Jump to content

Talk:Dana Fischer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nitpick

[edit]

Not going to waltz in and do anything about it because it really doesn't matter, but I want to point out that "some of my cards are four times older than I am" is physically impossible for someone born in July 2010. Alpha edition was released in August 1993 ( - I assume we are talking about Llanowar Elves here, which has been around since Alpha, is used in competitive Elves and is in the shot in the video, thus we can assume maximum possible age for the card). Apparently she said so in 2017. If that was earlier than July, then she was 6, four times her age would be 24, but Magic was 23. If it was later than July but earlier than August, then she was 7, four times her age is 28, Magic is still 23; if August or later, 7, 28, 24. In neither case can the card be four times older than her. Sooo - one could consider leaving that statement out of the article, or qualifying it with "she states" or similar, or not bother about it because who cares. (It's a slow Saturday morning so sue me :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to do anything about it either, but four times her age would be 24, but Magic was 23, so isn't it approximately correct? – attomir (talk | contribs) 21:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last line of introduction

[edit]

This last line of the introduction sounds like it was written by her mom. "She strives to get more women and young kids, especially girls, to play Magic, to learn useful skills and show that young people can do hard things" And show that young people can do hard things? My deletion of this (stated reason being was "Unsourced opinion") was rolled back, and the editor who did that (who is the main editor of this page) stated that there are "...no fewer than four sources at end of competitive section". While the main problem is that it isn't a line that merits being part of the introduction, the sources should also be put each time she's quoted, not the second time that that quote is used. My bad for the unclear reason, I should have put my reason as being "Unsourced AND opinion" to avoid that. But apart from that, what she desires is not a defining aspect of why she is notable, it shouldn't be in the introduction. The SECOND time that line is used is perfectly appropriate, as it is going into some of the smaller details of her life and personality, but definitely not in the introduction. It does not read like an encyclopedic entry. Main editor of this page has also rolled back another editor's attempt to delete that line. Edigodiuss (talk) 04:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree this should not be in the lede. She's a gamer, not a youth development ambassador with a portfolio. --Elmidae (talk · contribs)
  • GRuban, I fear you are currently heavily straying into WP:OWN behaviour. The phrase in question (She strives to get more women and young kids, especially girls, to play Magic, to learn useful skills and show that young people can do hard things) has now been removed from the lede by three different editors - @Edigodiuss, Joshualouie711, and Bowwow828: - and reinstated by you every time. I agree that it should go as well. It appears that at this point consensus is against you, wouldn't you say? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. I bow to consensus. --GRuban (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs)

Morbidthoughts's edits

[edit]

@Morbidthoughts: you kind of took a cleaver to the article with this series of edits. Can we talk about them?

  • The articles that she wrote: with respect, these aren't reviews of her, they're articles she wrote. She's eight years old, so publishing non-trivial articles is kind of a big deal. There is no one reasonably questioning that these are her words. Also, they aren't just any articles, they're articles about the specific record setting victories, which is why we have an article about her; having an article subject describe how exactly she did what made her notable is quite a valuable section in the article.
  • Her sister's name - yes WP:BLPNAME, but that's there to protect the person being named. In this case, both the person being named and her father agree to having the name there, and the article subject's one request when I asked if it would be all right to write this article was that we mention her sister, as she doesn't want her sister to feel left out.
  • Yes, Forbes contributors aren't a reliable source in general, but in this case the article subject and parent vouch for correctness of the article, so should be fine under WP:ABOUTSELF.

To be honest, I'd like to restore all your removals here. --GRuban (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The edits were prompted by a BLPN posting.[1] I took a cleaver because I don't believe we should be putting WP:UNDUE weight on the less reliable sources or what she wrote and focus instead on what independent reliable sources have reported. What she wrote can be linked as an external link. I am also adamant about the BLP issue. I do not believe the name of her sister is necessary to understand Dana's notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. OK, if you're adamant, I can leave out the name of the sister. However, I would like to restore the summary of the articles she wrote. That's not a BLP issue, is it? When the main reason someone has an article is that they did something notable, summarizing their words about how they did it is rather important to the article. --GRuban (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The summaries should have been much much shorter. WP:UNDUE is a BLP issue. I don't believe there is much notability if independent reliable sources do not refer to those specific articles. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability is quite clear that it applies to the existence of the article, not to the content of the article. WP:UNDUE is similarly clear that it's about viewpoints. Whether or not she reached a specific status in her matches isn't a viewpoint, it's what the whole article is about. I hope you agree? If she hadn't reached those levels we wouldn't have this article about her. There isn't an alternate viewpoint that we're trying to balance here. If this were "... and in addition to becoming the youngest player to X, she also wrote some unrelated Magic articles", I'd agree with you, we should just mention that she wrote the unrelated articles, because they wouldn't be the key point in her notability, so it would be undue weight if we wrote too much about those articles. But this is "and this is how she says she did X", where her doing X is the raison d'être of the article. --GRuban (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Independent viewpoints/analysis/reporting from reliable sources are what is important in considering WP:DUE rather than editors picking and choosing primary material that we feel is pertinent. You can confer with the WP:BLPN if my interpretation is correct. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here are sources writing about her writing these articles:

That seems to suffice for due weight for the section, relative to the rest of the article? --GRuban (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can write about the content reported with the primary source as a supplement but the weight should be on those reliable sources and cited to them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dana_Fischer&oldid=1218561630"