On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:15 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net
wrote
2009/2/23 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
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
David Gerard wrote:
2009/2/24 Delirium delir...@hackish.org:
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
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:15 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote
2009/2/23 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
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
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:15 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote
2009/2/23 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bowen
It's a great example of maudlinism run rampant. Why this
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/2/23 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
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
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
2009/2/24 Delirium delir...@hackish.org:
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
David Gerard wrote:
2009/2/24 Delirium delir...@hackish.org:
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 -
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
2009/2/23 Ben Kovitz bkov...@acm.org:
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
2009/2/23 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
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
Carcharoth wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com 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
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.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
snip
And another thing - I'd resist this in all cases where there was a place
for a person in
On Feb 23, 2009, at 9:10 AM, Sam Blacketer wrote:
On 2/23/09, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com 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
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. :)
2009/2/23 Ben Kovitz bkov...@acm.org:
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,
David Gerard wrote:
2009/2/23 Ben Kovitz bkov...@acm.org:
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:
In a message dated 2/23/2009 6:11:09 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
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
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
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
.
Will
-Original Message-
From: Phil Nash pn007a2...@blueyonder.co.uk
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
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
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
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
2009/2/22 Ben Kovitz bkov...@acm.org:
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
2009/2/22 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
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
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
2009/2/22 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
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
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
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com 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
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
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Ben Kovitz bkov...@acm.org 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.
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
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
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
On Feb 22, 2009, at 9:23 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/2/22 Ben Kovitz bkov...@acm.org:
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
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
38 matches
Mail list logo
