somewhere in some broad topic template that's been stuck on the bottom of 50 or so articles. Really annoying - categories was (is!) meant to avoid that. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
It depends upon the importance of the person who is the subject. People care very much whom Einstein's children were, or Darwin's, or Pauling's, but not some random scientist. When they seem to be inserted to make the article suitably long to be impressive, to fill in the article, that we should be reluctant to include them. I'm particularly doubtful about bios where the final line or two is about the subject's hobbies and children--that is a diagnostic sign for either imitating the PR style of sriting, or copyvio from PR. An article about a person should primarily be about what the person is notable for. Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Charles Matthews wrote: > wjhon...@aol.com wrote: >> The names of the subject's children are encyclopedia-worthy. >> I'm sure you must have meant something else. >> >> > Why do you say that? In most cases we should not mention children by name. > > Charles > > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
2009/2/22 Charles Matthews : > Thomas Dalton wrote: >> Sure, like I said, there will be cases where it is appropriate. I >> think those cases are quite rare, though. >> >> > While it is fashionable, seemingly, to look at these small "issues" > separately, as if they can be treated as isolated cases where hard-edged > rules apply, I think this is the wrong approach. And I don't think it > for the general good to dismiss exceptions. Anyone who formulates a > general "rule" is under the obligation to think through the exceptional > cases, and I deprecate the business done the other way round, where the > onus is put on thoughtful people to point out that clumsy rules can do harm. But my "rule" was that people should think about it. That rule doesn't really have exceptions - thinking is always appropriate. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > The names of the subject's children are encyclopedia-worthy. > I'm sure you must have meant something else. > > Why do you say that? In most cases we should not mention children by name. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/2/22 Charles Matthews : > >> Thomas Dalton wrote: >> >>> If there is only one noteworthy fact about the subject, the article >>> should probably be merged per BLP1E. If there isn't more than a >>> paragraph worth of stuff to say about a subject, you need to think >>> long and hard about whether there should be an article. In some cases, >>> there probably should, but I think it most cases such a lack of >>> information is a sign that the article should be deleted or merged. >>> >>> >> This is certainly not the case in, for example, medieval history. It's >> all relative to a background: what expectation is there of ample factual >> material? >> >> And another thing - I'd resist this in all cases where there was a place >> for a person in a line of succession boxes. It is really no good merging >> an article if it messes up some useful navigation. >> > > Sure, like I said, there will be cases where it is appropriate. I > think those cases are quite rare, though. > > While it is fashionable, seemingly, to look at these small "issues" separately, as if they can be treated as isolated cases where hard-edged rules apply, I think this is the wrong approach. And I don't think it for the general good to dismiss exceptions. Anyone who formulates a general "rule" is under the obligation to think through the exceptional cases, and I deprecate the business done the other way round, where the onus is put on thoughtful people to point out that clumsy rules can do harm. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
The names of the subject's children are encyclopedia-worthy. I'm sure you must have meant something else. In a message dated 2/22/2009 6:08:10 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, bkov...@acm.org writes: Often, especially in biographical articles, I've been seeing facts tossed in that seem way below the bar for encyclopedia-worthiness: names of the subject's children, birthplaces of people they know (!), etc. **Need a job? Find an employment agency near you. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusyelp0003) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
2009/2/22 Charles Matthews : > Thomas Dalton wrote: >> If there is only one noteworthy fact about the subject, the article >> should probably be merged per BLP1E. If there isn't more than a >> paragraph worth of stuff to say about a subject, you need to think >> long and hard about whether there should be an article. In some cases, >> there probably should, but I think it most cases such a lack of >> information is a sign that the article should be deleted or merged. >> > This is certainly not the case in, for example, medieval history. It's > all relative to a background: what expectation is there of ample factual > material? > > And another thing - I'd resist this in all cases where there was a place > for a person in a line of succession boxes. It is really no good merging > an article if it messes up some useful navigation. Sure, like I said, there will be cases where it is appropriate. I think those cases are quite rare, though. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
Thomas Dalton wrote: > If there is only one noteworthy fact about the subject, the article > should probably be merged per BLP1E. If there isn't more than a > paragraph worth of stuff to say about a subject, you need to think > long and hard about whether there should be an article. In some cases, > there probably should, but I think it most cases such a lack of > information is a sign that the article should be deleted or merged. > This is certainly not the case in, for example, medieval history. It's all relative to a background: what expectation is there of ample factual material? And another thing - I'd resist this in all cases where there was a place for a person in a line of succession boxes. It is really no good merging an article if it messes up some useful navigation. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
2009/2/22 Ben Kovitz : > IMO, making an article "not a stub" by padding it with trivialities > does not make the article better. It clutters Wikipedia and distracts > from the genuinely important content. A one-paragraph article that > crisply tells the noteworthy fact or two about its subject can be an > excellent article. > > Is there any controversy about that? Or are those trivial facts > getting in not because of stub tags but just because lots of people > love to pad? If there is only one noteworthy fact about the subject, the article should probably be merged per BLP1E. If there isn't more than a paragraph worth of stuff to say about a subject, you need to think long and hard about whether there should be an article. In some cases, there probably should, but I think it most cases such a lack of information is a sign that the article should be deleted or merged. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
2009/2/22 Ben Kovitz :
> Is there any controversy about that? Or are those trivial facts
> getting in not because of stub tags but just because lots of people
> love to pad?
I don't think stub tags have anything to do with it - anecdotally,
whilst I've seen many people writing into OTRS asking how they can get
"notices" removed from articles once they've been worked on, they only
ever talk about things like {{unsourced}} or {{wikify}} and I've never
seen stub tags mentioned.
People just like to add trivia, I think.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > "A short article is not a stub." Repeat 10 times under your > breath. > > ... A subject that can be exhaustively > covered briefly, is not a stub. Period. Thank you for saying this. Often, especially in biographical articles, I've been seeing facts tossed in that seem way below the bar for encyclopedia-worthiness: names of the subject's children, birthplaces of people they know (!), etc. Are people adding stuff like that in order to get stub tags removed? IMO, making an article "not a stub" by padding it with trivialities does not make the article better. It clutters Wikipedia and distracts from the genuinely important content. A one-paragraph article that crisply tells the noteworthy fact or two about its subject can be an excellent article. Is there any controversy about that? Or are those trivial facts getting in not because of stub tags but just because lots of people love to pad? Ben ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
