Always improving

[Johnny Au]

History of Taxidermy (T-H-L)

The article is well-written. However, it does not comply with WP:MOS. Note the capitalization of the name of the article even.

On the same topic:

Taxidermy (T-H-L)

Freeze dried mount

An increasingly popular trend is to freeze dry the animal. For all intents and purposes, a freeze-dried mount is a mummified animal that still has fur on it. The internal organs are removed during preparation, however all other tissue remains in the body. (The skeleton and all accompanying musculature is still beneath the surface of the fur). The animal is positioned into the desired pose, then placed into the chamber of a special freeze dryer designed specifically for this application. The chamber freezes the animal and draws air out of the chamber to create a vacuum. The negative air pressure in the chamber pulls moisture out of the animal's body and brings it to the surface where it turns to vapor and evaporates. This expedites the dehydration process and allows the animal to dry faster and with minimal shrinkage and wrinkling of the skin. The process can be done with reptiles, birds, and small mammals such as cats, rodents, and some dogs. Large specimens may require up to six months in the freeze dryer before they are completely dry. Freeze drying is the most popular type of pet preservation. This is because it is the least invasive in terms of what is done to the animal's body after death, which is a concern of owners (Most owners do not opt for a traditional skin mount). In the case of large pets, such as dogs and cats, freeze dying is also the best way to capture the animal's expression as it looked in life (another important concern of owners). Freeze drying equipment is costly and requires much upkeep. The process is also time-consuming, therefore freeze drying is generally an expensive method to preserve an animal. The drawback to this method is that freeze-dried mounts are extremely susceptible to insect damage. This is because they contain large areas of dried tissue (meat and fat) for insects to feed upon. Traditional mounts are far less susceptible because they contain virtually no residual tissues (or none at al). Regardless of how well a taxidermy mount is prepared, all taxidermy is susceptible to insect damage. Taxidermy mounts are targeted by the same beetles and fabric moths that destroy wool sweaters, fur coats, and infest grains and flour in pantries.

[Poetlister]

History of Taxidermy (T-H-L)

The article is well-written. However, it does not comply with WP:MOS.

The MOS fanatics are among the worst irritants on the site. I disagree with quite a few things on MOS, and I guess that other people on here would agree with me. However, I usually accept what they say to avoid a pointless edit war.

[thekohser]

Jim Adduci (baseball, born 1985) (T-H-L) is a Detroit Tigers player having a phenomenal shortened season so far, filling in for the injured JaCoby Jones (but usually playing in right field, where the also-injured J.D. Martinez would usually be). The team is 6-3 in games that he's started, and he's batting .343, already with two triples, four doubles, and 7 RBIs. You would never know this from his Wikipedia article, despite ample news stories singing his praises. But thanks to Wikipedia, you do know he was banned for 36 games from Korean baseball last year, testing positive for oxycodone.

[Randy from Boise]

Jim Adduci (baseball, born 1985) (T-H-L) is a Detroit Tigers player having a phenomenal shortened season so far, filling in for the injured JaCoby Jones (but usually playing in right field, where the also-injured J.D. Martinez would usually be). The team is 6-3 in games that he's started, and he's batting .343, already with two triples, four doubles, and 7 RBIs. You would never know this from his Wikipedia article, despite ample news stories singing his praises. But thanks to Wikipedia, you do know he was banned for 36 games from Korean baseball last year, testing positive for oxycodone.

[[WP:SOFIXIT]]


RfB

[Poetlister]

Just to show that Wikipedia does sometimes improve, take the article Lux (T-H-L) (about the unit of brightness of illumination). An article appeared in February saying that many articles in the literature overstated the brightness of the full moon, and even (sic!) Wikipedia got it wrong. Wikipedia was corrected on 14th February to reduce the figure for moonlight from a full moon from 0.27-1 lux to 0.05-0.36 lux. Actually, the article said that a typical figure would be 0.05-0.1, as the figure of 0.36 was an ideal with a full moon vertically overhead in a clear sky when it was nearest to the Earth, but maybe that sort of subtlety is too much.

[thekohser]

There is a proposal to turn the viaduct and City Branch into an elevated park similar to the High Line in New York City.[1]

Great job, Wikipedia. Every link runs contrary to one Wikipedia guideline or another.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Jim Adduci (baseball, born 1985) (T-H-L) [...].

[[WP:SOFIXIT]]

This seems a mistaken response. The purpose of this thread is to point out how Wikipedia articles degenerate over time, and draw conclusions about why this happens and what this means for Wikipedia as a respository of knowledge. It is not a task list for gnomes.

[Johnny Au]

Here's another one:

Stereotypes_in_Consumer_Behaviour (T-H-L)

There's a great deal of original research in that article (primarily inferences made from the references).

[thekohser]

Here's another one:

Stereotypes_in_Consumer_Behaviour (T-H-L)

There's a great deal of original research in that article (primarily inferences made from the references).

This had to have been written by a non-native English speaker...

If we consider TV commercials, we can easily understand that in the biggest part of commercials which are advertising domestic products main actors are women. Women are used in this type of commercials because they are considered the ones who make main decisions in purchasing domestic products. On the other hand, in commercials advertising beers or car, main actors are men.

[Johnny Au]

List of tornadoes striking downtown areas of large cities (T-H-L)

The article has numerous problems that have been unresolved for very much a decade!

It's as if a tornado struck the article down, believing that downtown areas are immune to tornadoes (the article itself is pure original research, since the definition of "downtown" can be arbitrary at times).

[Poetlister]

List of tornadoes striking downtown areas of large cities (T-H-L)

The article has numerous problems that have been unresolved for very much a decade!

It's as if a tornado struck the article down, believing that downtown areas are immune to tornadoes (the article itself is pure original research, since the definition of "downtown" can be arbitrary at times).

"Downtown" ("of, relating to, or located in the lower part or business center of a city") doesn't mean much except in Manhattan, which is a fairly narrow roughly north-south strip with the business centre near the southern tip.

[AndyTheGrump]

Ugh. I see that Mangoe (T-C-L) has put it up for deletion, as "an original research festival of monumental proportions". Which says it all really.

[Poetlister]

Ugh. I see that Mangoe (T-C-L) has put it up for deletion, as "an original research festival of monumental proportions". Which says it all really.

As Rcsprinter (T-C-L), supporting deletion, says, "Certainly an unnecessary list ... a lot of OR. Why wasn't this spotted sooner?"

[AndyTheGrump]

Ugh. I see that Mangoe (T-C-L) has put it up for deletion, as "an original research festival of monumental proportions". Which says it all really.

As Rcsprinter (T-C-L), supporting deletion, says, "Certainly an unnecessary list ... a lot of OR. Why wasn't this spotted sooner?"

Given that there is a comment on the talk page about OR posted in 2007, I'd say it had been spotted.

The AFD may be worth watching, as at least one major contributor (Evolauxia (T-C-L)) is still editing, and seems to edit a lot of tornado-related articles. Prepare for an 'it isn't OR because I say so' defence...

[Randy from Boise]

Ugh. I see that Mangoe (T-C-L) has put it up for deletion, as "an original research festival of monumental proportions". Which says it all really.

As Rcsprinter (T-C-L), supporting deletion, says, "Certainly an unnecessary list ... a lot of OR. Why wasn't this spotted sooner?"

Given that there is a comment on the talk page about OR posted in 2007, I'd say it had been spotted.

The AFD may be worth watching, as at least one major contributor (Evolauxia (T-C-L)) is still editing, and seems to edit a lot of tornado-related articles. Prepare for an 'it isn't OR because I say so' defence...

This completely misrepresents what so-called "Original Research" is and is not.

Prohibited "Original Research" on WP involves novel interpretations of science or history.

It is not the unique assemblage of documentable facts.

The tornados list may or may not be encyclopedic; it may be based upon an undefinable parameter ("downtown") or useless trivia or it may be hopelessly incompletable, and thus deletion-worthy on those grounds. But it is most assuredly not an example of "original research."

RfB

[AndyTheGrump]

Nope. OR, because the list criteria are arbitrary and supported by no external source, and because inclusion is based on whether contributors decide they meet the invented criteria.

[thekohser]

...supported by no external source...

If only we could demonstrate that there is some level of outside scientific interest in this subject, right?

[Randy from Boise]

Nope. OR, because the list criteria are arbitrary and supported by no external source, and because inclusion is based on whether contributors decide they meet the invented criteria.

Just another almanac page. Each individual incident is all that needs to be cited, which they are. See also Greg's link, which pretty much sinks whatever argument you were making...

Now, is "downtown" a definable concept? There we may be in agreement about the piece the way it stands...


RfB

[Rogol Domedonfors]

What is the point of this sort of list article? It may indeed be a reliable compilation of such events as the contributor(s) happen to have come across. But there is nothing you can do with this information, such as formulate and test a hypothesis, unless you know the list to be somehow complete as well as correct – it might come in useful for making conversation at incredibly boring parties. If you look at the list and say, "Gosh, a tornado is more likely to hit a downtown area in Minnesota than in Vermont" and then discover, oh the list for Vermont wasn't complete, then you have been misinformed, not informed. But to assert the completeness of the list requires a far more stringent test and a much more reliable source – and it's rather unlikely that anyone ever has or ever will put in the effort required to generate that list reliably and verifiably. So it remains forever doomed to be incomplete and, as far as I can see, all but useless. A microcosm of Wikipedia.

[Poetlister]

Surely this article violates WP:IINFO (T-H-L): Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

[Randy from Boise]

Surely this article violates WP:IINFO (T-H-L): Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

And that is the legitimate grounds for debate. Honest people may differ.

RfB

[AndyTheGrump]

...supported by no external source...

If only we could demonstrate that there is some level of outside scientific interest in this subject, right?

If there is 'scientific interest in the subject', where is the research? The SA article cites none, and basically answers its headline question in two short paragraphs, before discussing another issue entirely. And even if there is scientific research into the actual subject of the Wikipedia list - tornadoes hitting 'downtown areas' of large cities - it doesn't justify Wikipedia conducting primary research of its own, based on its own criteria.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Surely this article violates WP:IINFO (T-H-L): Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

And that is the legitimate grounds for debate. Honest people may differ.

Differ, then, honestly and debate legitimately. Make your case for the existence of this sort of list. For added credit, distinguish between arguments based on the arcane, arbitrary and often-ignored rules of Wikipedia, and arguments based on what old-fashioned believers in knowledge as justified true belief might respond to.

[Randy from Boise]

...supported by no external source...

If only we could demonstrate that there is some level of outside scientific interest in this subject, right?

If there is 'scientific interest in the subject', where is the research? The SA article cites none, and basically answers its headline question in two short paragraphs, before discussing another issue entirely. And even if there is scientific research into the actual subject of the Wikipedia list - tornadoes hitting 'downtown areas' of large cities - it doesn't justify Wikipedia conducting primary research of its own, based on its own criteria.

It's just a LIST, which, as you know, has a lower inclusion bar than those needed for articles.

RfB

[AndyTheGrump]

...supported by no external source...

If only we could demonstrate that there is some level of outside scientific interest in this subject, right?

If there is 'scientific interest in the subject', where is the research? The SA article cites none, and basically answers its headline question in two short paragraphs, before discussing another issue entirely. And even if there is scientific research into the actual subject of the Wikipedia list - tornadoes hitting 'downtown areas' of large cities - it doesn't justify Wikipedia conducting primary research of its own, based on its own criteria.

It's just a LIST, which, as you know, has a lower inclusion bar than those needed for articles.

RfB

I know no such thing. Not that I really care, since I'm not that interested in whether this arbitrary and pointless list of unsurprising things is compatible with Wiki-Calvinball rulemongering. By any objective definition, it doesn't belong in anything claiming to be a tertiary source, rather than a publisher of weather-watcher fancruft.

[thekohser]

If there is 'scientific interest in the subject', where is the research?

Maybe here.

Maybe here.

Maybe even here.

But it's probably wise for me to stop here, lest I be confused for someone who gives two figs about what Wikipediots decide what to do with their playground of make-believe scholarship.

[Poetlister]

It's just a LIST, which, as you know, has a lower inclusion bar than those needed for articles.

From my own experience on Wikipedia, I can say that I certainly don't know that.

[Ming]

What is the point of this sort of list article?

Well, it has the same point as many list articles: it's relatively easy to pull out random examples of something and stick a one-line entry into an article, and eventually the grow so much there's a risk that someone who actually edits as opposed to just writing will take the whole thing and cut it out. Therefore it gets forked out into a separate article where it's safer, because deleting an article takes Process.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

What is the point of this sort of list article?

Well, it has the same point as many list articles: it's relatively easy to pull out random examples of something and stick a one-line entry into an article, and eventually the grow so much there's a risk that someone who actually edits as opposed to just writing will take the whole thing and cut it out. Therefore it gets forked out into a separate article where it's safer, because deleting an article takes Process.

As I thought. For the benefit of the writers, not the readers.

[AndyTheGrump]

What is the point of this sort of list article?

Well, it has the same point as many list articles: it's relatively easy to pull out random examples of something and stick a one-line entry into an article, and eventually the grow so much there's a risk that someone who actually edits as opposed to just writing will take the whole thing and cut it out. Therefore it gets forked out into a separate article where it's safer, because deleting an article takes Process.

As I thought. For the benefit of the writers, not the readers.

Something which can be said about a significant proportion of Wikipedia content. Lists in particular are prone to be compiled by individuals with an obsession about something or other and a belief in their own infallibility when it comes to deciding what merits inclusion. If there are inclusion criteria specified at all, they are usually pulled out of thin air, and totally unsuited to actually sorting the data in any meaningful way. The 'downtown tornadoes' list is a fine example of the latter from what I can see, though not the worst by any means, since it at least avoids the gross libel I've seen in more than a few examples. Tornadoes can't sue for defamation, but people falsely included in a List of bank robbers and robberies (T-H-L) certainly can.

[Poetlister]

Lists are best used to assemble a collection of people who, or things which, have or should have individual articles. They have the advantage over categories that they can be annotated, and it is easy to add redlinks to highlight articles that should be created.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

And the benefit to the reader in all of this is ... ?

[thekohser]

No mention in Wikipedia's article The Intercept (T-H-L) about Reality Leigh Winner (T-H-L)... at least 6 hours after the scoop. They're not so good at cross-referencing, it would seem.

[thekohser]

Here's an example of how Wikipedia isn't necessarily improving.

Kumbalgodu is a very short stub of an article.

It is a fact that the Shree Swaminarayan Gurukul International School is located in Kumbalgodu.

When an IP address editor tried to add that information to Wikipedia (albeit in a slightly overzealous tone), there was an admin quickly there within two minutes to remove it altogether, not even attempting to verify, document, or clean up the effort. The admin gave no explanation to the previous editor why the content was being removed. In this way, helpful information is kept out of Wikipedia. I wish there were better admins available to Wikipedia.

[Poetlister]

Here's an example of how Wikipedia isn't necessarily improving.

Kumbalgodu is a very short stub of an article.

It is a fact that the Shree Swaminarayan Gurukul International School is located in Kumbalgodu.

When an IP address editor tried to add that information to Wikipedia (albeit in a slightly overzealous tone), there was an admin quickly there within two minutes to remove it altogether, not even attempting to verify, document, or clean up the effort. The admin gave no explanation to the previous editor why the content was being removed. In this way, helpful information is kept out of Wikipedia. I wish there were better admins available to Wikipedia.

Worth mentioning that the admin was Jimbo himself. He probably thought that the other editor was a paid editor.

[thekohser]

The two major newsworthy reservoirs in Houston are the Addicks Reservoir (T-H-L) and the Barker Reservoir (T-H-L), which enacted their first controlled releases during a rain event, to counteract overspilling. Wikipedia has documented this emergency release on the article about the Addicks, but not on the one about the Barker. I guess even in crisis news events, Wikipedia is improving, but not uniformly.

[Poetlister]

The two major newsworthy reservoirs in Houston are the Addicks Reservoir (T-H-L) and the Barker Reservoir (T-H-L), which enacted their first controlled releases during a rain event, to counteract overspilling. Wikipedia has documented this emergency release on the article about the Addicks, but not on the one about the Barker. I guess even in crisis news events, Wikipedia is improving, but not uniformly.

This is exactly why Wikipedia should not try to be a newspaper. Editors should always wait until information can be added in a thoughtful way.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

I am assured by none other than the Senior Program Officer, Emerging Wikimedia Communities, that "You are mistaking a couple of blog posts to signify Some Grand Policy Change, but it is not so." Yes, WMF is promoting Wikipedia as a source of reliable news, but no, its policy on not being a newspaper has not changed. So all is clear now.

[Poetlister]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. That is clear policy. You cannot quote one Wikipedia article to prove or disprove a disputed point in another article. The best you can say in this context is that Wikipedia is a useful way to find links to reliable news sources.

[Johnny Au]

List of countries with alcohol prohibition (T-H-L)

When Canada was under Prohibition, it had a different flag (it had a Union Jack on one corner).

When Canada adopted its current flag, Prohibition was long over (except in some communities).

When the United States was under Prohibition, its flag had 48 stars, not 50, as Alaska and Hawaii did not achieve statehood yet.

[Poetlister]

List of countries with alcohol prohibition (T-H-L)

When Canada was under Prohibition, it had a different flag (it had a Union Jack on one corner).

When Canada adopted its current flag, Prohibition was long over (except in some communities).

When the United States was under Prohibition, its flag had 48 stars, not 50, as Alaska and Hawaii did not achieve statehood yet.

They list India and the UAE, but there is only prohibition in a few Indian states and the Emirate of Sharjah. Shouldn't they use the flags of those areas?

[Johnny Au]

List of countries with alcohol prohibition (T-H-L)

When Canada was under Prohibition, it had a different flag (it had a Union Jack on one corner).

When Canada adopted its current flag, Prohibition was long over (except in some communities).

When the United States was under Prohibition, its flag had 48 stars, not 50, as Alaska and Hawaii did not achieve statehood yet.

They list India and the UAE, but there is only prohibition in a few Indian states and the Emirate of Sharjah. Shouldn't they use the flags of those areas?

The article is called "List of countries with alcohol prohibition" not "List of countries and subnational divisions with alcohol prohibition." Otherwise, I agree with you.

The article needs significant cleaning up anyways, beginning with the use of the correct flags for the specific subnational divisions currently under alcohol prohibition, as well as the flags of countries formerly under alcohol prohibition using the flags when they were under alcohol prohibition, which are often not the current flag.

Al Capone did not live to see the 50-starred American flag after all.

[AndyTheGrump]

The flags are, as with almost all Wikipedia articles that use them, redundant clutter.

[Poetlister]

The article is called "List of countries with alcohol prohibition" not "List of countries and subnational divisions with alcohol prohibition."

Yes, so neither India nor the UAE should be there as countries with current prohibition since it is not nationwide. Doesn't the US have "dry counties" where there is still prohibition, including, ironically, Moore County where Jack Daniels is made?

[Johnny Au]

Some things never make sense.

[BrillLyle]

I am not sure if this is the right thread for this, but I stumbled upon an En Wiki page that used list referencing in a way I'd never seen it.

The page needed a lot of cleanup and there were only 7 citations -- not enough to establish notability in my OCD opinion (I like between 10-15 good citations for women and PoC entries, I know I'm probably a bit insane on this) -- so by adding a good number of citations and cleaning up the article, I made it more typical, with inline citations that were named meaningfully so they could be reused.

I ran into this list citation style before and it drove me off the page, even though I was hoping to improve the entry a lot. The editor who set that citation style up was pretty p-ownership-y so it was clearly communicated that he wanted it that way.

But wanted to hear if others use this list referencing style and get opinions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankie_Shaw

Dif:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =812460320

I a bit worried the editor who set up this list citation style is going to get angry too. I am a bit concerned.

Best,

- Erika
User:BrillLyle

[Poetlister]

there were only 7 citations -- not enough to establish notability in my OCD opinion (I like between 10-15 good citations for women and PoC entries, I know I'm probably a bit insane on this)

Quality not quantity. Wouldn't a reference to Encyclopaedia Britannica on its own be enough? Or three obituaries in major newspapers?

[BrillLyle]

there were only 7 citations -- not enough to establish notability in my OCD opinion (I like between 10-15 good citations for women and PoC entries, I know I'm probably a bit insane on this)

Quality not quantity. Wouldn't a reference to Encyclopaedia Britannica on its own be enough? Or three obituaries in major newspapers?

Agree with the quality over quantity -- but after defending a gajillion AfDs that dumbass A+F folks "encouraged" newbies to create I err on the side of having at least 10 really solid citations, 15 if the person is trans or LGBT. It makes notability less problematic.

I wouldn't consider another encyclopedia a great citation. It's okay but I'd prefer lengthy features, articles, etc. to support specific facts on the page.

But I acknowledge I'm extreme in this. And obsessed with citations.

And #sigh an editor has now basically shat all over the page after it was perfectly fine. If it was a few things that would be one thing, but she is doing aggressive editing here. I'm going to abandon editing the page now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =812679140

This is the kind of editor I avoid if at all possible. No wonder the page was in such shite shape, if they were "editing" but not doing a full scrub. That list ref style is for the birds.

- Erika
User:BrillLyle

[Poetlister]

Agree with the quality over quantity -- but after defending a gajillion AfDs that dumbass A+F folks "encouraged" newbies to create I err on the side of having at least 10 really solid citations, 15 if the person is trans or LGBT. It makes notability less problematic.

Of course, if the powers that be dislike the creator of the article, it will be deleted, probably speedied to avoid an AfD, however good the references are. Conversely, if the subject of the article wants it deleted, and the powers that be dislike this person, it is likely to be kept. I'm sure that the old-timers here can think of examples.

[Johnny Au]

Land reclamation in Singapore (T-H-L)

Its first reference cites Wikipedia itself!