 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trivia edit
I've removed the trivia about a non-notable blogger again.
- 1) it introduces a trivia section to the article, which is discouraged.
- 2) it has nothing to do with the movie itself. I could use pseudonym "Billy Constigan" in writing some blog on crime, that would in no way merit a section in The Departed article.
I could understand if there was some strong tie between the blog and the movie; where this really belongs is in the article about the blog or the blogger, but as neither are notable enough to have their own entry it should not just be tacked on here and labelled 'trivia'. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
This is so confusing. You are confusing. Who decided Trivia is discouraged? Can you document that, or point me to a guideline that states as much? Monkeyajb (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- The important thing to remember is that Wikipedia that this is an encyclopedia. A random blogger that happens to have taken a pseudonym from a movie has little importance in the context of the movie itself. It's just a random fact that is being added. It is preferable that trivia items be integrated in to an article in prose form; if you cannot find an appropriate way to integrate the random piece of info, it could very well be because it just doesn't belong. If there is no independent coverage of the information you are trying to add, then it could very well be that it is not important enough to be covered. Additional info can be found at WP:Handling trivia#Recommendations for handling trivia. If you still believe that the blog info is not just promotional or purely unimportant trivia, you can always seek a third opinion. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 04:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've reviewed the guidelines on trivia. The guiding principle for me is that the article is not well-formed enough to integrate this very important fact into an existing section. Because the character name is so memorable, and it's use a pseudonym is clearly a homage, it remains both relevant to the article and useful to those seeking to expand their understanding of this character. The guidelines do include an instruction that "it is probably best to leave some in place" when other attempts to integrate trivia are not useful.
In addition, it isn't promotional it's a citation. I'm linking to the publication that carries the articles under the pseudonym, which is obviously relevant to the information. I'm reverting your edit again. Monkeyajb (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I cannot understand how the mention of a non-notable person's gossip blog is a "very important fact". Are there any reliable sources that cover the blog and make the connection between the gossip blogger and the movie? What purpose does linking the blog do other than promoting it? Regardless, this has certainly become WP:LAME. I've dropped a note at WP:3O so that it can be resolved one way or another. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I did not come by the way of WP:3O, but I saw the discussion in recent changes. I agree that the piece of information is trivial, especially when the gossip blogger is not notable. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I found my way here though 3O, and I'm with the others; the text about the blogger is trivial and not worthy of inclusion. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I did not come by the way of WP:3O, but I saw the discussion in recent changes. I agree that the piece of information is trivial, especially when the gossip blogger is not notable. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Monkeyajb just wrote in an edit comment, "According to a careful reading of trivia policy, the trivia is relevant and appropriat". I'm curious what sort of reading that actually is. Care to elaborate? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- The designation "non-notable" is subjective -- what is your criteria? A well established writer with bylines at some of the biggest publications on the internet is "non-notable"? The use of "Phyllis Nefler" is significant in that the pseudonym is a specific homage to this unique and memorable movie, and casual readers are unlikely to make the connection. Having a specific reference able to resolve the potential confusion is meaningful and useful. HelloAnnyong, please take time to carefully review everything on the talk page if you are going to jump into this discussion. I answered questions regarding my reading of the trivia policy above. Monkeyajb (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- The designation "non-notable" is not subjective when linked specifically to our guidelines at WP:N. This random blogger does not meet the notability guidelines that have been set as standards here and "casual readers" of this article don't need to make a connection between the movie and a blog that has absolutely nothing to do with this movie at all other than the use of a pseudonym. As I stated before, if this blogger somehow met our notability criteria (which she doesn't) and an article on her existed on Wikipedia (which it doesn't), then it would be appropriate to include the link to her blog on her own article page with a wikilink back to this article explaining the pseudonym. The blog is only important in the context of the blogger and is just a trivial piece of random fluff with regard to the movie itself. You are currently restoring promotional material against clear consensus which is considered edit warring, which is disruptive. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 13:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ponyo, your direct to link to the Notability article suggests you've read it, when clearly you didn't read it . WP:N Notability guidelines are specific that they apply only to articles and not article content WP:NNC. Since notability guidelines are not relevant in guiding us towards an understanding of this content, we need to return to the trivia guidelines, and I've clearly documented my understanding of those guidelines earlier in this article. If you would like to specifically reply to that, please do. I've also reviewed the advertising guidelines to be sure I'm operating within their confines WP:SOAP. As I am not Katie Baker, have no relation, connection, or even personal knowledge of Katie Baker, the inclusion of this citation doesn't violate that standard. In regards to advertising, the description of the connection between the author and the pseudonym is neither subjective or biased WP:NPOV. The mention of the blogger does not either compliment or detriment the quality of the writing, or the relative merits of the product in regards to "taste." There are two links included, one as a citation for the blogger to a personal website that includes no advertising or promotional material. The second link is to the commercial publication where the pseudonym is used. Again, my careful reading of the policies prompted me to balance the need for citation vs. the appearance of promotion. If you are suggesting that this second link should be removed, but would still allow the article to satisfy the citation requirements, I would consider that edit. Monkeyajb (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Are you serious? I cannot believe you are seriously still pursuing this. Here's the deal - you, and only you, think that a non-notable person's non-notable blog somehow adds some additional understanding of the movie Troop Beverly Hills to such an extent that it should be included as an external link. All other editors that have commented do not believe it should be included. As Wikipedia runs by consensus, the link stays out. If you disagree with the result you can pursue further dispute resolution processes; but what you can't do is continue to restore the frivilous link against consensus. The only editing you have ever done on Wikipedia is to try to promote this blog. Please stop. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, you are hanging your hat on a pretty flimsy consensus. You still haven't responded to any of the facts I detailed for you above, especially your mis-use of the "non-notable" designation and it's rules, which clearly don't apply here. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I don't know much about rallying consensus but I may consider it because you are just so wrong. Do you have any comments about my corrections to your mis-interpretations of the trivia, notable persons, and promotion guidelines?Monkeyajb (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- If you won't accept the notability complaint, then consider this: it's a question of advertisement and reliability. You are adding a link to the article that contains only a very tenuous connection, and has nothing to do with the actual film. You're using this article as a place to advertise the blog. Further, your links doesn't meet our reliability criteria, as one is a blog and the other is just a link to a name that has no actual content. And finally, your text completely violates the trivia policy. You've had multiple editors tell you that the text doesn't belong, so please put down the stick. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, you are hanging your hat on a pretty flimsy consensus. You still haven't responded to any of the facts I detailed for you above, especially your mis-use of the "non-notable" designation and it's rules, which clearly don't apply here. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I don't know much about rallying consensus but I may consider it because you are just so wrong. Do you have any comments about my corrections to your mis-interpretations of the trivia, notable persons, and promotion guidelines?Monkeyajb (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Are you serious? I cannot believe you are seriously still pursuing this. Here's the deal - you, and only you, think that a non-notable person's non-notable blog somehow adds some additional understanding of the movie Troop Beverly Hills to such an extent that it should be included as an external link. All other editors that have commented do not believe it should be included. As Wikipedia runs by consensus, the link stays out. If you disagree with the result you can pursue further dispute resolution processes; but what you can't do is continue to restore the frivilous link against consensus. The only editing you have ever done on Wikipedia is to try to promote this blog. Please stop. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ponyo, your direct to link to the Notability article suggests you've read it, when clearly you didn't read it . WP:N Notability guidelines are specific that they apply only to articles and not article content WP:NNC. Since notability guidelines are not relevant in guiding us towards an understanding of this content, we need to return to the trivia guidelines, and I've clearly documented my understanding of those guidelines earlier in this article. If you would like to specifically reply to that, please do. I've also reviewed the advertising guidelines to be sure I'm operating within their confines WP:SOAP. As I am not Katie Baker, have no relation, connection, or even personal knowledge of Katie Baker, the inclusion of this citation doesn't violate that standard. In regards to advertising, the description of the connection between the author and the pseudonym is neither subjective or biased WP:NPOV. The mention of the blogger does not either compliment or detriment the quality of the writing, or the relative merits of the product in regards to "taste." There are two links included, one as a citation for the blogger to a personal website that includes no advertising or promotional material. The second link is to the commercial publication where the pseudonym is used. Again, my careful reading of the policies prompted me to balance the need for citation vs. the appearance of promotion. If you are suggesting that this second link should be removed, but would still allow the article to satisfy the citation requirements, I would consider that edit. Monkeyajb (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- The designation "non-notable" is not subjective when linked specifically to our guidelines at WP:N. This random blogger does not meet the notability guidelines that have been set as standards here and "casual readers" of this article don't need to make a connection between the movie and a blog that has absolutely nothing to do with this movie at all other than the use of a pseudonym. As I stated before, if this blogger somehow met our notability criteria (which she doesn't) and an article on her existed on Wikipedia (which it doesn't), then it would be appropriate to include the link to her blog on her own article page with a wikilink back to this article explaining the pseudonym. The blog is only important in the context of the blogger and is just a trivial piece of random fluff with regard to the movie itself. You are currently restoring promotional material against clear consensus which is considered edit warring, which is disruptive. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 13:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- The designation "non-notable" is subjective -- what is your criteria? A well established writer with bylines at some of the biggest publications on the internet is "non-notable"? The use of "Phyllis Nefler" is significant in that the pseudonym is a specific homage to this unique and memorable movie, and casual readers are unlikely to make the connection. Having a specific reference able to resolve the potential confusion is meaningful and useful. HelloAnnyong, please take time to carefully review everything on the talk page if you are going to jump into this discussion. I answered questions regarding my reading of the trivia policy above. Monkeyajb (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)