User talk:George Ho/Mentorship discussions/archive/2012/02

(Resolved) - The Walter Gropius Archive
Do I have to either discuss first or tag this article with PROD? --George Ho (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Why? It seems like a stub that someone can reference and flesh out properly. But even if it did turn out there was not enough to justify a separate article, why delete instead of suggesting a merge of the content to Walter Gropius? Mr Gropius seems notable enough, and his article links to this stub. Here is the book link: . One of the book "authors" is Busch-Reisinger Museum, one is Winfried Nerdinger and one is John C. Harkness. I don't know anything about architecture, but I have heard of Bauhaus, and Mr Gropius is noted there as its founder. I would have thought a "a set of books chronicling the entire career" might be worthy of note. Begoon &thinsp; talk  02:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I was adding some external links, and looking for a good reference to add, then got an edit conflict, since you had redirected it. My answer said it was a good stub, that needed fleshing out and I was attempting to add content when you did that. I said "instead of suggesting a merge" for that reason. If you suggest a merge, people who think it's worth keeping may improve it. Begoon &thinsp; talk  02:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Isn't that move controversial to you? I don't know what the topic is about, but why is it worth it? By the way, I added the title as a mere source in Further reading. --George Ho (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That was my point, George. Until you posted your question, I'd never heard of this guy. I decided to find out a bit, and it turns out he is a leading figure in something I knew only a tiny bit about. I had heard of Bauhaus, but didn't know the details. Now I know something I didn't know this morning, and that's what encyclopedias are for.
 * Let me turn your question around:
 * If you don't know what the topic is about, how do you know enough to suggest deletion or merge?
 * The kind of merge you did removes from view all the info in that stub, about author, location etc.
 * Finally - how does what you did there make wikipedia better? (that's a genuine question - I want to know what you think) Begoon &thinsp; talk  03:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that Gropius's article says he "is widely regarded as one of the pioneering masters of modern architecture." Do you think that makes this book notable? Begoon &thinsp; talk  03:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think this book is notable, then there should be independent and third-party sources that cover it. That statement you gave me doesn't prove anything other than notability of himself Gropius. --George Ho (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I thought it was notable enough for an article. I asked you what you thought, based on the information. Begoon &thinsp; talk  03:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Found none about this book in Google News. I believe: this topic should be independent of the book's subject, Walter Gropius. As for the question, I have to follow the "notability" rules and good senses, can't I? Even when I don't know, I still have to search it to determine notability; as mentioned previously, I found no news about it, including reviews. Still don't know about Google Books; I don't think unaffiliated books cover it, do they? Even though many sources use it as a citation, this still doesn't warrant a stand-alone article. --George Ho (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Does it satisfy Notability_(books)? Begoon &thinsp; talk 03:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This book doesn't apply to many criteria there. Unsure about "Academic and technical books". --George Ho (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok - in fact, I don't know. That's my considered answer. There seems to be an actual archive at Harvard, and this book seems to be published in conjunction with the museum. Probably, the merge is fine. It doesn't seem to be a major work. I think I'd still have gone to a noticeboard to check, just because I don't do many deletions like that. The main point of asking all the questions was I wanted to see why you thought you'd like to "PROD" the article, and what else you had considered. Begoon &thinsp; talk 04:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * prod-nn. --George Ho (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Just this concerns me "Publication by a prominent academic press should be accorded far more weight than the analogous benchmark defined for publication of mainstream book by well known commercial publishers, by virtue of the non-commercial nature of such presses, and the peer review process that some academic books must pass before publication is allowed to go forward. See university book publishers for a partial list of such presses. Note that because a large portion of (en.)Wikipedia articles are written by English speaking people from English speaking nations, this list currently has an English speaking bias." but although one of the authors is listed as Busch-Reisinger Museum, which is a University museum: Harvard Art Museums, I don't see the publisher in the list, so probably not a concern. Begoon &thinsp; talk 04:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

(Resolved) - Sam and Diane nominated for deletion
This article is nominated for deletion. Mentors, please join in Articles for deletion/Sam and Diane for discussion. --George Ho (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not ignoring this, but I won't comment at the AFD yet, because I don't have an educated enough view of the nominator's reasoning, yet. I'll have to do some research. The article itself looks good, and well written and referenced. There's a couple of little copyeditings for phrasing could be done. The whole area of how to cover fictional charaters etc, is not something I've looked into in depth, so I'll need to do some reading before I comment. If you want to point me at a policy or guideline, that would help, but I can find it myself too :-) Begoon &thinsp; talk  04:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Check WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:FANCRUFT (essay), WP:COMMONSENSE (essay). --George Ho (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I shall do exactly that. Thanks for the reading, George. May take me a little while, but the AFD has 6 days to run. Begoon &thinsp; talk  04:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * One more request. Apart from Relationship of Clark Kent and Lois Lane and Luke and Laura, which you cite in the discussion, are there any other articles focussing on a relationship in a TV series like this one does, that you know of? I'd just like something to compare to. Begoon &thinsp; talk  05:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that this is the first non-soap TV couple that I wrote about and that is written in Wikipedia. They are soap couples, but they're worth something: Luke and Laura, EJ DiMera and Sami Brady, and Patrick Drake and Robin Scorpio, Dimitri Marick and Erica Kane. I have created a Project proposal: WikiProject Council/Proposals/Fictional couples. --George Ho (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. I copyedited the lead a bit, hope you don't mind. I'll comment at the AFD when I've done a bit more reading, but I wouldn't vote to delete this at the moment. I have no personal problem with an article like this, in fact I quite enjoyed reading it - what the TV editing enthusiasts think may be another matter. I guess we'll find out. I'm not sure how much interest you'll get for the project - the focus seems a little narrow to me, but it's not my area, so let's see... Begoon &thinsp; talk  07:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

(Resolved) - Cara Castillo
I don't know whether to discuss or nominate AFD. However, if I nominate, then they see it as my plan to get rid of soap articles; however, I don't see List of All My Children characters as stable enough to survive, unless otherwise. I just... Here goes my proposal: "This topic doesn't meet WP:GNG, and it violates WP:PLOT. However, Casanova88 contested it. I tried finding this topic in search engines; no real-world coverages, besides casting, were found, such as reception. I don't treat fiction as if it were mere fiction; this article needs something resembling Sam and Diane and Luke and Laura. Merging into articles such as List of All My Children characters won't help me change my views; in fact, "List of..." appears fatally flawed to me, unless someone says it's not "fatal"." --George Ho (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm going to respond right below that, because there's something I think it's important to say here. George, in the statement above, you acknowledge that you don't like "List of" articles. There's nothing wrong with that opinion, but nominating individual articles because you don't like that type of article is dangerous. People will think you are on a crusade, and will get upset.
 * If you don't like a type of article, discuss that with the project as a whole. If they think you are trying to "pick off" articles, there will be friction.
 * Your statement sounds like you want to delete, but are struggling to explain why.
 * If you can see what is needed to "fix" an article, as you seem to say here, then it would be better to suggest and help with the changes than xFD. If that's not what you're saying then your statement needs work to be clearer.
 * I've looked quickly at a few of the articles in Category:Lists of actors by soap opera television series, by the way, and I don't like the articles in there much, either - there are many ways they could be improved. That's a personal opinion. Begoon &thinsp; talk  04:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute... not you too? Must I "discuss and edit" simultaneously? If I must ignore one rule per WP:IAR, then must I use WP:COMMONSENSE? To be honest, I am too ashamed to repress my senses and then used my brain to obey rules. List of characters is very messy, but so is List of The Price Is Right pricing games. Nevertheless, will readers learn about characters whose show is already cancelled? Will readers learn about storylines whose show is already cancelled? I don't want to learn about these characters, unless... they are mostly talked, such as Erica Kane. If List of... is a directory, then do they violate WP:NOT? --George Ho (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry George. I'm not trying to pile on. I'm trying to help explain why the friction is occurring. I have no position on the articles, or whether they should be deleted, because I'm not involved. I said "suggest and help" - not "edit". Begoon &thinsp; talk  05:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "will readers learn about characters whose show is already cancelled? Will readers learn about storylines whose show is already cancelled?". I can sort of answer that, in a way, though. I like science fiction, rather than soaps, but there are lots of cancelled sci-fi shows where I might find that information useful. Begoon &thinsp; talk  06:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have started discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas. I'm running out of points to delete one article because I don't make convincing points anymore and many people say "keep" and favor for their votes. I'm bright but pretentious, as I must admit. I don't agree with points that I might consider weak, yet "weak" ones are considered strong. Someone said my points were weak (see WP:Articles for deletion/Sierra Esteban). --George Ho (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * At WP:Articles for deletion/Sierra Esteban I don't find your arguments weak or strong, particularly. You are giving an opinion and I understand the opinion. I don't get excited enough about that kind of discussion. Looks like an AFD for an article on the edge of notability - could have gone either way, or redirect. I don't know which of those is correct, but I'd look to the SOAP project for precedent if I wanted to go any further. Then if I disagreed, I'd discuss it there. Begoon &thinsp; talk  06:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Another passing thought. The folks at the Soap project are very lively and active, and they love their soaps from what I can see. So even when you are right there will always be some people who disagree. If you are going to xFD articles in a particular area, you have to expect that, and have good arguments. I know you know this already, but it passed through my head, so I typed it. Begoon &thinsp; talk  06:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

With Casanova88

 * You tend to nominate large amounts of articles for deletion. I merely contested it to encourage discussion.Casanova88 (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ...What's the use here? I'm not sure why this article exists, and I'm not sure why my tendency to delete articles, regardless of level of reason (weak or strong), is relevent. If you are so sure my tendency is relevant, then answer: how are my reasonings for deletion? --George Ho (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You should discuss your views on the talk page first. Your view may not be the view of another editor and before you call for deletions. Discuss and edit first because no matter what the article including entertainment, literary, science, mathematic, etc., every article has the ability to be improved before it is deleted on a necessary basis. Every soap character has been covered to some extent.Casanova88 (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Edit"? Do I have to edit? What about "Discuss" only without AFD? --George Ho (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You should edit to develop a more suitable article before deleting. Discuss in talk page without AFD/deletion tags. Casanova88 (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All right, if you want me to edit substantially, then answer this: how is the "Sam and Diane" article? And does "List of All My Children miscellaneous characters" deserve to be deleted, regardless of copyright violations? --George Ho (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That All My Children article you mentioned is already deleted. You must mean List of All My Children characters. No that article must not be deleted otherwise if you call for that, it proves your intent to delete all soap opera articles, if most it solidifies it. Discuss the talk page and call for inquiries. Sam and Diane, I have no opinion because I do not edit articles like that. Casanova88 (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't mean the one without "miscellaneous"; other one you mentioned... does it need citations? Does the "miscellaneous" article deserve to be undeleted? By the way, proofread "Sam and Diane", don't edit yet, and tell me your opinion when you've read all content. --George Ho (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Answer this: How Cara Castillo meets WP:GNG, and why do you think so? You're a soap fan, and you are yet to be a WikiProject member. --George Ho (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

George Ho - comments and observations
Please add your comments below:

Other editors/mentors - comments and observations
Please add your comments below:
 * Comment I feel that the process has worked well so far, assisting George to get back to editing. Several issues have been successfully addressed, and a few problems have been avoided. There are still a few "hiccups", but after only a month, the progress is very good indeed. I'm encouraged that George has said in the section above that he feels the process is working for him, and I'm interested to see if there are any specific areas he's happy/unhappy with, or would like to discuss more, when he comments in this review. Begoon &thinsp; talk  05:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions/comments on the mentorship process going forward
Please add your comments below:
 * Article tagging It would be good if we could help George with some simple guidelines for article tagging, to hopefully avoid the occasions this causes friction, as much as possible. I would do this, but I'm not completely "neutral" in my tagging views, and I don't want my bias to slant it, so I'd appreciate input from others on that, if possible. Begoon &thinsp; talk  05:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * xFD For the moment, any xFD nomination statements will be discussed at this page before listing. Begoon &thinsp; talk  00:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

(Resolved) - Clark and Lois / Lois and Clark
I'll get some links if wanted, but anyway the seeming POV pushing, and the many multiple venues at XfD, WikiProjects, and so on, is really becoming concerning. - jc37 17:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

George, I've been asking you to discuss controversial actions before going ahead, and it's great you are doing that. We need to talk about this aspect, though. I had a quick look at this, and rather than try to say it all again, I'm going to ask you to read this comment from the xFD discussion.

Do you understand what Dennis is trying to say there? Begoon &thinsp; talk 03:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * To summarize, simultaneous discussions may not be the best way to be civil? I did my best, but I went impatient, according to Dennis. Next time, I must discuss a topic at only one action before another; or, I must wait for one discussion until the results, so I can go another. --George Ho (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah - that's almost all of it. There's another important point, though. It's not really that simultaneous discussions are uncivil, it's that it can look as though you are asking in many places until you get the answer you want, and people will call that forum shopping.
 * It's not just a question of waiting, before starting another discussion, either - there's the need to understand the discussion and any objections properly. Sometimes the time to drop an idea is early, because you realise it's not going to get support.
 * That means you won't always get your way. I don't always get my way, either. That's collaborative editing. Begoon &thinsp; talk  04:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

(Resolved) - Woody Boyd and Coach Ernie Pantusso
Should I either propose a merger, be bold, or just leave both alone? I don't think "Coach" person could have a stand-alone article any longer; in fact, that would best be merged into Woody Boyd. Both can or cannot be notable, but first I must find real-world coverages to prove their notabilities. Current entries aren't helpful at all. --George Ho (talk) 07:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think you mean you'd consider merging Coach Ernie Pantusso to Woody Boyd?
 * Anyway, I actually like the way you can open up a page on each Cheers main character from the main article cast table - it's very user friendly. The articles you list here certainly need some referencing, and I suppose, if no RS really exist that show the "Coach" character is notable, then that would be a problem, but I think I'd be surprised. I don't have a problem with these pages existing, but others may disagree. Begoon &thinsp; talk  08:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * From WP:N: A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. --George Ho (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that, George, I've read it a few times :-) This, if you'll forgive me, is one of the problems. You don't always have to convince everybody you are "right". I gave you my opinion, and you decided to paste a notability guideline as a reply. That's not really discussion, is it? Reasonable people can have different opinions.
 * It's quite clear that the articles are the kind on which opinions will differ. I'm sure some people will agree with a merge or even deletion. You're having an "argument" with me that you don't need to have. All I've given you is the opinion you asked for.
 * I haven't said you can't nominate them - if you want to put a nomination statement in a new section then we can look at it. Begoon &thinsp; talk  12:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

References for Coach: You can analyze them, but I don't think they guarantee a stand-alone article for Coach. --George Ho (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Schenectady Gazette - Aug 4, 1984
 * Articles about Nicholas Colasanto's death in Google News
 * Rome News-Tribune - Sep 4, 1987
 * The Prescott Courier - Nov 9, 1990
 * The Free Lance-Star - Jun 24, 1991
 * Sarasota Herald-Tribune - May 20, 1993
 * "Hit Series' Producers Must Scramble to Fill A Dead Actor's Role"
 * More after 1993


 * Found one more article: from Moviefone.com
 * 20th century results
 * 21st century results
 * Obviously, there are more references of Woody Boyd than of Coach. I'll get into that later. --George Ho (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * George, that's great. But we are not holding the AFD here. This is a mentorship page, so we can't get into pages of content discussion. I'm closing this as resolved. If you want to put an xFD in for either of these, put your nomination statement in a new section as we decided above. Begoon &thinsp; talk  13:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I will add this, though, now I've looked. In general, I'd agree that the "Coach" article might be a candidate to merge. Not with Woody, though, into Cheers or a character subpage like List of characters. The reason I don't like that is that it spoils the "main cast" table links a bit, although you could still link to a subsection within the main page, if you merged it that way.
 * I would definitely ask for feedback from TV editors on this one before doing anything - but a general discussion about how "all" the Cheers character pages should be handled might be more useful to start with, rather than just looking at one particular delete/merge. However, as I said to start with, I quite like the way it works now, so there's no great need for this that I can see. That's my opinion, by the way :-) Begoon &thinsp; talk  10:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * George, I'm also hoping I didn't confuse you here. My first reply was "I don't think you mean you'd consider merging Coach Ernie Pantusso to Woody Boyd?" - which meant that I thought you didn't really mean that. I was surprised when you proposed it. I hope I haven't confused you. Everything I have said after that first line has assumed you meant to merge it to the main article/list. Begoon &thinsp; talk  10:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(Resolved) - Frasier Crane
This article is full of intricate details; some sections I have done with sources, rest restored without reason by Netflixsoup. I don't know if I want to report this in WP:COIN, but I have done RFC in talk page. Nevertheless, I still don't know why fictional detail not covered by real world is relevant to this topic. --George Ho (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think what you have done by opening that discussion is ok. This will need to be sorted out there. There's no rush, though, as always. A bit of thought is always good. I'll give you some opinions for what they might be worth.
 * There is an excess of overly intricate detail in some places.
 * That doesn't mean you need to remove the content, just some of the excessive detail.
 * Saying an article about Frasier should not mention that he was married to Lilith is an example of going too far with this line of thinking. If you don't have basic details like that, the article will be incomplete. You mentioned WP:COMMONSENSE in a recent section here.
 * Overall, I'd say it's an OK article, but some judicious trimming of excess detail would be good.
 * I don't understand this sentence: "Now my head is spinning due to possibility that no one wants to watch Frasier the series, and I won't know which is relevant or irrelevant in terms of real-world perspective". I think you may be getting a bit too "literal" with rules here, but I'm not sure because I don't fully follow your statement.
 * I'm not sure why you are talking about WP:COIN above - if you just mean the username Netflixsoup, he has an explanation for that on his userpage, but I haven't looked at any more details than that.
 * If you like, I'll copy some or all of the above to the discussion - but only if it helps, otherwise I'll let you hash it out there. Begoon &thinsp; talk  03:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, those "intricate details" that made my head spinning may be useful for those who don't want to see one of three crappy yet popular NBC shows of the 1990s, Frasier, but would it be against overly detailed and all plot? After all, all post-1989 shows by Paramount are copyrighted, and any derivative summaries of copyrighted material may affect Paramount's profits, may it not? As for Frasier's marriage with Lilith... I'm not sure how relevant to the real-world, but at least I found one from Google Books. However, there is not much coverage of Frasier and Lilith as Sam and Diane, and I would add his marriage with Lilith back if there are sources. It doesn't matter if his marriage with Lilith is basic; in fact, disclaimers (i.e. spoiler warnings) of fiction are forbidden yet shouldn't have. --George Ho (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * With respect, George, the Lilith thing is nonsense. You cannot write an article about the fictional character Frasier and not mention Lilith. The depth of coverage can be slight, if you can't find many sources, but you can't just leave a fact like that out. I didn't watch very much Cheers, but I certainly remember she was a part of many episodes, regularly referred to in dialogue, with many appearances, and an important factor in any article dealing with this fictional character.
 * As for the rest of your comment, well, I don't know if the spinoff Frasier is 'crappy' - only saw a few. An opinion of 'crappy' doesn't mean un-notable, though - there would be a lot of worried articles if it did. What you have said is far too general and unclear for me to agree or disagree, so I'll summarise what I think again for you:
 * There are some details that are excessive. Detail could be trimmed a bit.
 * You shouldn't remove content if you are trimming detail. Trim the details.
 * Don't be too literal interpreting rules. Use common sense too.
 * If you think there's a copyright issue, investigate it. If it's a valid concern, see if you can change the content to not infringe copyright.
 * That's all the "general" opinions I've got, really. I'll put a brief comment on the discussion, which is where content discussion should continue. Thanks. Begoon &thinsp; talk  04:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * (de-dent) just to add a small comment. An admin that I have respected, and who was involved in the fiction discussions back before I even started on Wikipedia always said the line is: compare it to the sandwich the character ate that day.
 * So in the example above, having a girlfriend or wife is probably more relevant to the character, and should be noted. Unless the character is a one night stand kind of character, and has a different girl every day. Then probably not so much.
 * So is it the mundane day to day? Or is it info that the reader of the encyclopedia would be interested in reading about? Never forget that we, as encyclopedists, should always look more at this from the point of view of our readers, and less from our own.
 * Hope this helps. - jc37 07:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if relevant to the character, is marriage to Lilith worth reading for readers? If so, there should be coverages from third-party sources. --George Ho (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC) I mean... sure, Frasier and Lilith were an item, but I must find receptions and analysis of them first. --George Ho (talk) 07:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I like the sandwich analogy :-)
 * George, if it helps you, I've now asked 5 random "readers" in my household, all of whom have said "No, you couldn't omit a mention of Lilith, that would be silly" or something similar. Obviously that's just a silly bit of personal research, but it's kinda relevant. As Jc37 says, remember the reader. Begoon &thinsp; talk  08:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's try something else
Let's try something else. You have to use imagination a bit here.

Imagine you were editing the article Ruby and that you noticed there was no source for the fact that rubies are red. Imagine you then searched for days and couldn't find a source. Nobody can help you find one. You know rubies are red. There is no reliable source. What will you do? Begoon &thinsp; talk 07:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Use primary source with no original research? Primary source is the ruby itself. Otherwise, remove the unsource statement. Unfortunately, MLA or other formats could not even cite rubies very well. Even if the ruby is "red", need sources; Wikipedia should create citation templates that cite rubies. If I say that ruby is red, would that be "original research"? --George Ho (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You haven't got a ruby, nor access to one.

George - it's verifiable. That's the point. The fact that you haven't been able to verify it is a shame, but you know it's verifiable. So you leave it in. If you can find a source later, great. If anyone wants to challenge it they can, but they'll need to argue with all the people like you and me who know rubies are red. It might not be the best example, but I hope you see my point? Begoon &thinsp; talk 08:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't know that I could verify sources. Moreover, I did not read the Color section, to be honest. If there were no Color section and inline references, the "red" thing would have been removable, to be honest, unless an expert or someone interested would research ruby's color. --George Ho (talk) 09:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I need to note here - you're not doing this exercise right. Forget the article and the color section. I said imagine. So imagine that red is unsourced in our imaginary article. Begoon &thinsp; talk  09:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In an imaginary article, I would discuss first in an imaginary talk page, and then wait. If I can no longer wait, then I must go to a WikiProject page that this article meets within a scope and then discuss there. As for verification and verifying, I would wait for others to edit, as I would be less interested on rubies; otherwise, if I'm told to find a source myself, and I could not find one, then I don't know what else if I must discuss first before AFD nomination. Without AFD, there's nothing else I can do without causing ruckus among readers. If I leave the imaginary article alone without tagging it, then gullible readers may believe in unsourced statements, unless they can find sources themselves, or something. Then I may end up deeming Wikipedia as less reliable anymore, and I'll be back to my boring life without Wikipedia . --George Ho (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to give up on this exercise for now - think about it for a couple of days. The point of the exercise is to imagine you know the information is correct, yet can't find a source. The exercise isn't working because you aren't imagining that. If you know it's correct you're offering no risk to gullible readers at all. The information is correct. Don't waste any more time on it if you can't follow it. I thought it would be an easy way to make the point. The post below explains the point.  Begoon &thinsp; talk  10:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No. You don't understand yet. You do not remove facts that you know to be true because you cannot find a source. You can them, but I'd only personally do that if I thought it was a fact anyone would ever challenge (I don't like too many tags, remember :-)). You can remove true facts for other reasons, relevance, weight, POV, controversial BLP stuff - all those lovely things, but not because you can't source it yourself. Facts need to be verifiable - not verified. Can you understand that difference?  Begoon &thinsp; talk  09:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In other words, Jeremy Brett's sexuality is verifiable, correct? If he were bisexual, his sexuality verifies what? His life? His divorce from Anna Massey? A biography of him? A biography of Anna Massey?
 * George Maharis is "gay" according to blogs, but his concealing sexuality from the public and the fact of abandoned biography of him verify meeting WP:BLP policies, respect for his privacy, and I don't know... the need to remove unreliable sources and poorly-sourced statements because he has not come out yet?
 * Male child actors of Step by Step (TV series) &mdash; Josh Byrne, Brandon Call, and Christopher Castile &mdash; have not been officially reported since the end of the show in ABC and CBS. I have added images of them to verify their inactivities since Step by Step. Would these non-free images verify obedience or infringement of WP:NFCC?
 * Now I'm still thinking about that imaginary article. Facts verifying anything? In essays, common knowledge doesn't need citation, does it? In encyclopedias, I don't know. --George Ho (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * er... 1. I don't know, you don't know - we rely on sources. 2. the same 3. no idea how that's relevant, but probably the same, anyway.
 * What I'm talking about is things you know:
 * Germany is in Europe.
 * A cat is a four-legged animal.
 * You would not remove any of these statements from an article just because they were uncited. That doesn't stop you from adding citations if you feel the need. Begoon &thinsp; talk  11:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A cat as a four-legged animal is not as challenging as Germany in Europe. However, I don't know how smart a reader is. Sadly, some uneducated people don't know where Germany is; is it more challenging than the four-legged cat? Nevertheless, just one image of a cat verifies enough an amount of legs without need to cite; an atlas image should verify the location of Germany. Not knowing how many legs cats have... not knowing where Europe is... --George Ho (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol. Ok. It doesn't matter how smart the reader is. It matters if you know the content is correct. If it is, the dumb reader is at no risk. Anyway, this is now going nowhere, so I think we should call it a day. You understand, I'm sure, but you seem to want it to be more complicated than it is. It isn't. I'm offline till tomorrow - enjoy your day. Begoon &thinsp; talk  12:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Begoon &thinsp; talk 11:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And, because you like your thoughts to be grounded in policy, read this, from WP:V, particularly the second sentence - "It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged."
 * So three articles I mentioned are challenging, right? Depiction of cat and Germany do not need verifications, right; just one image is enough? --George Ho (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say challenging, just things we don't know. I haven't talked about pictures at all, anywhere. If you're still talking about your number (3), I don't know - but it's really off topic here. You know those NFCC rules better than I do, so I'm sure you can sort that out in the right place. Begoon &thinsp; talk  12:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Verifiable - just about any editor on the planet could verify that cats have four legs, so it is unlikely that anyone would ask you to verify that statement with a citation to a source.
 * Verification challenge - if you put in an article "cats were domesticated by the Ancient Egyptians", someone could reasonably want a citation to prove that, and could use a tag to alert readers of the article to the need for verification. But there's no need for them to remove the information from the article - it should be sourceable, and eventually I will come along with my copy of The cat in ancient egypt, by Jaromir Malek (British Museum Press) and provide an impeccable reference.
 * Unverifiable and removable information - as you say, this includes rumours that would be BLP violations. It can include information with no source that you can find that seems very likely to be wrong - "scientists believe that cats once came with only three legs" seems very unlikely to be right, "Paris is the capital of England" is obviously wrong. In both cases, removing the uncited material is reasonable.


 * To answer your questions:-
 * A reference supports the thing it says, so a reference that says he was bisexual supports that, one that says he was married supports that, one that says his wife says he had an affair supports that. In the case of Jeremy Brett, the author of a large part of the article clearly has a copy of Brett's biography (the book in the general reference), and that will be one source for a lot of the article content, as it will say he was bisexual, married, divorced, bipolar etc. The author of the article has also added extra citations for some facts.
 * You are quite right here - blogs and rumours cannot be considered reliable sources. The most one could say is that if a reliable source refers to the rumours - say if the Washington Post interviewed Maheris and referred to the rumours, and he replied that it was none of their business - you could say "there have been rumours" and use the Washington Post as a source.
 * Here, the confusion is just the way you phrased it. You have three child actors that dropped out of acting at the end of the show, and haven't worked in showbiz since.  The articles don't state that they gave up acting to do something else - if they did, you would need to verify that by finding a source that said for example "Child star Josh Byrne is running for president"  Your photographs don't verify that they haven't continued an acting career. But, the fact that they haven't continued an acting career means that it's within NFCC to use a non-free photograph of them at the time they were a child actor. If John Byrne really were running for elected office, you would want to say that in the article and use a current free photo (which someone could surely get if he was a politician), although you could still use the photo of him as a child actor, as that's what he looked like when he had that career.

Does this make sense? Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In other words, (Verifiable... or not?) Brett is inactive since 1995; (verification challenge) Brett died in 1995 and is currently deceased; (unverifiable and removable information) Brett is currently a zombie.
 * (Verifiable) Maharis appeared in Route 66; (verification challenge) Maharis appeared in Playgirl magazine; (unverifiable and removable) Maharis was arrested for lewd misconduct, although sources confirm that.
 * (Verifiable) Male child actors appeared in Step by Step. (challenge) They are inactive, although I removed "retired" statements because no sources confirm their retirement; therefore, the only source to confirm an inactivity without mentioning inactivity or retirement are their last appearances. (unverifiable and removable) They currently have their own jobs after acting.
 * I removed MySpace link of Josh Byrne because I could not find an acting resume there. I removed personal details because their privacies are inaccessible, and I removed Castile's current occupation because I could not find a reliable source to verify it.
 * So the photos don't verify the unmentioned inactivities; that's the other way around, correct?
 * As for the cat thing, thanks for the verifiable, verification challenge, and unverifiable and removable information.
 * Have I made any sense above? --George Ho (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have, and I wish I had explained it as well as Elen did - thanks Elen. Generally, yes, a picture is used to illustrate and add understanding rather than as actual verification. What you've written above shows that you understand the "verifiable" point now. I think it's an important thing to understand, and there are certainly more than a few editors who don't - so it was worth persevering. Sorry it took me so long to get there. Hopefully I learnt as much as you did, and I'll be better at explaining next time. Begoon &thinsp; talk  00:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, you've got it. Other than - the photo verifies how Josh Byrne looked as a child actor.  Thats the only thing it does verify.  If you want evidence that he left showbiz, you need a source that says so.  Now that source could be his own blog or website if you're sure it's him. This would be an example of where a blog would be acceptable - if you're sure it's him, you could use "I retired from showbiz in 1997 to work on my daddy's farm" as a source for "Byrne gave up his acting career in 1997 in order to work on the family farm".  It would also be a primary source, but primary sources like autobiographies are acceptable for biographical information.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

What is starting to strike me in this case is that I think George may not be aware of the acceptability of primary sources under certain circumstances (if obvious to the average perceiver), and how that relates to verifiability. (I don't have time now, but would be happy to expand on this later.) - jc37 01:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you get the chance, that would be good. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2012

Just for fun
Tell me what you think of this. It's a vote in an AFD for the article Earth.


 * Delete Appears to have been written entirely by the inhabitants themselves. Relies solely on self-published sources. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

? Begoon &thinsp; talk  11:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was this close to believing in everything, even the date that I almost forgot: April Fools' Days. Somehow, having an April Fools' Day stunt like this (Articles for deletion/Earth (2nd nomination)) wastes a lot of space. UTC almost fooled me; I just made research. --George Ho (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a joke vote from a joke AFD.
 * But it's not just a joke. If you apply our rules, by that rationale, the closer must delete. No choice.
 * That's why it's funny. It shows what happens if you apply rules too literally. Begoon &thinsp; talk  12:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why it's funny. It shows what happens if you apply rules too literally. Begoon &thinsp; talk  12:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

(Resolved) - File:Jeff Conaway ABC Taxi.jpg
This file is nominated for deletion. Please read WP:NFCC before discussion in. --George Ho (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You think that it's adding to the article to have a picture showing what he looked like at the time he was in the show? If that's what you think, I agree. So the problem comes down to whether the image is replaceable with a free one, and whether its inclusion is justified by the content it is supposed to enhance? Am I about right? Begoon &thinsp; talk  23:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly hope so, although nominator and voter do not agree. --George Ho (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe there's some value in Meco's comment? It's a delete vote, sure, but the rationale is worth thinking about. Begoon &thinsp; talk  00:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate "rationale is worth thinking about"? What am I missing in a rationale? --George Ho (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. I think it's probably ok now. Meco thinks it needs more commentary (referenced) specifically referring to why the way he looked was relevant and notable. I think that would be a good thing - the "sexy/bad boy/in-your-face appearance/style" aspect of his character would make the picture truly relevant and appropriate beyond much dispute. Again, that's my opinion. I'll vote there later, and something like that is probably what I'll say. Begoon &thinsp; talk  06:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The article was quite strongly stating the Studio point that he was fired for drug abuse. There is sourced commentary that at the time he was making noises about typecasting as a "blond bimbo" and wanting to leave anyway. It's from an obituary in the LA Times, when he passed away last year. What I added balances the coverage a bit, imo. Begoon &thinsp; talk  03:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

(Resolved) - Simon Frasier and Katie Peretti
Should I PROD this with prod-nn as "non-notable" or something else? I tried searching coverages from news and books; none significant are available. --George Ho (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have much to say about that article, except ugh... What I don't know is anything at all about the subject - so I can't tell you if it's notable or not worth trying to fix. I think you'd honestly be better off asking what the SOAP project thinks about whether trying to improve it is worthwhile or not. The Katie Snyder article seems to contain a lot of the same text, and it's very much "essay" like - did you check for it being a cut/paste from somewhere else? As I say, first I'd try to establish whether there was any point trying to tidy up the article. Begoon &thinsp; talk  03:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Katie Snyder" article is tagged for copyvio and ready for speedy deletion . --George Ho (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I found a bit of it at SoapCentral too, when I googled quickly. I wasn't sure if they scraped it from here or not - I didn't check that deeply and I'm not as familiar as you with the "Soapy" stuff.  Begoon &thinsp; talk  03:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's an image, so speedy deletion is out of question. --George Ho (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You lost me now. You aren't tagging a file, are you? I thought you were tagging the article. I probably just didn't understand. Begoon &thinsp; talk  04:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For a second, I did not check image page, although the image would help me remove the speedy proposal thing. Nevertheless, image page has no rationale, but The article is safe because I would complicate matters by making an image an orphan. --George Ho (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Now an image has rationale, so... whatever. --George Ho (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it just occurred to me that orphaning the image was your concern. Begoon &thinsp; talk  04:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Now back on topic. So, instead of immediately PRODding, discuss first? --George Ho (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it seemed to help, here, I think :-)
 * The only thing I'm still not sure of: read this. It says "Their character bios, like you just pointed out, may be mostly fan-updated." so that would still mean it's possible someone copied it from here. Only dates of specific text would answer that, I think. Begoon &thinsp; talk  04:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have e-mails from Soapcentral.com that anything exactly copied from Soapcentral.com shall be removed. I have done this before: I notified them about this plagiarism issue, and they told me that plagiarized content be removed. --George Ho (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool. That's why I said you were more familiar with it than me. You seem to have it all under control. Let's see what comes of the discussion you started at SOAP project. Begoon &thinsp; talk  05:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)