Talk:Francis Marrash

OVERLINKS REmoved
WP:OVERLINKING is part of the linking guideline. It states
 * Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are not usually linked:
 * Everyday words understood by most readers in context
 * The names of major geographic features, locations (e.g. United States, London, New York City, France, Berlin...), languages, nationalities (e.g. English, British, American, French, German...) and religions (e.g. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism...)
 * Common occupations

It is not clear to me how it is particularly relevant to the context in the article to link Syria, which did not exist at the time of this subject, France or Middle East. They are clearly major geographic features and locations. So please explain how linking those terms helps me to understand Marrash. And do ping me since I am not watching this article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Addition of non-notable works
Since this page continues to see some of the novice editors who don't actually know what they are doing, I would like to ping some of the experienced editors who have edited this page before such as and the FA reviewers  and  to see if this kind of list cruft failing WP:NLIST is warranted on the article since Wikipedia is not a WP:CATALOGUE. I am also critical of the fact that this poorly written article is still FA. --Yoonadue (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yoonadue, if you're concerned about the article's compliance with the FA criteria, I'd suggest following the process outlined at FAR. For that process you'll want to elaborate on your concerns. However, if your primary concern is just this list, that's best addressed via dispute resolution. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What Nikkimaria said. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Yoonadue, if you find mistakes in the way the list of notable works is constructed, then please let us know; highlight the mistakes so we can correct them. George Al-Shami (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I'm arriving late. It seems that there's a lot of good suggestions. If anons keep adding content in an less than constructive way, and if dispute resolution doesn't work (as it's not easy to get anons to talk, but should respond here and come to a constructive conclusion), you can always ask for page protection. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is much better to sort a dispute with a discussion. I found that the last deletion by Yoonadue was done with a strange justification as WP:NLIST redirects to "Lists of people". We do have lists of works at some feature articles (Mary Wollstonecraft) or links to separate bibliographies when they're longer (Charles Darwin). Do they qualify as "sales catalogues"? In any case there is a procedure to be followed if Yoonadue thinks the article does not deserve to be featured. Recruos (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean WP:LISTN. Only those items have to be listed that have their own Wikipedia page. You can't compare Charles_Darwin and Mary_Wollstonecraft because those sections have those items listed that have their own Wikipedia page. Also see WP:OSE and please don't use malformed justifications by using other pages as scapegoat. --Yoonadue (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yoonadue, I just went over your explanation, and it does not match what the first Wiki guideline you are citing proposes, in fact, the first guideline (WP:LISTN) mentions that the group has to decide whether a stand alone list is warranted based on the subject's notability. Clearly 3 editors have agreed that Francis Marrash is very notable. Moreover you maintain that the Francis Marrash article cannot be compared to the Mary Wollstonecraft article, because the latter article lists works that have their own Wiki page; that's not true, if you check the article you will see that the majority of listed works do not have their own wiki page. George Al-Shami (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Who is saying that Francis Marrash is not notable? Take a look at WP:CIR and stop misrepresenting sentences written in simple English. If problems exists with other page then go WP:FIXIT, but to claim that just because other articles in poor state and that is why this article also needs to remain in poor state then you are simply making a WP:POINT. --Yoonadue (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Earlier you said You can't compare Charles_Darwin#Works and Mary_Wollstonecraft#List of works because those sections have those items listed that have their own Wikipedia page; however I established that that's not the case, not all the listed works on the Mary Wollstonecraft article have their own wiki page. But then again in a circular fashion you argued that because of WP:OSE we shouldn't use bad examples to keep this list here, but earlier you admitted that's there's nothing wrong with Wollstonecraft article; so how does using the latter example, which you admitted meets the criteria of the Wiki guidelines amount to a contravention of WP:OSE? There is nothing wrong or in contravention of Wiki guidelines with the lists on the Edgar Allan Poe and Mary Wollstonecraft articles. The lists on those latter articles are definitely not catalogues and I'm sure that if you were to blank them as you did on this article, an editor would revert your edit quickly. Stop throwing around wiki guidelines and then when the guideline that you cite doesn't match your argument you change your tune and start throwing other guidelines. Stop accusing other editors of incompetence, your first edit on Wikipedia is listed in 2013, that's a couple of years after I started editing. I don't see any sincerity on your part in improving this article, your chief interest to me is to just to blank the section and throw out a wiki guideline that does not match your purported argument or POV and then you don't actually explain what the actual issue is, besides throwing around baseless wiki guidelines . Just tell us in a detailed manner what the actual problems are with the list so we could fix the list, that's all, please! George Al-Shami (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because you registered earlier it doesn't means you get the right to spew nonsensical content around or you automatically become more aware of policies. Given you are still not getting that Wikipedia is not a catalogue and only the items having their own pages should be listed, that's why it is fine to say that you have clear WP:CIR issues. Show a guideline which say we can dump non-notable items on a list? --Yoonadue (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been very patient with you, you behave in the same fashion like clockwork, 1) You don't want to explain in details, (you revert to the same Wiki guideline even though it was proven false) 2) You insult, 3) You throw other wiki guidelines (once the first one was disproven) that don't back up what you're saying 4) and then you refuse to come up with a solution. Good day, Yoonadue.George Al-Shami (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:LISTN does support what I am saying. It agrees that non-notable items must not be kept in lists or tables. Why are you still not getting it? If you want a compromise, then how about we revert the cataloge added by the IP here? We can restore an earlier version of the section without removing all of them. --Yoonadue (talk) 12:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How do you decide what's notable, they're all linked to Google books, so the reader can easily read each writing? George Al-Shami (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)