User talk:TheTechnician27/Archives/2021/July

Flubs

if you establish through a reliable source that a subject's birthdate is January 1, 1970, then make the claim that they were 24 when they did something on May 1, 1970, that's totally okay (from User_talk:Zrstnr)

Ummm. . . .

More importantly:

[S]tubs are good. As long as it's accurate, having something is better than nothing. Editors are far more hesitant to create a new article than they are to greatly expand an existing stub, and even just having that stub there gives readers some important information.

I've probably perpetrated some stubs in my time, I'm ashamed to say. But over the years, I've come to the opinion that -- perhaps aside from a few unusual circumstances (none of which I can think of right now) -- stubs are bad. If somebody has the resources (materials, brainpower, attention span) to put together a new article that says something substantive and is likely to satisfy the curiosity of a sizeable percentage of those who click on it, then that person is welcome to go ahead and create it. Otherwise, no thanks. Creating a crappy little stub in the hope/expectation that others will make it worth reading is lazy, arrogant, or both. -- Hoary (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: Haha! I was really tired when I wrote that, and I meant to say May 1, 1994; what a goof I can be. With that said, I wasn't suggesting they create a stub and just leave it like that in perpetuity (although through a personal experience which changed my mind on the matter, I don't think that's a bad thing either); they're clearly passionate about the subject and wish to write a fuller article on them. I mean that it's much easier for a new editor to create an article as a stub and to expand it out over time as they gain more experience contributing to the project and that having said stub in the interim is beneficial to the project. In the linked conversation, I happen to agree with Ali, and I furthermore disagree that a stub is somehow "not worth reading". I especially disagree that creating a stub in the hopes that others could see and want to expand it is somehow lazy or arrogant, given the entire point of Wikipedia is that it's a communal project wherein "ownership" of any material is given up upon publication. It's entirely a volunteer effort; except in the case of paid editing, they don't stand to gain or lose anything.

I don't feel like enumerating rehashed arguments in favor of and against stubs while I'm in the middle of a GA review, but here's one point I think is interesting and hasn't been discussed in this – at this point – decades-old debate. Consider one of the project's featured articles, Warren G. Harding. It's fantastically written and highly comprehensive. Now use your search engine of choice (for me, it's DDG), and search for Warren G. Harding. On mine (for Google's, it's even a bit shorter), I'm told: "Warren Gamaliel Harding was the 29th president of the United States, serving from 1921 until his death in 1923. A member of the Republican Party, he was one of the most popular U.S. presidents to that point. After his death, a number of scandals, including Teapot Dome, came to light, as did his extramarital affair with Nan Britton; those eroded his popular regard." I'm also told where and when he died and was born as well as what caused his death. The full article is visited by thousands every day, but there are undoubtedly thousands who search him, read that blurb to identify basic information about him without even visiting the site, and move on with their lives. Even just having a lead can be useful to give readers an introduction to a subject, especially as it shows up so prominently in search engines. That also contributes to one of my points you quoted – namely, showing up so prominently provides visibility for those who might wish to improve it instead of it just sitting as a red link buried in an article somewhere, if even that.

At any rate, the specific claim I made regarding the draft at AfC is that, should you find that the article would "probably be kept" at AfD, you "should be able to pass it without issue after [Zrstnr] remove[s] the uncited material". AfC's core task is to determine whether an article would survive AfD (the core issue with some of Ali's articles, of course, was that they wouldn't on grounds of notability), and the AfC workflow clearly identifies that this article should be accepted should the subject be believed to meet notability criteria, unless you believe there's an article into which Jeong-hee Lee-Kalisch would be more appropriately merged. I don't believe I was mistaken in anything I said. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Not convinced, sorry. The stub John Mathieson Anderson still strikes me as useless. Its existence has spawned the usual more or less legal forks, scrapes, and other derivatives, so anyone DDGing for JMA is likely to be presented with a screenful of these trivial variants of something that isn't worth looking at. I think I first encountered its creator via this: a sorry sight indeed, as Morphological Productivity is one of three books by its eminent author alone that I happily, and without any later regret, bought with my own money. (I'm also the regretless -- That's (awkward) morphological productivity for you! -- buyer of two hefty volumes cowritten by him.) There's nothing inherently wrong with writing a single sentence about a book: stick that sentence, or the paragraph that it grows into, within an article about the author. And the article about that author is horrid, giving no general picture of the man's ideas, of how they may have changed, or of what influence they may have had. When, in early 2017, I decided that this dismal bio merited improvement, I didn't have it spawn paragraph-long stubs; I instead added material to it. The appeal of Bishop's serious books has faded with time, and perhaps he's best known now for his verse; if this received more critical and citeworthy attention (or if there's already more than I've noticed), then of course I'd be delighted if some editor more able or energetic than I am augmented the coverage of it, and, if the discussion seemed to unbalance the article, exported it to "Verse by Morris Bishop" or whatever. But, please, no stub dedicated to The Best of Bishop, just because (i) a newly increased amount of "RS" about this book have it pass the low bar for "notability" and (ii) some decade from now, somebody might write more about it. ¶ That matter (and curatorship) quite aside, I admire your fortitude in your intelligent engagement with the "goodness" of that particular biography. Please don't let me divert you from it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

You might need some of this for your task. But try to limit yourself to no more than half a litre a day. Cheers! -- Hoary (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: For what it's worth, your stance seems to be one for mergism, a philosophy I generally agree with. I think that if a stub about a questionably notable subject can be merged up to a parent article, that can also be good, as it often means more eyes on our coverage of the subject – both editorially in terms of readership. I just don't see it being possible to do that with Jeong-hee Lee-Kalisch should she be found to be notable (total aside: looking at List of Free University of Berlin people to see if this was possible led me to Reinhard Furrer and therefore to an edit which made me stop and think: "Wow, this really was up on Wikipedia for three weeks"). I guess, at any rate, that your experience and mine with expanding others' short articles led us to diametric perspectives on stubs; that philosophical push and pull between editors helps make Wikipedia tick, though, so it's all cool. When you said earlier you'd 'perpetrated' some stubs, I did notice the Asama Volcano Museum got left behind in that regard. I didn't mention it earlier because I thought it'd seem like snidery where none actually existed (I clicked it because it's the first item right next to the cool gallery picture), but I thought as a practical matter I should bring it up. Well, anyway, time for me to stop transparently procrastinating and get back to reviewing every one of the citations in MTG so I can finally relax, disconnect, and read a nice book. Hope you have a good evening, or whatever time of day you may otherwise be experiencing when you read this. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd utterly forgotten Asama Volcano Museum -- perhaps in part because I pay little attention to my user page, where, to my richly deserved embarrassment, I see it is listed. It's dreadful. (Why did I create it -- was I drunk?) If there's ever a Wikipedia editors' hypocrisy contest, I should advance to the quarter-finals at least. I'll think about thinking about improving it ... or maybe I'll just nominate it for deletion. Meanwhile, filling your head with reliable sources on MTG: I think I'd demand substantial payment for that. But for you as a volunteer: I'm awestruck. -- Hoary (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Twin Cities Daily Planet

Your proposed deletion of the article on Twin Cities Daily Planet is well-founded with respect to the publication as an active news source. The Daily Planet has become an inactive website; its publisher has not posted any new articles since June 2019. I have revised the article to reflect its current identity as an inactive website, and suggest that the article be maintained for purposes of historical reference as a guide to any articles the Daily Planet published during its time of activity in 2006-2019.

It is clear that your deletion proposal was created in strong good faith, and I appreciate your active membership in the Wikipedia community. Thanks and best wishes, Bigturtle (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

GA review on Marjorie Taylor Greene

I just wanted to compliment you on the current GA review on this article. I was going to take it on, but I have to admit I blanched so was happy someone else took it on! Your review is particularly thorough and it honestly is not only assessing that article, but making it better. So thank you for reviewing this article! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I wish you could've seen me giddy-giggling to myself like an idiot when I read this last night. I've really been trying with the review (it's my second ever GA review, so I feel like I jumped into the deep end on this one), and seeing this really made my evening; thank you. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)