User:Marc Kupper/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm using this page as both a sandbox to experiment with Wikipedia features and also as a working scratchpad which assembling notes/thoughts.

Collapsible box for notes

I tend to write out thoughts as notes and was inspired by X and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 August 26 to do this.

Fix for imagequote2 indenting

{{{1}}}

Embedded lists and notability of people

From User talk:SilkTork#Wikipedia:Notability (people)

== Wikipedia:Notability (people) ==
I'm looking at the rewrite you did on 30 September 2007 and have a couple of questions about the nutshell as your language still stands today. You added "Notability criteria is also needed for a person to be included in a list or general article; however, this criteria is less stringent."
I don't see this supported in the article and am wondering what you used as a source for this edit or the nutshell.
Are you saying that if a name is used anywhere in an article that it needs to pass WP:PEOPLE? For example, an article may mention a person's parents, for example with Woodrow Wilson neither parent has an article and is unlikely to ever have one.
It seems WP:PEOPLE for list members is well defined. No problem there other than it creates a problem for list that define their own criteria such as List of passengers on the Mayflower where not every person is "notable" but should not be excluded from this list either.
Last we get to "this criteria is less stringent" which is presumably the wiggle room that allows for Woodrow Wilson's parents and the non-notable Mayflower passengers. This is not supported in the body of the article. I'm not sure if your intent behind "less stringent" means a person needs to be somewhat notable but not fully so or that it's ok that a list or article contain some entirely non-notable people, or both.
The reason this came up now is an editor's revert of someone adding a name to an embedded list (it was the list of notable residents for a town) stating they were deleting as the person did not have a WP article. Thus started a conversation and as a result I looked around and realized that the rules for embedded lists are not as carefully defined as those for standalone lists.
I'm planning on some edits to WP:PEOPLE plus WP:EMBED to clarify some of the points I brought up above. My play is to align the embedded list guidelines with the existing standalone list guidelines other than it's allowed to use the word "notable" in an embedded list title. That's why I want to make sure I understand your nutshell and WP:PEOPLE well. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
That was a while back so difficult to recapture all the thinking and all the sources. However, the part "Notability criteria is also needed for a person to be included in a list or general article" comes from the Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Lists_of_people section which was present at the time and is still present. The "however, this criteria is less stringent." part I can't clearly recall and may have come from WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:NNC, WP:ONEEVENT, various merge to decisions in AfD and other such sources - certainly I don't recall any objections to that particular edit, though other aspects of the edit were challenged and had to be talked through before being finally accepted. It's always appropriate to challenge aspects of any guideline to see if they still make sense, have consensus, and are clear. As you point out, "criteria is less stringent" is problematic and unsupported; the statement needs to be challenged and clarified. All mentions of people in articles or lists need to be cited to reliable sources - that part perhaps needs firming up in the guideline. In addition, consideration needs to be given to the level of notability required to be included in a list or mentioned in an article. Family members of a notable person appear in an article on that notable person even when the criteria for a standalone article is not met, so by usage the "less stringent" comment is upheld. It just needs a little more clarity. SilkTork *YES! 10:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you - it looks like we are on the same page. I also had not seen the WP:AADD article before; it looks like good reading. So many articles, so little time. :-) --Marc Kupper|talk 21:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Are these references enough to add a new article?

Hi. I would like to create a new wikipedia article for westside church sydney. Nothing to do with advertising, only informative of its history and stucture, similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsong_Church but obviously a bit different and no where near as big.

Are these sources/refereces enough for it to be credited of being worthy enough to be allowed to have a wikipedia article?

h**p://www.westsidechurch.com.au/
h**p://www.australianchurches.net.au/church.html?i=184
h**p://achurchesdirectory.com.au/directory/church.php?i=248&cn=westside-church
h**p://www.worthylinks.com/churches/australia-new-zealand-churches/
h**p://www.hnlc.org.au/holroyd-churches/contacts.htm
h**p://www.youtube.com/user/WestSideChurchSydney -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.243.2 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 23 February 2009

Without having actually looked at the links, I would suggest that they look like they might be ok for providing some information about the church in an article, but would probably not be sufficient to satisfy the notability guidelines, which require multiple non-trivial references in reliable independant sources. To translate that bit by bit, "multiple" is obviously "at least two, preferably a few more", "non-trivial" means "not just a passing mention or a listing in a directory, but actual discussion of the church itself", "reliable" means "not likely to have just made it up or gotten the information from a man in a bar" and "independant" means "not directly connected with the church itself". So the church's own website and YouTube accounts are not independant, and neither would any self-submitted entries to directories. A good reference is something like a newspaper or magazine article on the church, or at least one that devotes several paragraphs to the church. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Also note that no one will own the article about your church, which means anyone who wants to write something critical or unflattering about your church will be able to do so, as long as they can provide reliable sources to support their claims. If your church is not very notable, then it probably hasn't accumulated many critics yet, so this might not be an issue for a while. (If your church has been involved in any sort of notable controversy, expect it to find its way into the article here eventually.) When you put information on Wikipedia, you are submitting it to the potentially brutal marketplace of ideas. See the articles Criticism of Microsoft and Criticism of Microsoft Windows to get an idea of the kind of content that appears on Wikipedia but probably does not originate with anyone with a vested interest in portraying a company like Microsoft favorably. Microsoft is something of a special case, in that it is a very large company whose profit-maximizing decisions impact many people, and not always favorably. Thus lots of people publish criticisms of Microsoft, creating reliable sources which may then support the same criticism on Wikipedia. You might also look at other wikis such as Conservapedia which make no attempt to be neutral and might be friendlier to your point of view (depending on which flavor of Christianity you believe). You can create articles about your church on as many different wikis as will allow it, and then observe the different reactions you may get from the various user communities. I cannot predict which wiki you will like best. --Teratornis (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Underscores in redirects

You updated Internet Speculative Fiction Database to change the redirect to use underscores instead of spaces. In looking at WP:R I'm not sure why you did this. Thanks for doing the edit though as I'd been wondering if redirects should use spaces or _ and your edit motivated me to go look at the manual where I see all of the examples use spaces.

I just looked at your home page and see that the General of the Armies topic is still active. That's a great find at http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/juris/j0210_67.sgml --Marc Kupper|talk 07:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

References

General of the Armies

Underscores in redirects

RfC Granpuff

United States presidential administration controversies

Whipping

MediaWiki hints

Monitor

Things on Wikipedia I have a general interest in

Mormon Standard Works

Interwiki

References

Nowiki

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI