User talk:Starblueheather: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:34, 29 January 2010

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Starblueheather, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 00:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 * [[Wikipedia:Tutorial|Tutorial]]
 I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! Please [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|sign your name]] on talk pages using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out [[Wikipedia:Where to ask a question]] or ask me on {{#if:Mufka|[[User talk:Mufka{{!}}my talk page]]|my talk page}}. <!-- Template:Firstarticle --> Again, welcome!&nbsp;-- <font color="#000080">Mufka</font> [[User:Mufka|<sup>(u)</sup>]] [[User talk:Mufka|<sup>(t)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Mufka|<sup>(c)</sup>]] 00:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
-== Washington Post polls ==
-I would urge you to discuss your additions before [[WP:edit warring|edit warring]]. The usual practice in cases like this is called [[WP:Bold, revert, discuss|Bold, revert, discuss]]: in other words, you [[WP:BOLD|BOLD]]ly make an addition to an article, but if someone disagrees (and reverts it) then everyone steps back and has a discussion instead of doing anything controversial. Since two editors already (myself and [[User:Tedder]]) have raised concerns about your addition, you should seek consensus before re-adding it.
-For what it's worth, I think the poll itself is not necessarily notable (''Washington Post'' itself is, but its readers are just a small sample of the population and there's no particular reason WP readers' opinions on webcomics should be special in some way&mdash;unlike a case where we ''would'' value the opinion of a certain population, such as the [[Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards]]). Plus, the survey apparently is not even finished yet, so the results are not reliable (actually, survey results are usually not reliable anyway because of sampling error and other issues, but in this case they're even less so since the survey is still underway). <b class="IPA">[[User:Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b>&nbsp;<small><sup>[[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|contribs]]</sub></small> 22:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
-:I'll echo this. While it ''might'' be worth mentioning the 'winner' if an article at WashPo is written summarizing the results, certainly putting it on every [[Long tail]] result of a poll-in-progress is definitely not. It's really no more notable than if I had a survey of readers on my blog- it's biased, and [[Time 100#Hacking|there's nothing to prevent abuse]]. [[User:Tedder|tedder]] ([[User talk:Tedder|talk]]) 22:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
-::I don't think you two understand what "[[Wikipedia:Notability|notable]]" means. "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles." I have not created a separate article on The Washington Post's readers poll. I have instead used The Washington Post as a [[WP:RS|reliable source]], by including  information from them in some articles. If you'd like to try to change consensus on whether "notability" gives guidance on the contents of articles, you can discuss that at [[Wikipedia_talk:Notability]]. If would like to change consensus on whether the Washington Post is a reliable source, I'm really not sure where you should go. [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard]] maybe. Thanks, [[User:Starblueheather|Starblueheather]] ([[User talk:Starblueheather#top|talk]]) 22:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
-:::Nobody is saying that the Washington Post isn't [[WP:RS]]. However, a poll of Washington Post readers that is currently in progress, and which QC is losing (and losing badly), isn't really relevant to the article. [[User:Mark Shaw|Mark Shaw]] ([[User talk:Mark Shaw|talk]]) 22:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
-::::Well, technically, Rjanag did imply WashPo isn't a RS, but see my explanation that follows. [[User:Tedder|tedder]] ([[User talk:Tedder|talk]]) 22:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
-:::(ec)While the essay on notability is appreciated, there's a pretty good chance both of us have seen it. I'm guessing rjanag meant the content isn't encyclopedic, and you raised a great point- the real issue is that the data given is not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. There's no question Washington Post is a RS, but that doesn't mean everything on Washington Post is reliable or is encyclopedic. In this case, Washington Post is a reliable source, but the information ''on'' Washington Post is not reliable. See the "three meanings" of 'source' in the second paragraph of [[WP:RS]]. [[User:Tedder|tedder]] ([[User talk:Tedder|talk]]) 22:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
-:::::That's not an [[WP:ESSAY|essay]] on notability. It is a [[WP:GUIDES|guideline]]. Policies and guidelines are not to be confused with essays. The reason I linked to it is because you seem ignorant of it and I think you need to read it and understand it better. Your belief that it is just an opinion essay only confirms this. Thanks, [[User:Starblueheather|Starblueheather]] ([[User talk:Starblueheather#top|talk]]) 10:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
-::::Not to mention that there is no "top 10" or anything like it. It's an arbitrary number chosen by you, making this [[WP:OR|original research]]. And while [[The Order of the Stick]] is in the top 10 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Order_of_the_Stick&diff=prev&oldid=340599220 As you said]), it still has a whopping 0% of all the votes cast, according to the poll. Anyhow, since there's a clear consensus (in my eyes) not to include the poll, I'll go ahead and revert the addition from the other articles as well. --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 22:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
-:::::OK, in order for me for me have an informed discussion on whether the Washington Post's comics blog is the equivalent of [[User:Tedder|tedder]]'s blog, could someone link me to tedder's blog? Also, I wasn't aware that counting up to 10 was original research. Well then, how about just "was one of 22 semifinalists" rather than performing the "original research" of counting up to ten? Thanks, [[User:Starblueheather|Starblueheather]] ([[User talk:Starblueheather#top|talk]]) 23:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
-::::::Who is to decide that we include the top 10, or the top 22, or the top 5? There's a lot of other reasons not to include the poll, per the comments above. Generally, we don't assume the same kind of notability for a well known newspaper and a blog appearing on the website of said newspaper. And a poll on a blog on a website of a well known newspaper is rarely relevant. I mean, heck, the Washington Post website [http://voices.washingtonpost.com/friday-follies/ has a blog that consists entirely of polls]. That doesn't mean we should or could include each and every one of those polls ("Is Peter Orszag a sexy nerd?") in our articles. --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 23:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
-:::::::Again, if Washington Post writes a half-decent article discussing the winner(s) of their poll, it might be worth mentioning. Before then, it's fancruft and [[WP:TRIV|trivia/pop culture]], which should be avoided, except perhaps in the case of [http://xkcd.com/446/ wood]. [[User:Tedder|tedder]] ([[User talk:Tedder|talk]]) 23:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
-::::::::I think if the Washington Post's writer/editor who writes the Washington Post's comics blog says there are 22 of them ("22 webcomics that are vying mightily to be crowned Best Webcomic of the Past Decade"), then we can use him as a source for there being 22, without having to resort to the "original research" of counting all the way up to 22 ourselves. I know our sourcing standards for the [[xkcd]] article are so incredibly high they include such top-notch info as [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Citationeeded.jpeg photos of people hanging out on a playground], but I think that the [[Washington Post]] is pretty good, too. It may not be tedder's blog quality, but then again I have yet to read tedder's blog. Thanks, [[User:Starblueheather|Starblueheather]] ([[User talk:Starblueheather#top|talk]]) 00:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
-:::::::::You entirely ignored my point that the [[Washington Post]] is not the same thing as a blog hosted on the Washington Post's website. --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 08:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
-::::::::::What was your point? You don't think the Washington Post's comics blog is a reliable source? But you think a better source for an encyclopedia article is a photo of somebody goofing off on a playground? You also still seem to be confused about the relationship between "notability" and article content. I could care less whether this blog is notable as I'm not trying to create a separate article on it.  After you've cleared up your confusion between reliable sources and notability, and if you still do not believe this Washington Post blog is a reliable source, then you may want to remove the references to it in [[New Adventures of Queen Victoria]] and [[Penny Arcade (webcomic)]] and elsewhere. Then feel free to add more playground snapshots and maybe a reference to tedder's blog which you guys feel is of Washington Post quality. Still waiting on that link to tedder's blog; it sounds great. Thanks, [[User:Starblueheather|Starblueheather]] ([[User talk:Starblueheather#top|talk]]) 10:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
-:::::::::::Thanks for pointing those out, I've removed them as well. There are at least half a dozen reasons not to include the poll anywhere. The blog probably not being a reliable source is just one of them. Many others have already been pointed out above. --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 10:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)