Paper9oll
Joined 7 August 2013
(Redirected from User:Paper9oll/FormatterTagger)
Latest comment: 15 hours ago by Chyx1095 in topic Help on Bibi's music video list
Status: đ away[?]
|
|
Committed identity: 0de937202d344a1ff750e4a22ad4cbd81b224c6550f10e765abb306e3b377d78c1fbe634497f1ed3a69a74caccfa62807438a29aa3623acb53062bdf2941e62d is a SHA-512 commitment to this user's real-life identity.
|
|
â ď¸ Attention editors Please ensure you:
Do note that your discussion will be rolled back if you fail to meet the above requirements. Any forms of false accusations and/or personal attacks and/or harrassment will be escalated to an Administrator immediately. |
| Archived discussion: 1 ⢠2 ⢠3 ⢠4 ⢠5 ⢠6 ⢠7 ⢠8 ⢠9 ⢠10 ⢠11 ⢠12 ⢠13 ⢠14 ⢠15 ⢠16 ⢠17 |
| This talk page is automatically[?] archived by Lowercase sigmabot III every 7 days. Threads that are stale will be automatically archived. |
Hi @Paper9oll, can you take a look at the latest edits at Bibi (singer)? Is listing of her M/Vs, with YouTube references (mostly for director credits) "a link dump. these are not "references", and they serve only to fluff up the article"? I probably should have put this on the talk page, but this seems like it can be dealt with in a single action since it is the same for all other K-pop artists. Thank you for your help/advice! (And also thank you for reviewing for Haerin as previously requested) Chyx1095 (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Chyx1095 Looks like a content/what about dispute, you may want to resolve this on Talk:Bibi (singer) with the involved parties instead given that you're dealing with an admin here hence I won't recommended that you revert any further if you intended to do so until there is consensus between the involved parties. Looking through the older revision, I could see why it's considered as "
a link dump. these are not 'references'
", as the content is not supported majoritively, if not none, by secondary reliable sources that is independent of the subject hence giving the impression of a "backdoor watch the music video here" in the disguise of references. â Paper9oll (đ ⢠đ) 16:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC) - Chyx1095, this is NOT all the same for all other K-pop articles, and even if it were, that doesn't make it acceptable. We all know that K-pop articles tend toward inflation, and that's what that list does. It's Wikia material. Please do not think that Wikipedia is a repository for every link and every item that fans think relevant: it's an encyclopedia, whose content should be based on secondary sourcing. BTW my admin status isn't really relevant here, but I think my experience is. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Drmies I admit I'm not well-versed in all the WP policies/guidelines and definitely not as experienced, but I do understand the need for secondary sourcing. My point here isn't about the links there, but the list of music videos which are present for most, if not all, K-pop artists and definitely not something I think relevant. I'm just confused as to why only Bibi's suddenly got removed. By extension, if secondary sourcing is required, shouldn't a lot of her Discography which do not have any citations essentially be removed as well? Chyx1095 (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know about "suddenly", Chyx1095--I don't keep a calendar of when to look at what article. Sure albums really need secondary sourcing as well (like books in articles for academics), but the idea is that albums (and books) are of a magnitude that one can assume that they themselves are worth mentioning, unlike smaller things like a video or an article or a poem. Because when you list everything that someone is associated with or has been released, you're writing resumes and you're simply compiling lists, and Paper9oll's comment (about the backdoor) is really valid here. When I write articles I will not include things like books or albums or whatever that I cannot give proper (secondary) sourcing for, but that's not something that I am going to remove in an article like this. But a list of, essentially, YouTube links, yes I do NOT believe that should stand. And again--in K-pop we see a constant pushing of those boundaries; some K-pop artist articles now list every single song that the artist has a writing credit for (or co-writing--easily done), which offers yet another avenue for adding yet another list of items. We surely don't do that in most articles, and by the same token we don't list all the videos in regular biographies on musical artists. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Drmies, I understand where you're coming from. I said "suddenly" because the whole entire section that was there for months was simply deleted without any discussion or consensus, or without any notice that the references should be replaced with reliable secondary sources. I agree with your point that a list of YouTube links shouldn't stand and with Paper9oll's comment (about the backdoor), but is it really alright to blank the entire section on that basis with just a short summary, when lists of music videos are present for most other K-pop artists and groups? If someone else like a new user or an IP user with little edit count does it, wouldn't it be immediately reverted for vandalism/blanking or whatever the right term is? Chyx1095 (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm maybe, but I believe the argument is valid. I don't know how long that content had stood, and that's not really interesting to me. I came to the article because I saw on Recent changes that someone had removed a bunch of content, so I checked that edit, then looked at the article and got to work. I'm not going to make it my life's mission to remove every link dump on Wikipedia: life is too short for that, and it's not fun. I just made this edit, and the place is full of articles with those silly flags used incorrectly (according to the MOS), but I'm not about to go through all boxing articles. But here is another thing that I think matters. For those flags, they are a distraction to the reader, and that's why the MOS has a section on it. These video links, that long table, they not only inflate the article, but they also distract from the other, relevant material. We're here for the reader--the reader does not really need such a list because we have Google, with a "Videos" tab. What we need is properly verified material that isn't otherwise accessible, as readable, properly verified prose. Does that make sense? I think about our mission, and about the reader. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- "What we need is properly verified material that isn't otherwise accessible, as readable, properly verified prose." Yes thank you, this is very well put and I understand better now. But once again, shouldn't such removal of a big chunk of content (in fact two sections - Artistry and Videography) require consensus? Based on my observations (at least on K-pop articles), such big removals have some sort of discussion or consensus before they're actually removed, regardless whether the editor believes it's valid or not. Chyx1095 (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm maybe, but I believe the argument is valid. I don't know how long that content had stood, and that's not really interesting to me. I came to the article because I saw on Recent changes that someone had removed a bunch of content, so I checked that edit, then looked at the article and got to work. I'm not going to make it my life's mission to remove every link dump on Wikipedia: life is too short for that, and it's not fun. I just made this edit, and the place is full of articles with those silly flags used incorrectly (according to the MOS), but I'm not about to go through all boxing articles. But here is another thing that I think matters. For those flags, they are a distraction to the reader, and that's why the MOS has a section on it. These video links, that long table, they not only inflate the article, but they also distract from the other, relevant material. We're here for the reader--the reader does not really need such a list because we have Google, with a "Videos" tab. What we need is properly verified material that isn't otherwise accessible, as readable, properly verified prose. Does that make sense? I think about our mission, and about the reader. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Drmies, I understand where you're coming from. I said "suddenly" because the whole entire section that was there for months was simply deleted without any discussion or consensus, or without any notice that the references should be replaced with reliable secondary sources. I agree with your point that a list of YouTube links shouldn't stand and with Paper9oll's comment (about the backdoor), but is it really alright to blank the entire section on that basis with just a short summary, when lists of music videos are present for most other K-pop artists and groups? If someone else like a new user or an IP user with little edit count does it, wouldn't it be immediately reverted for vandalism/blanking or whatever the right term is? Chyx1095 (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know about "suddenly", Chyx1095--I don't keep a calendar of when to look at what article. Sure albums really need secondary sourcing as well (like books in articles for academics), but the idea is that albums (and books) are of a magnitude that one can assume that they themselves are worth mentioning, unlike smaller things like a video or an article or a poem. Because when you list everything that someone is associated with or has been released, you're writing resumes and you're simply compiling lists, and Paper9oll's comment (about the backdoor) is really valid here. When I write articles I will not include things like books or albums or whatever that I cannot give proper (secondary) sourcing for, but that's not something that I am going to remove in an article like this. But a list of, essentially, YouTube links, yes I do NOT believe that should stand. And again--in K-pop we see a constant pushing of those boundaries; some K-pop artist articles now list every single song that the artist has a writing credit for (or co-writing--easily done), which offers yet another avenue for adding yet another list of items. We surely don't do that in most articles, and by the same token we don't list all the videos in regular biographies on musical artists. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Drmies I admit I'm not well-versed in all the WP policies/guidelines and definitely not as experienced, but I do understand the need for secondary sourcing. My point here isn't about the links there, but the list of music videos which are present for most, if not all, K-pop artists and definitely not something I think relevant. I'm just confused as to why only Bibi's suddenly got removed. By extension, if secondary sourcing is required, shouldn't a lot of her Discography which do not have any citations essentially be removed as well? Chyx1095 (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)