User talk:Dugwiki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives Archived talk through Feb 28 2007

Contents 1 sources 2 Foramt at WP:N discussion 3 Please help me 4 Category:Television program cancellations by year 5 Happy Pi day! 6 Navigation category 7 Cancellations 8 10 lamps ministry group 9 Cat:N Sync

[edit] sources

Just because an article is not cited well now does not mean it should be eleted. Articles need to be around to grow and develop. If you delete them, they will not be able to mature. Some articles are around a very long time before they are developed into a good article. Instead of focusing on deleting, a focus on building will truly help Wikipedia plus build a positive atmosphere rather than a destructive one. Ontheradio925 02:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

On the flip side, there are numerous cases of articles which are not cited well because they will never be cited well. I'm all for allowing articles to develop, but there is a very minimal bar of verifiability that needs to be met. Removing articles which are not properly referenced helps clear out the invalid articles. Keep in mind that deletion is not permanent, and there is no reason a deleted article can't be moved temporarily to a user space and eventually reintroduced with proper, minimal citation.

So, as they say, sometimes you have to tear things down in order to build something better. There's nothing wrong with deleting articles that fail to meet minimal standards. My two cents. Dugwiki 16:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleting articles just removes the work and research by those that started the article. What a waste of time. I agree some articles need to grow, but just deleting them does not help. People need someplace to start, and creating stubs, ideas, and other elements let Wikipedians work off of something. When you delete you leave nothing to work with. I view it as highly disruptive to the project. I know it is harder to create than destroy, but I hope you can be a creationist. Good luck to you. 13579create 06:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with stub articles provided they actually appear to have an opportunity to expand. However, articles which don't appear to be properly verifiable, even when given ample opportunity, and/or which are so short that they could be merged into another topic should be merged or deleted as appropriate. Deleting articles that can't meet the minimal standards and policies of Wikipedia isn't disruptive - keeping such articles is. Dugwiki 15:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foramt at WP:N discussion

HI.

Please put your rebuttal comments in the rebuttal section. Just for the one area, where we are trying to keep each editors comments in summary. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 17:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. FYI, though, when you moved my comments it became less clear what I was replying to. My comments tended to start with "I disagree with this", and now that they're moved it's not as clear what "this" is. Dugwiki 17:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that Steve accidently reverted your paste of the original statements to rebuttal. I think that is a good idea. Any assistance that you can give in herding the comments to the right corral will be appreciated. Sincerely! --Kevin Murray 17:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please help me

Please look at the context of the area you are working in. Look at the instructions above. This is an effort to bringing peace and understanding to a very contentious page which had to be protected. This is an experiment. Please help! Kevin

--Kevin Murray 17:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, what help did you need? By the way, I appended the context comments to my replies on the WP:N talk page, so I think that's ok now. Dugwiki 17:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Television program cancellations by year

Last month, you commented on this CfD - you are encouraged to join the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#TV_program_debut/cancellation_categories to gauge consensus on whether to rename the cats, and to what name. Dl2000 02:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Pi day!

Cheers! --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 07:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Navigation category

What will this {{Category:{{1}}{{2}} in film}} exactly do? I mean, this navigation is only transcluded in the series of Category:YEAR films. Hoverfish Talk 20:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I probably made a syntax error. I was putting in the automatic parent category of "Category:YYYY in film" for categories of the form "Category:YYYY films". The intent is to have, for example, "2003 films" show up as a subcategory of "2003 in film" (which would include not only films released in 2003 but also film awards for 2003 and film related events that occured in 2003). Of course, it's certainly possible I made a typo when I set it up, so if the new parent isn't showing up properly please feel free to let me know or simply correct the typo. Dugwiki 20:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I added this explanation to the talk page of Template:filmyr. Any other questions or problems, let me know. Dugwiki 20:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not good with these tempates that assign categories, but I had such a problem once as another template present in the page had "includeonly" categories. So maybe it's not a syntax error but another competing template. Have you checked this possibility? Hoverfish Talk 23:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I checked this morning and the current version seems to be working properly. For example, Category:2003 films is showing up as a subcategory of Category:2003 in film. Dugwiki 15:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I copied the discussion in the categorization department and commented there. It seems what you are doing is making the individual year-in-film articles harder to access from category:years in film. Hoverfish Talk 18:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cancellations

It matters not if the category's creator set that as its goal, obviously that goal is disputed - and - has no consensus backing it, to conclude: do not reinsert without a consensus and a verifiable source it was cancelled, barring that you'll more then likely be reverted, again. Matthew 15:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

moving discussion to Matthew's talk page Dugwiki 15:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

(replying to messages you left for Matthew) It DOES NOT MATTER WHAT THE DESCRIPTION SAYS! The bottom line IS that the cat IS NAMED xxxx cancellationsIllyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 16:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

See Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 22 for cfd for rename to "series endings" to remove ambiguity. (And you're wrong about the category descriptions not mattering for inclusion - we go by the descriptions, not just by the names). Dugwiki 16:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 10 lamps ministry group

You added a notability tag to this article. Could you explain why as I have tried to add all sources I could find on the matter, and unless I should cite quotes from the bishop of bath and wells I cannot find many more sources. As this was a recent thing no published references are avalible yet.

Cheers Gazab1 10:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In order to meet basic notability criteria as per the guideline WP:N and its proposed revision WP:INCLUSION, an article should cite multiple published sources written independently of the subject over at least a minimal timespan. The main reason is that, as described in WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not intended to house individual articles about literally every local organization. Thus the multiple independent citation guideline is meant to ensure that the article has the potential to be reasonably substantive and also will have more than just a highly localized interest and usefulness.

In this particular case, the 10 lamps ministry group article has two references. Of those one is the church's own website (which isn't an independent source). The other is probably independent, although it's difficult to tell if it's from a reliable publisher. Either way, at most the article has one independent published source cited that talks about the group.

So the notability tag is there to advise interested editors that the article might need additional citations to help support keeping it on Wikipedia. Articles that don't meet WP:N run a risk of eventually being deleted or merged into a related broader topic article (such as possibly including this group as an entry in a list article of church groups in that region).

Hope that answers your question, and good luck with the article. :) Dugwiki 15:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes that does, thank you. Gazab1 09:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:N Sync

I nominated this at your suggestion, if you wanted to weigh in on it here. Otto4711 03:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Otto. I replied with a recommendation to delete, as expected. Dugwiki 15:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)