Draft talk:Tammie Jo Shults

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Draft:Tammie Jo Shults was copied or moved into Tammie Jo Shults with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Temporary redirect

Is it worth creating a temporary redirect to the incident page with a link to this draft until the draft is converted? Bohbye (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Looks like a redirect was created Bohbye (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me when you are done constructing the article and I can do a round-robin move to article space. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-@Bri: article Tammie Jo Shults was created by someone else and seems to have much more data as the draft. However it was already placed into AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tammie Jo Bonnell. I absolutely disagree with this AfD and I voted overthere. Bohbye (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ Sources

~~The articles are not free (behind a paywall) so sources cannot be verified. please don't use them as a source and use alternative options. Bohbye (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Can't use sources behind a paywall, really? Since when? Every American major newspapers are behind a paywall these days. --Deansfa (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources can be paywalled. In fact they don't even have to be online. This is a common misconception; see WP:PAYWALL. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, taking back my comment. Thanks for clarifying the policy.Bohbye (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

age wrong

1961/1962 means 55-57 not 56-57. in fact, given that it's only april right now, someone born in 1962 is MORE LIKELY 55 than 56.

i tried to tweak it, but it's autogenerated from the dates somehow, and, well...i don't quite know how. someone more capable pls correct it! 198.147.225.21 (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the age is computed (using a complex template) based on what a source said, "Age 56" but that was on 4/18 and now it's 4/19 so she could be one year older now. We don't know without knowing the day of birth. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

may be "complex", but it is WRONG. not only is 55 a *possibility*, but it is, as i said, MORE LIKELY here.

if the algorithm cannot properly produce "55-57" from the dates given, it should at least be offering up "55-56" instead of "56-57". latter not likely until the year's midpoint (2 july).

any way to override? and -- where does one petition to have the algorithm itself corrected? 198.147.225.21 (talk) 04:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably post concerns at WP:Village pump (technical) as date errors would affect many templates and articles using them. ☆ Bri (talk)

Notability

IMO, the pilot comes under WP:BIO1E and does not warrant a standalone article. I would propose a redirect to the accident article if this ever comes to mainspace. WWGB (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She may have been noticed for this event but she is certainly notable for the other achievements in the article, especially those relating to military history.--Ipigott (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This bio falls nicely into our focus on military history. It should be an article in its own right.--Ipigott (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still in development, still in draft space, and being worked as a team effort. It is not productive, nor in the best interests of Wikipedia itself, to negate something as non-notable even before all the sources have been gathered. How can anyone say this is non-notable if they don't even have all the facts? When we really get down to it, why do you know who Charles Lindbergh was? - for a one-time trip across the Atlantic. And they gave him a parade. Let this draft proceed. — Maile (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott and Maile66: Please note that the topic is under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tammie Jo Bonnell. I didn't know about this draft and so started a separate page in mainspace. That version is well-advanced as I was thinking of doing a DYK double with the new article about the recent incident. I mainly need to get some QPQs done now but I suppose that there's still more to find about the subject. Her year of birth, for example, seems tricky to pin down. Some sources talk of a press-release from the US Navy, giving details of her service record but I've not found the original of that yet. Andrew D. (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice canvassing! WWGB (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson Thank you for the information. — Maile (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspace article

There is now an article there. I don't think it is missing much of anything that this draft article has, but if so that information should be merged in there now.Phil (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should request a history merge? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Parallel versions explains that "If the two pages have separate origins and simultaneous separate parallel histories before they were text-merged, they should not be history-merged, as that would shuffle the parallel editing histories together in one list and make a mess." IMO, it's best to avoid draft space and sandboxes because it's too easy for topics to get forked like this. Andrew D. (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if it is possible to delete the draft to avoid duplicate editing efforts. Bohbye (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think this needs to be preserved for attribution. Would there be objection to making it a workpage under the article? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the draft is a redirect (which it now is) I think that is also OK, unless somebody wants to create a new draft in the future in which case they will still have to move this. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]