User talk:CEvansMCO
Welcome![edit]
Hi CEvansMCO! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! —Alalch E. 18:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Millennial Choirs & Orchestras[edit]
Would you also like to disclose your conflict of interest with MCO, since you have edited that article as well? Kind regards—Alalch E. 18:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, though I'm not sure how to do that. I just happened on it when creating the article for Brandon Stewart. CEvansMCO (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I added MCO to your already existing COI template, on your talk page: Special:Diff/1146255680 —Alalch E. 18:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Great! Can you also add Brett Stewart (musician) and Messiah in America? CEvansMCO (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, done. —Alalch E. 19:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Citing different parts of the same book[edit]
The best way to do cite different pages / page ranges of a single book, in multiple citations, is explained on this page: Help:Shortened footnotes. It offers different ways to accomplish roughly the same thing, but the first method suffices and is pretty simple. It makes the references much neater than having repeating references for the same book with just the page numbers differing. Hope you like this. —Alalch E. 18:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Excellent, thank you! I was getting tired of typing in all the info every time. :) CEvansMCO (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Brandon Stewart (musician) for deletion[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Stewart (musician) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
—Alalch E. 23:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Another editor moved the article about Brett Stewart to draft space, but notified me instead of you (simply because my edit was the most recent), so I am notifying you of this. This is similar to how I nominated the article about Brandon Stewart for deletion. A draft can be worked on indefinitely but if it isn't worked on for six months the page will be deleted summarily, without a discussion (such as the one I started for Brandon Stewart's article). A draft is publicly accessible but it is not published, meaning that it is not a part of the encyclopedia, and is not indexed by search engines. A draft can be improved in various ways and submitted for review, but if reviewers don't find it to be notable, it won't be accepted, and no amount of work on a draft can make a non-notable subject notable. Sincerely —Alalch E. 00:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for all of your help and guidance. If I understand correctly, the determination of whether or not an article for a person should be included in Wikipedia or not is dependent on their notoriety, yes? How is that determined? How is an article determined to be "notable"? CEvansMCO (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- You're welcome! That's the most obvious question for a new editor to ask, but, sadly, not one of the easier questions to answer. Wikipedia volunteers delete a lot of pages all the time, starting from the obviously necessary removal of spam and offensive writings, copyright and privacy violations etc, to somewhat less obvious cases like original theories, harder to detect hoaxes, and essential duplicates that espouse a particular point of view, and so imagine that we are traversing stratospheric layers of unambiguous unacceptability, crossing an area of ambiguity, and getting near the core content of the encyclopedia, where an average person mostly couldn't even detect a problem. Here we are encountering very many edge cases where it seems like a page "doesn't hurt", as it resembles encyclopedic content, has some potentially useful information etc. In this more or less grey area, we are confronted with the question of how we even define what content we want in the first place, such that it would best serve our readers. Notability, as a term, was chosen to give some, at least passably intelligible, name to the set of conventions that address this last set of cases, where we delete actual articles (some of which are nicely written and enjoyable to read), which are only a fraction of the total pages deleted (most can't be described as an article). But the actual notion of notability, comprising the set of standards that were come up with, in order to set a boundary, is highly artificial and heterogenous (varies depending on the topic), to the extent that it's not easy to connect with everyday meanings of "notability", "notoriety", "importance" etc. The basic idea starts with the understanding that encyclopedias are tertiary sources. So to be able to consolidate something, we need material to consolidate, and this material has to come from secondary, not primary, sources (or we would ourselves become a secondary source, in effect creating research, which would not be great). We need multiple high quality secondary sources to consolidate, and if a topic is covered in such sources, this is generally taken, as a very lax assumption, to coincide with the topic having gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. In the most general case, a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That's the general threshold of suitability for inclusion, of sorts, so that we always create an "added value" for our readers compared to what's already out there, and not dissipate our effort on content that doesn't fit this goal. This is outlined here: Wikipedia:Notability. The process of how we go about this on a daily basis has got an actual Wikipedia article Deletion of articles on Wikipedia, as we have deemed that this topic itself is notable :) I like collecting my thoughts on this from time to time, so I wrote you a really long reply; hope you don't find it a bit intrusive. Sincerely—Alalch E. 01:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- This is very helpful. Thank you! CEvansMCO (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hi,
- Can you help me understand why the article for Brandon Stewart(musician) was deleted but the article for Brett Stewart (musician) was moved to draft mode? Why wouldn't the article for Brandon have been moved to draft mode as well? CEvansMCO (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, the former was deleted because I had nominated it for deletion and consenus was formed among editors that the article should be deleted. The latter was not deleted because no one had nominated it. I don't remember that well why I decided not to nominate it after considering doing so (that much I remember), but it's probably because I thought that there is a higher prospect of notability with that one. Ultimately, the latter article was draftified by an editor who, consistently with established practices, found that it should not be a part of the encyclopedia (in the "mainspace") before it undergoes an Wikipedia:Articles for creation review (a very rudimentary form of review, that primarly checks for notability), because it had been created by an editor with a conflict of interest. If I or someone else had nominated the Brett Stewart article, it would probably also have been deleted. If I hadn't nominated the Brandon Stewart article, the same or another new-page-reviewing editor would have certainly moved it to draft. Eventually the outcome could have been that both articles are deleted, that both were moved to draft—or—the current situation (that one was deleted and the other draftified). It's really of no great consequence. I prefer deletion when it's a clear-cut case because it provides good resolution and it's a consensus-based process. Deleted articles, even those deleted as a result of a relevant discussion can be recreated. Yes, they can literally be created again, as long as the title is not "salted", but if they're recreated as "sufficiently identical" copies they will be speedily deleted (summarily, without a discussion). If they're recreated in draftspace (under the same circumstances) they should, as a matter of principle, not be speedily deleted, but this is a bit of a grey area in practice and they may still be speedily deleted per discretion of editors who have such privileges (administrators)—as long as they are "sufficiently identical" (or even if they aren't, which also happens). But if there were new sources about Brandon Stewart pointing to his biography being a notable topic (preferably multiple such sources), the article could certainly be recreated, with those new sources included and used to significantly improve encyclopedic coverage. If an author needs to access the deleted page to use it to improve the content when notability can be shown, due to "significant new information having come to light", a deletion review can be requested, which is a forum to decide, again through consensus, whether the facts relevant to notability have changed in such a way that the original reasons for deletion no longer hold, which may lead to the page being undeleted. Deletion on Wikipedia is not real deletion. There isn't a file that gets deleted. It's essentially just hiding a page from view. Sincerely—Alalch E. 18:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- This is very helpful. Thank you! CEvansMCO (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- You're welcome! That's the most obvious question for a new editor to ask, but, sadly, not one of the easier questions to answer. Wikipedia volunteers delete a lot of pages all the time, starting from the obviously necessary removal of spam and offensive writings, copyright and privacy violations etc, to somewhat less obvious cases like original theories, harder to detect hoaxes, and essential duplicates that espouse a particular point of view, and so imagine that we are traversing stratospheric layers of unambiguous unacceptability, crossing an area of ambiguity, and getting near the core content of the encyclopedia, where an average person mostly couldn't even detect a problem. Here we are encountering very many edge cases where it seems like a page "doesn't hurt", as it resembles encyclopedic content, has some potentially useful information etc. In this more or less grey area, we are confronted with the question of how we even define what content we want in the first place, such that it would best serve our readers. Notability, as a term, was chosen to give some, at least passably intelligible, name to the set of conventions that address this last set of cases, where we delete actual articles (some of which are nicely written and enjoyable to read), which are only a fraction of the total pages deleted (most can't be described as an article). But the actual notion of notability, comprising the set of standards that were come up with, in order to set a boundary, is highly artificial and heterogenous (varies depending on the topic), to the extent that it's not easy to connect with everyday meanings of "notability", "notoriety", "importance" etc. The basic idea starts with the understanding that encyclopedias are tertiary sources. So to be able to consolidate something, we need material to consolidate, and this material has to come from secondary, not primary, sources (or we would ourselves become a secondary source, in effect creating research, which would not be great). We need multiple high quality secondary sources to consolidate, and if a topic is covered in such sources, this is generally taken, as a very lax assumption, to coincide with the topic having gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. In the most general case, a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That's the general threshold of suitability for inclusion, of sorts, so that we always create an "added value" for our readers compared to what's already out there, and not dissipate our effort on content that doesn't fit this goal. This is outlined here: Wikipedia:Notability. The process of how we go about this on a daily basis has got an actual Wikipedia article Deletion of articles on Wikipedia, as we have deemed that this topic itself is notable :) I like collecting my thoughts on this from time to time, so I wrote you a really long reply; hope you don't find it a bit intrusive. Sincerely—Alalch E. 01:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)