User talk:Bdb484/Archive 2011

UVa Alumni

Can you please post on the article's discussion page why you object to listing some of the more prominent alumni in the UVa article? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I'd like to hear your rationale, as there is a lot of relevant material here that was deleted with a cursory explanation. I'm inclined to re-add the material if no further explanation is forthcoming. -Tjarrett (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what else you want me to say. I assume you're both already familiar with the rules for reliably sourcing material, and none of that material had any sourcing whatsoever. Seems pretty clear-cut. — Bdb484 (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tunings for Oud

I went to the Oud page to look for common tunings, including major variations across countries. Common tunings are easy to find in wikipedia articles for other instruments like violin and guitar, and it helps to understand an instrument to know how it is tuned.

But you deleted the Oud tuning information (04:32 18 July 2010), saying it was uncited and wikipedia isn't a how-to.

The former comment is surreal, because *you* deleted the citation info earlier (02:19, 30 November 2009). Granted it wasn't in wikipedia standard format, but info in the wrong format should be reformatted, not deleted.

As for how-to, of course you are correct that wikipedia is not a how-to, but tuning info is not a how-to either -- at least in the case of the most standard tunings, it verges on being part of the definition of the instrument.

In my case, I am studying guitar, and wanted to compare Ouds to guitars, and I specifically don't want to leave wikipedia and go googling the web universe for Oud HOW-TO's (99% of which are probably in Arabic anyway, which I can't read).

I could see moving the tuning info to a separate wikipedia page, conceivably, but I don't see a link to it being moved, only your note about deleting it.

Clearly the tuning information should be put back, along with the deleted citation info, ideally in the standard format, but formatting can be fixed after information restoral.

Thanks, Dougmerritt (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Doug.

I'm not sure I agree that the tuning information is encyclopedic, but it sounds like you have some arguments I'd be open to hearing more of.

The citations, though, were pulled out not because they were improperly formatted, but because they were not reliable sources, if I'm recalling correctly. It was over a year ago, so it's not especially fresh in my memory.

— Bdb484 (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stick It (album)

You could have just redirected this without taking it to AFD. I've done so. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Henry (folklore)

Hi, -- Please discuss on the talk page to that article. Please note: the actual "history" of John Henry is utterly unimportant -- the current section on "history" consists entirely of vague ramblings and poorly supported musings, and could be entirely deleted without any loss or damage. Yet, if we deleted that from your version of the article, there would be nothing left! The point is that "John Henry" is folklore and not the biography of an actual person! Don't confuse the two! To have an article about folklore without actually discussing the folklore is .. screwy. So I suggest: cut the section on history, entirely. Maybe trim down the section on movies and tv shows and popular culture, I dunno. But expand the section on the actual mythology! References should not be hard to find: this is a standard topic in children's education; I must have gotten it in 3rd or 4th grade, and I presume most Americans have. It comes up again in high-school American History. I suppose that there are academic articles that explain why its a myth, and how it relates to the others (Paul Bunyan, etc) in journals of sociology and folklore; a trained folklorist should be able to find them. linas (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regretfully, I am not a trained folklorist, but rather a Wikipedia editor whose primary focus is ensuring that material presented on the project has been verified. If you believe additional material needs to be included, I obviously won't object, if you reinsert it with an inline citation to a reliable source.

I'm happy to discuss on the talk page, but I'm not sure what there is to say beyond the obvious restatement of the verifiability policy.

— Bdb484 (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bdb484. You have new messages at Arunsingh16's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aerotropolis

Hello, just wondering why you deleted the entirety of the external links section for the article rather than removing the links you found to be egregious. Many of the links were to examples of Aerotropoli governing bodies. One link was to the website Aerotropolis.com, which contains a large amount of information on the subject and is maintained by a known expert on the topic. Similarly, you deleted the List of Aerotropoli section noting that it was not well-cited enough though the list is maintained by two academics who are attested experts in the field. Not an attempt at attacking you, just hoping to get some of the pertinent information back up in a format that is agreeable to all. Thanks! Publiusjee (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]