User talk:Nmforste

Welcome

Hello, Nmforste, 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JzG (talk • contribs) 20:29, January 8, 2006.

List of Needlework Designers

List proposed for deletion

I think you may be under a misapprehension about why the List of Needlework Designers has been proposed for deletion. The real problem with it is the large number of red links. You didn't even bother annotating it with something like "designs regularly featured in Needlecraft magazine." It doesn't even indicate whether these folks are known primarily for counted cross-stitch designs, crewelwork, needlepoint, stumpwork or whatever. That makes it very hard to verify in the first place, particularly in an environment which is not populated with people who do much embroidery, the majority of whom are not from the U.K., and who are not terribly willing to go beyond a basic Google search for verification if all you give them is a bare name. (The reason I mention the U.K. is that while the U.K. is blessed with a plethora of excellent needlework magazines, the U.S.-- where the majority of Wikipedians live-- is not. One must go to a specialty store to buy them and in many areas they aren't available at all. Which makes it even harder for folks in the U.S. to verify the names.) You are somewhat in the same position as an editor submitting articles about popular musical groups in obscure genres.

You stated:

The designer has published multiple designs themselves, in magazines, etc. The designer as "published designer" can be verified by finding their website, by patterns for sale in shops, by book inclusions, and by third-party verification of independent persons. - The designer has a large fan base, e.g. many hundreds or thousands of people who have stitched a design, or a "cult following" which can be identified. - An independent biography, if they are quoted on other designers' websites, in magazines or on magazine websites. - Name recognition through sales. - Commercial endorsement, this can be through membership of industry-related organisations.

But this misses the point. You made an "article" that does not make these claims for the people listed in it. All it says is that they are needlework designers. It doesn't even say that they are published. For all someone who doesn't know anything about the topic knows (such as a person consulting an encyclopedia) these are people who design needlework but never share it with anyone or even work the designs themselves. A list like that can work where the individuals in the list are all extremely famous ("list of Apostles") and therefore extremely easy to verify, and/or when most of the links are blue-- anyone reading it would be able to quickly "verify" each blue entry. But it just won't work with so many red links.

The way I would handle this would be to go through each designer and write an article on him or her making just those assertions. I see you have already started that with Marilyn Leavitt-Imblum and Leon Conrad. Good work. Now apply a category such as Category:Embroidery designers. (Just put "[[Category:Embroidery designers]]" at the bottom of the page. See Wikipedia:Categorization for more info.) It will generate an un-annotated list just like the one you made manually, but will include only names that have articles.

Hope this helps. Crypticfirefly 06:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Crypticfirefly, for your tips. I think you are the first one who has seen the positive side of what I am trying to do. I will continue plottering on with the page, and when I learn more about the coding on the site, I will probably be able to do lists as they should be. Right now I am having to look at the pages that other people did so I know how to do the more complex linking. I think running your own wiki and contributing to wikipedia are two different things. I think what I'll do, is develop all the pages on my own wiki (where I know it won't get scrutinized) and then copy them all to wikipedia afterwards. Maybe you can keep looking in to make sure I do things the right way and help me improve my editing skills. Nmforste 07:37, 14 January 2006 (GMT)
- Glad to help. I think that embroidery as a topic is woefully underrepresented. I'm sorry you are having a frustrating time with this. One thing I sometimes do when working on an article that isn't quite to the level of being a solid "stub" is to work on it using a text editor & save it locally. Once I think I have enough to add to Wikipedia, I can easily paste it in. As noted below, I redid Marilyn Leavitt-Imblum into a solid stub to show you what a stand-alone article might look like (the suggestion someone else made below of having one article covering a lot of embroidery designers would also work). Though I don't mean to suggest that it is "finished." Crypticfirefly 18:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - As the person who nominated the list for deletion, I have to apologise for not noticing this thread before. I can assure you it was nothing personal or vindictive and I'm glad we worked out a sensible solution.

Running your own MediaWiki locally is really overkill, but it's an overkill that I also indulge in and I've found it to be very helpful. The only problem is forgetting that when I'm on Wikipedia I don't have access to all the features!

Anyway, good luck with your writing. --kingboyk 12:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this seems to have become the 'needlework discussion page': Just read Charles Germain de Saint Aubin, nice article with some interesting pictures. --kingboyk 17:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid sub-substub creation

Please stop creating several very short stubs about these designers. Short articles are confusing to readers. --Perfecto 07:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

they are going to get expanded when I can dig up my notes and type them in. I am doing a category list as per instructed by Crypticfirefly. And then when that's done I'll write up a long page about each of them.

I've blocked you for five minutes for rapid creation of very small substubs. Note that this isn't an indication that we consider your contributions to be vandalism; your efforts are valued, but there are a few basic guidelines you should follow. First, articles should contain enough context to allow the reader to have a basic grasp of the subject. A good substub is one that says, at the least, "Joe (born 1986-05-05) is a published needlework designer in several magazines, including MagazineName." Also, Wikipedia has a structure in place to allow very small articles to get editor attention for future expansion. Please add {{stub}} to any very small articles you create. Your block should expire within a few moment; again, thanks for your contributions. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 08:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pathoschild, and left a note to David. Just please give enough context. --Perfecto 08:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that once I got the category done that Crypticfirefly suggested I'd do. Give me a chance, please. I am still trying to comply with the first thing asked, and then also the stubs, and now you want me to put the context in. I will do that NEXT!!! Nmforste 08:42, 14 January 2006 (GMT)

There's no need to mass-produce these articles; you can do it over several weeks if necessary. As it is, these articles do not contain enough context and may be speedy-deleted before you can go back and add that in. Even if the article you're trying to save is deleted, you can go back and recreate it once enough articles exist. Take your time, there's no rush. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 08:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid copy-pasting raises many flags down here. Please give enough context for each new entry you start. The main article space is not a temp writing pad unfortunately. Yes, there's no rush. --Perfecto 08:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Cff probably meant for, "The way I would handle this would be to go through each designer and write an article on him or her making just those assertions." is to at least write WHERE he or she is published or some other substantial context. You can clarify this with Cff if you want. --Perfecto 08:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I meant. I rewrote Marilyn Leavitt-Imblum to show what I was suggesting that you do. Crypticfirefly 17:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC) Same goes for Leon Conrad & Erica Wilson. Crypticfirefly 16:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. An article whose sole content is "Published needlework designer" isn't an article. Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 09:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible alternative
Nmforste: I'd like to make an alternative suggestion to you about how to proceed with the needlepoint designer articles. I know that Crypticfirefly suggested you go about it in this way, but I think you've seen by now that there are a few problems with the current approach.

What I think you might want to think about instead is doing this — create one article on the needlepoint designers, but not like the original List of Needlework Designers article. Instead, write it as a fully-fledged article, with an introductory paragraph on needlework design, major publications, and styles (nothing too detailed, just a very brief overview), and then a section of the article on each individual, with a paragraph on each one stating at the least what style they work in and what distinguishes them from other designers. In other words, what are they known for.

I think a part of the problem you've had so far is that you've gone for quantity over quality, listing every designer you know, instead of giving some detail on each one. I know you plan to go back and add the detail, but I think you've got it the wrong way around. When I read the article on Lula Chang or Nan Caldera, what distinction can I see other than they've got two different names?

Instead, start with just the top few, get a good paragraph on each one, and then gradually add them all in, until you've got the lot. You know how to break an article into sections, right? Like so:

== Nan Caldera ==

Nan Caldera is a needlework designer who is best known for her Celtic post-modern abstract expressionist designs featuring infamous certified public accountants....

Once you get a few dozen sections going like this, the article will get so long that you may have people suggesting that it be broken up into separate articles on each individual, instead of people recommending the little stub articles for deletion, as I did (sorry about that).

I can't say that this is the right way to do it, as opposed to the way you have been and the way Crypticfirefly suggested. Rarely is there any one right way to do things on Wikipedia. But this is the way that I would go about it.

If you do start taking the List of Needlework Designers article in this direction, then I'd be happy to vote "keep" on it. Cheers, and welcome to Wikipedia. --DavidConrad 09:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of a single article on needlework designers, with a para for each and the more significant being split out into separate articles, is a good one in my view. It's obviously an area which is insufficiently covered on Wikipedia but there will be significant problems verifying the significance of some from reliable sources, so probably best to take it steadily rather than rush. Some of us have suggested that your existing list article be moved to your user space so as to give you time to work on it, not simply deleted. You can also create articles in your own user space and then copy or move them to the main 'pedia. Any of us will be happy to tell you how. We are not unsympathetic to what you are trying to do (my mum is a great cross-stitcher and needlepointer, and also gives talks on tea bag folding). - JzG 09:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List deleted

Hi, as per AfD I've deleted this article from the main namespace. However, I have moved a copy of it to your userspace, which can be accessed at User:Nmforste/List of Needlework Designers. Good luck editing, and I hope to see more work from you soon! Johnleemk | Talk 07:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your email

Please see Wikipedia:No legal threats, as you do not have legal ground to threaten a civil lawsuit against me. The edit block was for a duration of a single hour (see your entry in the block log) and did not affect your ability to view articles. If you have any questions or further comments, feel free to contact me. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 19:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've gone quiet

You've gone quiet. I know your initial experience was sub-optimal, but I was really hoping that a way could be found to help[ you cover an under-represented subject on Wikipedia without ending up with lots of fights.

If you were to take the existing list, moved to your user area, take the "blue" links and categorise them (I can help you do that), add a link to the category as "see also: category notable needlework designers" or some such, and then put in a single para about each of the others, to be expanded and them maybe split out as enough verifiable information and evidence of meeting the biographical criteria emerges, you would find a lot of support.

If you need me to tell you how to do some of this stuff, you can ask on my Wikipedia talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG - we really don't bite, but the occasional well-intentioned and genuine attempt to do something new and worthy gets buried in the deluge of vanity nonsense and spam we see every day. I think your intentions are good (or I wouldn't bother emailing) and I think what you are trying to do is something which is worth doing.

Oh, I can also help you with Wiki cultural references if you need - you've found out about "no legal threats" now, also "no personal attacks" and "be civil" (which is ironic, as many people are very uncivil when they post links to these policies). We try, in our ineffective geeks-on-a-mission way, not to bite the newbies.

Anyway, enough. I'll email this as well, just in case. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No new message, sorry. :)

This page was modified using the Autowiki Browser to sort signature links. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 21:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)