| Revision as of 10:45, 29 January 2010 editConti (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,084 edits →Washington Post polls← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:34, 29 January 2010 edit undoStarblueheather (talk | contribs)831 edits →Washington Post pollsNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out ] or ask me on {{#if:Mufka|]|my talk page}}. <!-- Template:Firstarticle --> Again, welcome! -- <font color="#000080">Mufka</font> ] ] ] 00:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out ] or ask me on {{#if:Mufka|]|my talk page}}. <!-- Template:Firstarticle --> Again, welcome! -- <font color="#000080">Mufka</font> ] ] ] 00:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == Washington Post polls == | |||
| I would urge you to discuss your additions before ]. The usual practice in cases like this is called ]: in other words, you ]ly make an addition to an article, but if someone disagrees (and reverts it) then everyone steps back and has a discussion instead of doing anything controversial. Since two editors already (myself and ]) have raised concerns about your addition, you should seek consensus before re-adding it. | |||
| For what it's worth, I think the poll itself is not necessarily notable (''Washington Post'' itself is, but its readers are just a small sample of the population and there's no particular reason WP readers' opinions on webcomics should be special in some way—unlike a case where we ''would'' value the opinion of a certain population, such as the ]). Plus, the survey apparently is not even finished yet, so the results are not reliable (actually, survey results are usually not reliable anyway because of sampling error and other issues, but in this case they're even less so since the survey is still underway). <b class="IPA">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 22:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll echo this. While it ''might'' be worth mentioning the 'winner' if an article at WashPo is written summarizing the results, certainly putting it on every ] result of a poll-in-progress is definitely not. It's really no more notable than if I had a survey of readers on my blog- it's biased, and ]. ] (]) 22:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think you two understand what "]" means. "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Misplaced Pages. They do not give guidance on the content of articles." I have not created a separate article on The Washington Post's readers poll. I have instead used The Washington Post as a ], by including information from them in some articles. If you'd like to try to change consensus on whether "notability" gives guidance on the contents of articles, you can discuss that at ]. If would like to change consensus on whether the Washington Post is a reliable source, I'm really not sure where you should go. ] maybe. Thanks, ] (]) 22:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nobody is saying that the Washington Post isn't ]. However, a poll of Washington Post readers that is currently in progress, and which QC is losing (and losing badly), isn't really relevant to the article. ] (]) 22:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, technically, Rjanag did imply WashPo isn't a RS, but see my explanation that follows. ] (]) 22:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::(ec)While the essay on notability is appreciated, there's a pretty good chance both of us have seen it. I'm guessing rjanag meant the content isn't encyclopedic, and you raised a great point- the real issue is that the data given is not a ]. There's no question Washington Post is a RS, but that doesn't mean everything on Washington Post is reliable or is encyclopedic. In this case, Washington Post is a reliable source, but the information ''on'' Washington Post is not reliable. See the "three meanings" of 'source' in the second paragraph of ]. ] (]) 22:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That's not an ] on notability. It is a ]. Policies and guidelines are not to be confused with essays. The reason I linked to it is because you seem ignorant of it and I think you need to read it and understand it better. Your belief that it is just an opinion essay only confirms this. Thanks, ] (]) 10:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Not to mention that there is no "top 10" or anything like it. It's an arbitrary number chosen by you, making this ]. And while ] is in the top 10 (), it still has a whopping 0% of all the votes cast, according to the poll. Anyhow, since there's a clear consensus (in my eyes) not to include the poll, I'll go ahead and revert the addition from the other articles as well. --]|] 22:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::OK, in order for me for me have an informed discussion on whether the Washington Post's comics blog is the equivalent of ]'s blog, could someone link me to tedder's blog? Also, I wasn't aware that counting up to 10 was original research. Well then, how about just "was one of 22 semifinalists" rather than performing the "original research" of counting up to ten? Thanks, ] (]) 23:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Who is to decide that we include the top 10, or the top 22, or the top 5? There's a lot of other reasons not to include the poll, per the comments above. Generally, we don't assume the same kind of notability for a well known newspaper and a blog appearing on the website of said newspaper. And a poll on a blog on a website of a well known newspaper is rarely relevant. I mean, heck, the Washington Post website . That doesn't mean we should or could include each and every one of those polls ("Is Peter Orszag a sexy nerd?") in our articles. --]|] 23:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Again, if Washington Post writes a half-decent article discussing the winner(s) of their poll, it might be worth mentioning. Before then, it's fancruft and ], which should be avoided, except perhaps in the case of . ] (]) 23:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I think if the Washington Post's writer/editor who writes the Washington Post's comics blog says there are 22 of them ("22 webcomics that are vying mightily to be crowned Best Webcomic of the Past Decade"), then we can use him as a source for there being 22, without having to resort to the "original research" of counting all the way up to 22 ourselves. I know our sourcing standards for the ] article are so incredibly high they include such top-notch info as , but I think that the ] is pretty good, too. It may not be tedder's blog quality, but then again I have yet to read tedder's blog. Thanks, ] (]) 00:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::You entirely ignored my point that the ] is not the same thing as a blog hosted on the Washington Post's website. --]|] 08:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::What was your point? You don't think the Washington Post's comics blog is a reliable source? But you think a better source for an encyclopedia article is a photo of somebody goofing off on a playground? You also still seem to be confused about the relationship between "notability" and article content. I could care less whether this blog is notable as I'm not trying to create a separate article on it. After you've cleared up your confusion between reliable sources and notability, and if you still do not believe this Washington Post blog is a reliable source, then you may want to remove the references to it in ] and ] and elsewhere. Then feel free to add more playground snapshots and maybe a reference to tedder's blog which you guys feel is of Washington Post quality. Still waiting on that link to tedder's blog; it sounds great. Thanks, ] (]) 10:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Thanks for pointing those out, I've removed them as well. There are at least half a dozen reasons not to include the poll anywhere. The blog probably not being a reliable source is just one of them. Many others have already been pointed out above. --]|] 10:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:34, 29 January 2010
 |
|
Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, Starblueheather, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Misplaced Pages's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.
Thank you.You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- Your first article
- Biographies of living persons
- How to write a great article
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- Help pages
- Tutorial
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 Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Mufka 00:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)