Correlation does not imply causation
Correlation and dependence
Statistical inference
Experiments#Biology
{{od}}
https://tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/bin/bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&projecta=Discography&quality=FL-Class
Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies
WP:HDT: Help Desk Templates
{{astray}}
WT:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 6#Metacritic's so-called "normalized" scores
Wikipedia:Write the article first
Fail to address the point: Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion, irrelevant thesis or fallacy of distraction is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question. Arguments which shift the focus of debate to "safer" but less relevant ground fall into this category.
Don't shoot yourself in the foot.
WP:BEFORE: Before Afd
WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
- WP:INHERITED: Notability is not inherited.
WP:Don't stuff beans up your nose
WP:CLUE: Doesn't have a clue.
Template:Clear: column formatting
WP:A nice cup of tea and a sit down
WP:DNFTT: Deny recognition; don't feed the trolls
WP:HERE: Here to build an encyclopedia.
User:Valfontis/Valfontis' Law: The amount of time and effort spent explaining policy and procedure to any user is inversely proportional to the likelihood that user will become a productive editor.
WP:NOTPERFECT: Administrator conduct.
WP:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause
WP:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request
Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great
WP:Replies to common objections
== Question for administrator ==
{{admin help}}
<Your Question>
--~~~~
WP:Requests for administrator attention
WP:CREEP: Avoid instruction creep
[[WP:ELOFFICIAL]
WP:NFF: Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films
Template:ESp: done, not done
Template:Uw-copyright-link: YouTube links
WP:Copy-paste#Can I copy and paste if I change the text a little bit?
WP:CPUSH - Civil POV pushing
WP:USERG - Self-published sources
Sourcing dispatch
editRS
editCatholic cat
editOn Wikipedia a person must self-identify with a particular denomination before being categorized; and the only way to know if they self-identify is a source indicating that the person is currently Catholic (or Baptist, or atheist, or whatever). That standard is frequently violated because many people think they can put anything about a person's religous beliefs in an article without reliable sourcing. That is what is unsourced in the article. If someone grows up an atheist but is now a Christian (see William J. Murray), do we put that person in the "Atheists" category?" MANY people grow up in a particular denomination (or lack thereof in Murray's case) but do not end up claiming that perspective when they are adults. This is a simple matter of following one of the very cornerstones of Wikipedia: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Page title may very well be a Catholic right now, but the article doesn't state that. If you want to restore the category, please find a sourced statement to that effect. And remember, the responsibility for sourcing is on the person who adds or restores information. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)