Talk:Ziheng Yang

Maintenance issues

 * 1) While topical notability is asserted in the text of the article, notability has not been established in accordance with the general notability guidelines. In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article to assert the subject's importance – the article itself must document notability through independent and reliable sources. At this point, the article is lacking in this area. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.
 * 2) hierarchical external links have been removed per WP:ELOFFICIAL; only link mainpage or top link, rather than succession of links on the same website.
 * 3) subscription external link has been removed per WP:ELREG. A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the website itself is the topic of the article or the link is part of an inline reference (see Citing sources).
 * Please feel free to contact me if you have questions. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  01:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well done Cindamuse. Regarding notability, Please explain how someone who has been elected to the Royal Society isn't notable. (perhaps you don't know what the Royal Society is.  In that case, you can read the article Royal Society.  Wikipedia is helpful like that.) Flying Fische (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Topical notability (i.e., Royal Society membership) is separate from general notability. As stated above, in order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. The article provides no documentation to verify the claim of notability.
 * Secondly, The Who's Who reference is crucial. I don't know about the "sourcing" issues, but it seems to be nonsense quite frankly like a lot of things around here (what happens if you want to cite a scientific paper that's behind a paywall - it isn't too much effort to either (1) trust editors know what they're talking about or (2) get up from your computer and go to a library and check it yourself).  btw, Who's Who is published in paper format and is often available at most general libraries in the UK.  In fact, in the UK, you can probably gain access to the online by using a library card that is obtainable free from a library. Flying Fische (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to use Who's Who, provide a proper source. The citation that you have provided does not verify article content. Please review WP:ELREG, which clearly states "A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the website itself is the topic of the article or the link is part of an inline reference." At this point, the Who's Who source is not used in accordance with these guidelines. Regards,  Cind. amuse  14:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Cindamuse, you are talking absolute rubbish. You cannot both (1) REMOVE PERFECTLY VALID SOURCES, and (2) add tags requiring that additional sources be added!  Similarly you cannot accuse me of "vandalism" while removing sources (i.e. vandalising the page) yourself!!!  Your nomination for deletion of Phyllida Barlow is another example of your contentious editing. Flying Fische (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

While inline references are preferred, to allow individual statements to be attributed to a particular source, it is not incorrect to have references in the article without inline citations. I don't understand why the references wrere moved to external links. Should the article expand significantly, the need for inline citations would increase, but since the article is only two sentences, the maintenance tag for inline citations is somewhat redundant. The 'citation needed' tags on every statement are also rather OTT and this is starting to look a little WP:POINTy. I should also point out that sources do not have to be available online to be valid. Who's Who also exists in printed form, and last time I checked, books were considered valid sources to cite. A little common sense please. And calm down everyone.--Michig (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please try to assume good faith. The inline "citation needed" tags were added because the original author requested specific direction in what the article needed. The tags were offered as guidance. According to WP:ELREG, a site that requires registration or a subscription, such as Who's Who, should not be linked unless the website itself is the topic of the article or the link is part of an inline reference. That said, I restored the source to the External links section, in compliance with the Manual of Style. The Reference section is generally used for citations, and as such, it may be inappropriate for the section to contain both external links and inline citations. When a link is offered in an article, outside of being presented as an inline citation, it is appropriately defined as an "External link" or "Further reading". As far as the printed version of Who's Who, of course it works. That said, the sourcing provided references the online version. Proper sourcing to include ISBN and page numbers would greatly benefit and verify this article. When using the link provided, the source fails verification. At this point, lacking proper citations, the article may likely be sent for deletion discussion. As stated above, in order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert importance on a talk page – the article itself must document notability through independent and reliable sources. At this point, the article is lacking in this area. My attempts to communicate with the original author in addressing these issues is offered in an attempt to establish notability, foregoing a deletion discussion. Honestly, I have no other agenda. Thanks for commenting.  Cind. amuse  13:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see such a request for direction, although it might have been a good idea. Please see REF which explains general references. We also have the template for cases where inline citations are a general issue with the article. Note also that WP:ELREG starts with the qualifier "outside of citations" and we're dealing with a citation here, albeit not an inline one.  The online version of Who's Who is commonly available to library users in the UK, and having just checked it, it confirms the date of birth and professorship, and lists 'FRS 2006' which I am inclined to believe supports the last statement. Citation as provided as part of the WW web page is: ‘YANG, Prof. Ziheng’, Who's Who 2011, A & C Black, 2011; online edn, Oxford University Press, Dec 2010 ; online edn, Oct 2010 accessed 18 May 2011. I agree that citing a printed version with a page number would be preferable, but as he hasn't just become notable, I feel sure that he will have been included in recent print issues, and the citation of the online version is verifiable, at least by some other editors. The other web page used in the article doesn't appear to confirm any further facts and the R.A. Fisher Chair needs sourcing - this should suffice. User:Flying Fische needs to start taking the comments of others on board and reacting less angrily as they're not doing themselves any favours with their behaviour, but it might also help if a few more people would help them to get it right.--Michig (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the work on the article. The request, or rather demand for direction was made in edit summaries and talk pages of several articles written by User:Flying Fische. S/he has established a consistent record of removing CSD tags, AFD tags, PRODs, and maintenance templates followed by lashing out at other editors. Of course, I am aware of the template, which I placed, was deemed insufficient by User:Flying Fische, and you just now removed after adding inline refs. FF did not understand what needed to be addressed and in response, I added inline citation notices to provide some guidance. A review of my editing history clearly reveals that I have been attempting to communicate and reach out to FF, to no avail. I have edited and sourced articles s/he has written, which have saved articles from deletion. And yet, I am still the enemy. I agree that "it might also help if a few more people would help them to get it right." That said, there is a track record that makes me believe that there are limits in the ability to accept, receive, and learn from others. I appreciate the work you did on the article and the attempt to reason. Now, do you feel like cleaning up and sourcing some more of FFs articles? Honestly, I'm just spent and over it already. I must be an idiot to spend so much time helping this editor with their articles, only to receive personal attack upon personal attack and then literally called an idiot. And then in the end, have my actions questioned by another editor walking in late to the party. My time is better spent elsewhere. Sincere regards,  Cind.  amuse  19:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * wrongful prod, no before; wrongful notability tag, FRS = notability. i find the badgering of the creator of this article most distasteful. it might be helpful to have a lesson, before instructing the student. Slowking4 : 7@1|x 19:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Ziheng Yang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120425082905/http://www.darwin200.cn/bio/Yang_ZH.html to http://www.darwin200.cn/bio/Yang_ZH.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)