User talk:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome/Flag-prof

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome/Flag-prof's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome/Flag-prof.

Contents

[edit] AfDs and admins

Filing an AfD is not involving the administrators. it's involving the community. the administrator just closes the discussion. it is the step if nothing simpler works or is appropriate, but it shouldnt be presented in this impressive a fashion DGG (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My bad! Legacy thinking from before my epiphany six months ago ... I've changed all of the other warning protocols as well. :-) —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 02:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] i see why i'm confused by the pages

it's the warn-xyz format. I stupidly assumed they were templates, but it looks like they are no, just instruction pages? If so, perhaps they should be called something like warn (academic). Or do I still have it wrong? DGG (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Tee-hee ... I've had the same problem. :-)
On a slightly different note, things like Db-bio-notice, Db-web-notice, Db-club-notice, and the plethora of Very Specific User warning templates are why I didn't think that my templates were Too Wordy ... that whole "Db-xyz-warn" attitude is, like, So Last Century in the face of a {{Db-warn}} that takes an argument for the xyz guideline (maybe someday).
The shift from "Warn" to "Info" does beg name changes, though ... howz 'bout {{Notify-article}} and {{Notify-editor}} for the templates, and rename the protocols from Warn-xyz to Notify-xyz? —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 22:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've moved everything to Flag-xyz, e.g., {{Flag-article}} and {{Flag-editor}}. — 72.75.72.63 (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] difficulties

I still do not see how you intend this to be used. Can you please explain.

But anyway, I take the strongest possible exception to

"Your initial reason for tagging the article for deletion may be lack of any Attribution whatsoever, but remember: The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.”

The absence of any attribution whatsoever is not a reason for tagging an article with speedy, even as a preliminary basis. It may be reason for looking at an article to see what's up, but it is not a justification for speedy. Even the failure to find any sourcing, if importance is plausibly asserted, is not a reason for speedy, though it is for deletion at prod and afd. DGG (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Copy that ... that was legacy verbiage from before the paradigm shift ... I hope that the new version is better ... let's work on this one, and I'll add the same wording to WP:FLAG-BIO, WP:FLAG-INC, etc.
Forget "I plan to delete" and think "Lemme flag this and check it out when I have more time" ... you may not get to the 3rd Step at all! —72.75.72.63 (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

  1. now you need to explain the difference between when to use prod and db; e.g. if you think there is some even minimal assertion of notability, but not sufficient, then use PROD.
  2. academic might not be the best choice of where to start with a comment about attribution, because of the unclear nature of the needed sourcing--that the evidence for notability is the book reviews and article citations, or proof or the awards etc. which can come from his own CV if not challenged, not people writing articles about the guy.
  3. I still have never understood how this is to be used--is it intended to be an instruction page in the form of a template, or an instruction page bearing a template, or what? DGG (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Replies:

  1. That difference is explained elsewhere ... "Say it in a essay, not in the template." ... I have copied the essay from User:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome#Protocols for deletion warnings into Template:Flag-templates inside of a <noinclude></noinclude> ... it was one of those D'oh! moments :-) ... this is the short version of User:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome/Deletion warnings, which is the Bible, where everything is spelled out in excruciating detail, and it's Just Too Boring to be digested all at once, so start off with Template:Flag-templates.
  2. WP:FLAG-PROF is just a clone of the seven listed in {{Flag-templates}}, e.g., PROF, BAND, BIO, INC, FICT, SCL, and WEB ... I made them Flag-xyz based on Db-xyz for the categories listed in the table ... I have indefinitely delayed WP:FLAG-BK for Wikipedia:Notability (books) and WP:FLAG-FILM for Wikipedia:Notability (film) ... for a while, there was a WP:FLAG-PORNBIO for Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) or whatever it was called before it was deprecated last summer <Heavy sigh!> ... if you would rather focus on WP:FLAG-BIO or WP:FLAG-WEB, well that's Kewl ... it's just that this was the first one on the list, and this is where the discussion is Most Active ... nail it down in one place, then clone it to the others ... maybe even make a Template? ;-)
  3. Sounds like I need to write another essay, and Category talk:Cuban contemporary artists/Checklist is the perfect example ... take this article:

    Eberto Escobedo Lazo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

    It's one of the 147 created by User:ArleArt @ 07:09, 31 August 2007, and hasn't been touched since the bot removed the linkspam @ 16:57, 26 December 2007 ... the talk page is redlinked, so it's untouched ... I mean, just look at it! Pretty rank, ain't it ... looks like a PROD candidate to me ... it is not Db-bio (A7) eligible, but I'd sure second a PROD on that article if I stumbled across it ... but I don't have time right now, so I (1st Step) stick a {{Talkheader}} and a {{Flag-article}} on it, (2nd Step) ping the author with a {{Flag-editor}}, and then MOVE ON ... a few days later, I go through my Contributions and revisit the article and user talk pages, or else I get pinged from my Watchlist, because the 1st and 2nd steps added both of them automagically ... THEN I can make a "Fix or delete?" decision ... the WP:FLAG-xyz are essays that contain boilerplates with the proper values for the {{Flag-article}} and {{Flag-editor}} templates, and explain about deciding what to do ... clearer now? Like the 3rd Step ("cooling off") says:

    Note: This is a judgment call: either (a) you think that we should give the author a few days to reconsider a "Good Idea; Bad Decision", or to improve its case for it not being deleted (e.g., if it appears to be an incomplete "work in progress"), or else (b) you think that it's unredeemable and we should "Kill it before it grows!"

    I think that the blanket change from "WARN" to "FLAG" should make it easier to grasp, too. :-) Now here's the Good Part ... an inclusionist can use the same protocols to flag articles that need sources, and they spend the 3rd Step "cooling off" doing research/cleanup/whatever and generally "put some lipstick on that pig." :-)

    José Villa Soberón (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

    is a Good Example of a save, as you can see from the talk page ... now are we at least in the same chapter? BTW, I added a {{Prod-2}} to this one:

    Harry Wilmer Tanner Todd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

    That's another one of the 117 (or whatever) remaining in that Category that has been Orphan for a couple of months ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
lots of good ideas here. I suggest to start with plain BIO. As for the Cuban artists, it does somewhat depends on how one wants to go. Yes, Soberon is a save; Lazo depends entirely on how one evaluates the importance of the museums in section 5, "Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes de La Habana, Cuba. Also in the Ignacio Agramonte's Museum, Camagüey, Cuba and in the Tampa Museum of Art," If one wants to be inclusive for these, all it takes is to decide Tampa is a major collection. that's the problem with guidelines--one can twist them however one wants to. And even Todd depends on " Museo de la Ciudad, in Havana, and the The Robert McLaughlin Gallery, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada." It got an expired prod, and is rightfully deleted, because nobody will believe oshawa ontario--that would really be stretching it. More tomorrow--please dont answer me quite yet. DGG (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] example of using FLAG-BIO ... message for User:DGG

User:DGG ... This article is an example of using WP:FLAG-BIO:

Look at its History and Talk page ... I found it, flagged it, did some WP:GNOME cleanups, then came back and PRODed it ... without the protocol, this could have been a PROD with a redlinked Discussion page ... and the author was notified several days before the PROD was added (note the last two messages on User talk:AlbertGray) ... now do you see how they are intended to be used? —72.75.72.63 (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been involved with the article for Tiombe Lockhart (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (which just survived an AfD) and the author's talk page using the WP:FLAG-BIO protocol ... I'm working on a {{Oldprodfull}} template to document declined PRODs (see Talk:Tiombe Lockhart). — 72.75.72.63 (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
as for Freedman, it will go, because regardless of sources those roles are just not significant. I put on a prod2 saying that. As for Lockhart, it depends on whether those other musicians are important--and that's something i will not comment on. the more I see these, i go not by how many sources there are, but what the person actually did -- if anything. DGG (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thnx ... Please see the new "condensed" protocol on {{Flag-templates}} ... the 3rd Step now has two options, depending on your deletionist/inclusionist alignment ... do the talk pages of these articles and editors give you a better handle on how WP:FLAG-BIO is supposed to work? — 72.75.72.63 (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)