User talk:Kombucha

Kombucha's Talk Page

Say whatever you want to me here, although I'd rather not be flamed, if you can resist the temptation.

To ensure that I (and others) can clearly follow the progress of this page, please do the following:

Sign all comments. If you have no account, I suggest you either get one, or sign your comment with something to identify you.
Create new headers when starting a conversation on a new subject. (Type two equals signs (==) followed by the name of the heading, then two equals signs again.)
Create new posts/subjects below the older ones.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Kombucha, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Friday (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting this talk page, and thank you for your advice. Although I have not written any articles, or done any major editing for Wikipedia before the Honour and Justice article, I have edited small mistakes, both in content and spelling/grammar before. I have also read a great deal of articles, so I am not entirely new to Wikipedia.

I hope to write an article that there is less disagreement over in the near future. I simply need to find something that I know about that hasn't already been written about. That, I must say, is not very easy! --Kombucha 21:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck, and don't feel bad if the article gets redirected or deleted. It happens all the time. Friday (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I wasn't implying that what you wrote is inaccurate. See reliable sources and verifiability, these are key policies- part of what makes Wikipedia an encyclopedia rather than a publisher of original work. Friday (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. How would you recommend improving the article?

Note: I will ask this again in the Honour and Justice AfD discussion so that others may see your responce and respond to my question themselves if they wish. Kombucha 02:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With a subject like this, I doubt we can have much verifiability. This is part of the reason people consider the subject not very encyclopedic. Friday (talk) 05:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not at least see my viewpoint that, if information is correct, it is better to have it here than not have it, assuming the information is not just a biography on someone who has absolutely no fame etc? Even is this article doesn't apply to many people, it is not just a load of rubbish.Kombucha 16:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I understand where you're coming from. There are a few editors whose rule of thumb seems to be "if it exists, let's have as much information about it as possible in Wikipedia." Most editors want some level of significance, though, and believe that more details are not always better. It's really a judgement call. IMO, WP:V and related policies explain why it would be impossible to be indiscriminate with what we include and still be an encyclopedia.

That's all theory, though. On a more practical note, in my experience the "cruftier" the article is, the harder it is to keep unverifiable junk out of it. We see this frequently- for example, universities have articles, which is perfectly reasonable. Sometimes people get it in their heads to create an article about an individual dorm, for example. These articles are typically low quality and they're a magnet for people to add things like "Room 402 is the coolest room in the building, because Bob lives there and he likes to party." Given the lack of usefulness and the (IMO inappropriately high) level of detail in such articles, their existance does the project more harm than good. If there's something important to be said about the dorm, say it in the main university article.

Anyway, people have been disagreeing over these kinds of issues the whole time Wikipedia has been around, from what I can tell. My opinion (which I believe is shared by a significant portion of editors) is basically that if a topic isn't "important" enough to be discussed in multiple reliable sources, it should probably not be included in the encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. a better link to explain "cruft" is probably Wikipedia:Cruft. Friday (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Sh1 streets.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Sh1 streets.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Children by ethnicity

You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Western stereotype of the male ballet dancer

Hello, Kombucha. Personally, I think you should experiment with nominating an article for deletion, to get more comfortable with the process. First, I would suggest scanning the article in question, and then checking out basic policies like WP:Notability, WP:V, and WP:RS. Does the article's subject appear notable? Is there reasonably decent coverage of the subject in other sources (a Google or Bing search should help with determining this)? If not, a deletion nomination is appropriate. If you are interested, the page WP:Articles for deletion has some tips and something of a how-to guide. If you'd rather have another editor handle the nomination, that's fine, but it's worth trying. dci | TALK 01:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I'll do as you suggested tomorrow. However, this does seem (to me) to be quite a difficult thing to assess. One reason I'm uncertain is that it's a very narrow topic and so could be considered unnecessary even if other sources can be found to qualify it as notable. Perhaps overcategorization is also an issue? Kombucha (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think about it, perhaps the most appropriate first action would be to nominate the article to be merged into another. Kombucha (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good; please let me know if you need any help. dci | TALK 01:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look also at Wikipedia:Notability#Whether to create standalone pages for criteria that can help to decide a likely target article for merging. The best option would be an article about cultural influence of ballet, but there is no such thing at Wikipedia. History of ballet is related, but this content seems too specific there. If there is no good target for merging, it's better to have it as a short article. If you feel that it has to be merged, maybe Billy Elliot is an option? It's a high profile film that dealt with the topic. Diego (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you

... on Mozart. A more general discussion is on project level, following one on Pierre Boulez. We are in the eleventh year of the infobox wars which I still don't understand ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]