Talk:Woodie
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
As explained in the edit summary, the subject/person Woodie is the primary topic returned on Google, YouTube, and other searches for simply "Woodie". Please provide verification to claim otherwise...
Disambiguation
[edit]The page at Woodie is about one usage, called the primary topic, and there is a hatnote guiding readers to Woodie (disambiguation) to find the other uses. 24.179.184.46 (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Reverting
[edit]I've reverted this page to the dab page: there is no evidence that the Rapper is the primary topic. Please discuss here and get agreement before moving this dab page. I suggest that you create the rapper's article at Woodie (rapper) and then use the formal multipage move request to create discussion. Thank you. PamD 17:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- I would request that perhaps you could make this edit/multipage move yourself if you have permission to do so and feel it is necessary (in any case it can be discussed over at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves). However, it has become clearly evident that Woodie is the primary topic returned from searches on YouTube, GHits, Allmusic and other sources. Please do not revert the information itself from being added again without providing verifiable evidence. Again, there still appears to be plenty of evidence pointing to the fact that the well-established subject is the primary topic as Woodie is the top result on YouTube, Google, Allmusic and more. However, there appears to be little or no evidence supporting the contrary claim that Woodie is not the primary topic returned from these sources and other results for "Woodie". Please provide verifiable evidence in support of this claim before reverting the information again. I think that a disambiguation may be appropriate but only after a multipage move as discussed, in which case an admin in all likelihood will need to step in. Thanks 24.179.184.46 (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- You've been reverted multiple times by different experienced editors. It is incumbent on you to propose this move and to gather consensus for it. older ≠ wiser 20:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please acknowledge the above mentioned facts per WP:NPOV. Then we will be able to reach a consensus. Thank you. 24.179.184.46 (talk)
- Acknowledge what facts? You have provided nothing but unsubstantiated claims. When I Google Woodie, the rapper is mentioned only once as the third entry. PamD also indicated in this edit summary that the rapper is not prominent in her Google results. Not only that, but an article about this rapper has previously been deleted on multiple occasions here and here as well as here as a user space duplicate of an existing article that was subsequently deleted for copyright violation. So, no, I don't think there is any sufficient evidence that the rapper is the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 02:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Woodie is still my very top GHit (not my third result). Please acknowledge all of the evidence presented above and provide verification in support of your argument against Woodie. In other words, provide your own sufficient evidence proving that Woodie is not the primary topic, or that there is none. Old Wikipedia articles that were deleted long ago do not count as verification. Woodie is the primary topic on multiple sources, including AMG, and you must provide sufficient enough verification to prove otherwise 24.179.184.46 (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is nothing to acknowledge. You have provided no actual evidence, only unsubstantiated claims. YouTube and Allmusic are not acceptable evidence. It is hardy surprising that the car does not appear in Allmusic results and is not highly ranked in YouTube. older ≠ wiser 10:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Allmusic generally appears to be used on Wikipedia as a professional ratings/review system. I would consider that acceptable. Please acknowledge this so that we may reach a consensus. Allmusic could be considered "actual evidence", as it is a source commonly cited on Wikipedia. It shouldn't surprise you that Woodie must be the primary topic, since other usages do not appear in sources such as AllMusic, highly ranked at the top of search results. 24.179.184.46 (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- It is acceptable as an indication of notability and perhaps as a reliable source for some information. But it is emphatically not a good indicator of a primary topic as it only covers music. Allmusic might possibly be relevant to distinguish which among several musicians is the primary topic, but it is entirely irrelevant for comparing against non-musical topics. older ≠ wiser 12:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- So you have admitted Allmusic is a reliable source and indication of notability. That means Woodie is at least covered by one reliable source and is at least semi-verifiable as the primary topic. Do you have any verifiable evidence that a non-musical subject is the primary topic or that there is none? 24.179.184.46 (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- No, don't twist my words. You are losing credibility rapidly. There is at present NO ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE THAT THE RAPPER IS THE PRIMARY TOPIC. When I search Allmusic for Woodie, the rapper is not the top result. When searching All categories, the rapper is #12. And even when searching the Artist category, the rapper is #3.
- You might be using a different browser. I see plenty of evidence Woodie is the primary topic; no evidence otherwise. Allmusic is credibility; it is a reliable source. 24.179.184.46 (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- At this point, there is only your opinion and no evidence at all. older ≠ wiser 13:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's just your opinion. The evidence is right in front of you. It's your choice whether or not it convinces you and affects your opinion on the subject. I have repeatedly demanded contrary verification from you such as sources; which you refuse to provide. 24.179.184.46 (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- At this point, there is only your opinion and no evidence at all. older ≠ wiser 13:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- You might be using a different browser. I see plenty of evidence Woodie is the primary topic; no evidence otherwise. Allmusic is credibility; it is a reliable source. 24.179.184.46 (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- No, don't twist my words. You are losing credibility rapidly. There is at present NO ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE THAT THE RAPPER IS THE PRIMARY TOPIC. When I search Allmusic for Woodie, the rapper is not the top result. When searching All categories, the rapper is #12. And even when searching the Artist category, the rapper is #3.
- So you have admitted Allmusic is a reliable source and indication of notability. That means Woodie is at least covered by one reliable source and is at least semi-verifiable as the primary topic. Do you have any verifiable evidence that a non-musical subject is the primary topic or that there is none? 24.179.184.46 (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- It is acceptable as an indication of notability and perhaps as a reliable source for some information. But it is emphatically not a good indicator of a primary topic as it only covers music. Allmusic might possibly be relevant to distinguish which among several musicians is the primary topic, but it is entirely irrelevant for comparing against non-musical topics. older ≠ wiser 12:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Allmusic generally appears to be used on Wikipedia as a professional ratings/review system. I would consider that acceptable. Please acknowledge this so that we may reach a consensus. Allmusic could be considered "actual evidence", as it is a source commonly cited on Wikipedia. It shouldn't surprise you that Woodie must be the primary topic, since other usages do not appear in sources such as AllMusic, highly ranked at the top of search results. 24.179.184.46 (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is nothing to acknowledge. You have provided no actual evidence, only unsubstantiated claims. YouTube and Allmusic are not acceptable evidence. It is hardy surprising that the car does not appear in Allmusic results and is not highly ranked in YouTube. older ≠ wiser 10:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Woodie is still my very top GHit (not my third result). Please acknowledge all of the evidence presented above and provide verification in support of your argument against Woodie. In other words, provide your own sufficient evidence proving that Woodie is not the primary topic, or that there is none. Old Wikipedia articles that were deleted long ago do not count as verification. Woodie is the primary topic on multiple sources, including AMG, and you must provide sufficient enough verification to prove otherwise 24.179.184.46 (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Acknowledge what facts? You have provided nothing but unsubstantiated claims. When I Google Woodie, the rapper is mentioned only once as the third entry. PamD also indicated in this edit summary that the rapper is not prominent in her Google results. Not only that, but an article about this rapper has previously been deleted on multiple occasions here and here as well as here as a user space duplicate of an existing article that was subsequently deleted for copyright violation. So, no, I don't think there is any sufficient evidence that the rapper is the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 02:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please acknowledge the above mentioned facts per WP:NPOV. Then we will be able to reach a consensus. Thank you. 24.179.184.46 (talk)
- You've been reverted multiple times by different experienced editors. It is incumbent on you to propose this move and to gather consensus for it. older ≠ wiser 20:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Two editors report different results than you.You have not presented any credible verifiable evidence. older ≠ wiser 14:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- AllMusic is generally used and accepted on Wikipedia as a professional ratings/review system; it is a reliable source which was provided and is credible and verifiable evidence. 24.179.184.46 (talk)|
- I've already explained, Allmusic might be acceptable as an indication of notability which could help establish that the article shouldn't be deleted. By itself, it provides no evidence of being a primary topic when compared to non-musical topics. And in my Allmusic search results, the rapper is not even first among musical topics. It is pointless to continue debating whether the rapper is the primary topic when there is not even any article about the rapper to discuss. You've been given good instructions about how to go about things. I will disengage from further discussion here until there is something more to discuss. older ≠ wiser 14:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- All you have done is provide a single source for an article. You have provided no evidence that the rapper is the overall primary topic our even a notable topic at all. The starting place is to create the draft article with multiple reliable sources that give significant coverage of him. Then when we have established that he is notable then we can start discussing if there is a primary topic and whether the disambiguation page should be moved to Woodie (disambiguation). Until then this conversation is a waste of everyone's time. -- GB fan 14:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Allmusic is acceptable as an indication of notability (see above). I would consider that single reliable source to be evidence. The primary topic appears to be about Woodie. 24.179.184.46 (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Side note: Please see Woodie's significant major label release above.
- A single source is not acceptable to establish notability but it is an indication of notability. When you establish notability with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources then we can talk. Until then, there is nothing more to talk about and you are just wasting your time here. So until there is an article, I am done here. -- GB fan 16:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- So now we can at least talk about the primary topic's notability being indicated by a single, reliable source, which is evidence in support of Woodie as the primary topic, as the source provided ("AllMusic") is an indication of any given primary topic's notability. Thanks 24.179.184.46 (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- It would help if you could stop referring to it as the primary topic (especially when it has not even been clearly established that the artist is in fact notable. older ≠ wiser 19:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- So now we can at least talk about the primary topic's notability being indicated by a single, reliable source, which is evidence in support of Woodie as the primary topic, as the source provided ("AllMusic") is an indication of any given primary topic's notability. Thanks 24.179.184.46 (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- A single source is not acceptable to establish notability but it is an indication of notability. When you establish notability with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources then we can talk. Until then, there is nothing more to talk about and you are just wasting your time here. So until there is an article, I am done here. -- GB fan 16:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- AllMusic is generally used and accepted on Wikipedia as a professional ratings/review system; it is a reliable source which was provided and is credible and verifiable evidence. 24.179.184.46 (talk)|
Consensus
[edit]It was both discussed and agreed upon here that the content in question should be turned into the article Woodie (rapper) (which is protected), either via multipage move or article creation. Please acknowledge the evidence presented so that we may all move forward with a WP:CONSENSUS incorporating all of our legitimate concerns. If there are no further objections, I will go ahead and resume editing per WP:BRD tomorrow to help speed up the discussion process. Have a nice evening. 24.179.184.46 (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Can you provide a link to the discussion it was discussed? If you replace the dab page with an the article again I will protect it from editing. -- GB fan 00:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- The article creation/ multi page move was suggested right here on this discussion page. See above where Pam D. suggests I create the article and/or page move, and I request it from her as well, agreeing with her. Do not protect the page from being edited for any reason. Instead, please examine the evidence presented above and try to help us reach a consensus. If you don't think it's sufficient enough, please explain why by providing a verified explanation to support your claim. I will stand by the claim that Woodie is the primary topic returned on YouTube, Google, Allmusic and may be found in other sources as well as the primary result. Allmusic generally appears to be used on Wikipedia as a professional ratings/review system. I look forward to your acknowledgement and response so that we may reach a consensus. 24.179.184.46 (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- The point of PamD's suggestion is that you should first create the article about the rapper under a different title and not usurp this page. Once the rapper article exists, a move discussion can establish whether there is a primary topic. older ≠ wiser 10:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Under which different title? 24.179.184.46 (talk) 12:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- You can create a draft article at Draft:Woodie (rapper). Then it can be evaluated if it belongs in the encyclopedia. -- GB fan 12:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Pam D. did not suggest for me to create a draft, nor did I agree to (see above). That is not the proper way to go about something like this in my opinion. Thanks for your offer, but I think I'll pass. Is there anything else that could be done to resolve this?... 24.179.184.46 (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- That is precisely what PamD suggested (although she suggested using Woodie (rapper). Since that page is indefinitely protected due to previous abuse regarding editor misbehavior, it was suggested to use Draft:Woodie (rapper) which is the recommended approach in such situations (see WP:DRAFT). If you could be bothered to create an account, you could create the page in your user space. If you don't want to follow good advice, then you're on your own. older ≠ wiser 19:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- PamD did not above suggest to create a WP:DRAFT, nor did I agree to (per WP:IGNORE). What was formally agreed upon, by the two of us, however, was the addition of the content. Please don't use this as another excuse to be WP:SALTY. 24.179.184.46 (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- That is precisely what PamD suggested (although she suggested using Woodie (rapper). Since that page is indefinitely protected due to previous abuse regarding editor misbehavior, it was suggested to use Draft:Woodie (rapper) which is the recommended approach in such situations (see WP:DRAFT). If you could be bothered to create an account, you could create the page in your user space. If you don't want to follow good advice, then you're on your own. older ≠ wiser 19:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Pam D. did not suggest for me to create a draft, nor did I agree to (see above). That is not the proper way to go about something like this in my opinion. Thanks for your offer, but I think I'll pass. Is there anything else that could be done to resolve this?... 24.179.184.46 (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- You can create a draft article at Draft:Woodie (rapper). Then it can be evaluated if it belongs in the encyclopedia. -- GB fan 12:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Under which different title? 24.179.184.46 (talk) 12:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- The point of PamD's suggestion is that you should first create the article about the rapper under a different title and not usurp this page. Once the rapper article exists, a move discussion can establish whether there is a primary topic. older ≠ wiser 10:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- The article creation/ multi page move was suggested right here on this discussion page. See above where Pam D. suggests I create the article and/or page move, and I request it from her as well, agreeing with her. Do not protect the page from being edited for any reason. Instead, please examine the evidence presented above and try to help us reach a consensus. If you don't think it's sufficient enough, please explain why by providing a verified explanation to support your claim. I will stand by the claim that Woodie is the primary topic returned on YouTube, Google, Allmusic and may be found in other sources as well as the primary result. Allmusic generally appears to be used on Wikipedia as a professional ratings/review system. I look forward to your acknowledgement and response so that we may reach a consensus. 24.179.184.46 (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- BKonrad has got it right: I didn't realise that the title Woodie (rapper) couldn't be used. I quite agree that a draft article would be sensible. Otherwise, think of another title. I see that Woodie (musical artist) was created and deleted three times - I don't know whether that title has been "Salted", but it looks as if it has not, so you could use that.
- No-one has suggested that you should not create an article for the rapper, although it may or may not then be proposed for deletion, depending on how well you demonstrate his notability, whether the article violates copyright, etc.
- There was no "formal agreement" between us about anything.
- My agreement was formal. I agreed with everything you said. 24.179.184.46 (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- What I intended by my suggestion was that you should (a) create an article for this person and add him to the disambiguation page, then (b) use the "Request Move" procedure to request a double move - of the new article to the base name Woodie, and of the disambiguation page to Woodie (disambiguation). Then, if consensus is in favour of such moves (ie if there is consensus that the rapper is the Primary Topic), the moves will be made. If not, then the rapper stays accessible through the disambiguation page. Please now stop this arguing and get on with creating an article for the rapper, at an available title. PamD 19:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- But the page you suggested to create, however, was protected for admins only so I then requested for you to make the page move. 24.179.184.46 (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Just create the article. But not here on the talk page. PamD 21:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- But the page you suggested to create, however, was protected for admins only so I then requested for you to make the page move. 24.179.184.46 (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)