Misplaced Pages

Talk:Tanka in English: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:30, 2 November 2012 editHijiri88 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users37,391 edits →13 October 2012 AFD recommendation← Previous edit Revision as of 18:17, 13 November 2012 edit undoTristan noir (talk | contribs)973 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 11: Line 11:


::Material on English Misplaced Pages must be (1) true, and (2) verifiable. The rules for notability regarding inclusion of material within a larger article are different from those regarding stand-alone articles, but my past arguments still stand. It is not my "POV" that Jeffrey Woodward unilaterally invented the concept of "tanka prose" in 2008 (possibly 2007), or that you are trying to promote Jeffrey Woodward's works on Misplaced Pages, or that so-called "tanka prose" has never seen coverage except in minor, non-notable publications. Please refrain from adding misleading or offensive material to Misplaced Pages. Also, please stop making personal attacks against me on talk pages. ] (]) 02:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC) ::Material on English Misplaced Pages must be (1) true, and (2) verifiable. The rules for notability regarding inclusion of material within a larger article are different from those regarding stand-alone articles, but my past arguments still stand. It is not my "POV" that Jeffrey Woodward unilaterally invented the concept of "tanka prose" in 2008 (possibly 2007), or that you are trying to promote Jeffrey Woodward's works on Misplaced Pages, or that so-called "tanka prose" has never seen coverage except in minor, non-notable publications. Please refrain from adding misleading or offensive material to Misplaced Pages. Also, please stop making personal attacks against me on talk pages. ] (]) 02:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

== "Self-published" journals - an oxymoron ==

In user Elvenscut742 has removed mention of four periodicals from the 'History' section with the summary: ''Removing reference to non-notable, self-published (via Lulu) "journals"''. This user has repeatedly asserted that certain periodicals are "self-published" and has been challenged on more than one occasion to explain the difference between a 'self-published' periodical and any other one, but has on every occasion failed to do so. It has also been repeatedly explained to this editor that all periodicals are in effect 'self-published' but he seems entirely unable to grasp this simple fact. Which printer a publisher selects to print their publication is of absolutely zero relevance. The editor, in addition to repeatedly displaying the depths of his ignorance of publishing, has now shown that he has no knowledge at all of the Japanese and Australian journals, reference to which he has removed from the article. The edit summary clearly indicates that the edit was based on ignorance rather than fact and should be reverted. --] (]) 13:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

:Agreed. User Elvenscout742 has unilaterally removed similar references to periodicals from the body of various articles and removed ELs to various articles based upon the same flawed (or tendentious) arguments about "self-published" and/or "non-notable" sources. I would cite, apart from the current article, his recent removals of similar materials at ], ], ] and ]. In each instance, he has demonstrated his broad miscomprehension of modern publishing and his apparent ignorance of the contents of the specific journals that he has removed. His campaign, across a number of articles, has become disruptive and counter-productive.] (]) 18:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:17, 13 November 2012

WikiProject iconJapan Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 20:34, January 22, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Japan to do list:
  • Featured content candidates – 

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

WikiProject iconPoetry Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

MET Press as a source

It seems that a lot of the information in this article comes from material that is self-published on Lulu. I have tagged these citations as dubious for this reason. While I don't doubt that tanka in English exists and merits its own article, there must be less dubious sources out there. MET Press has a history of putting out some rather questionable material (see User:Elvenscout742/Jeffrey Woodward critique). elvenscout742 (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

13 October 2012 AFD recommendation

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tanka prose, where it was recommeded by the closing administrator that Tanka prose Tanka prose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) be merged into Tanka in English. The redirect Tanka prose has been proposed for deletion as not needing to be merged at Misplaced Pages:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_13#Tanka_prose, so the amount to be merged, according to user:elvenscout742 may be small to none. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 04:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

User Elvenscout742’s POV regarding “the amount to be merged” carries no particular weight. His opinion, as cited by the IP above, is not supported by the AFD recommendation nor does it accurately reflect the results of the RFD discussion.Tristan noir (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Material on English Misplaced Pages must be (1) true, and (2) verifiable. The rules for notability regarding inclusion of material within a larger article are different from those regarding stand-alone articles, but my past arguments still stand. It is not my "POV" that Jeffrey Woodward unilaterally invented the concept of "tanka prose" in 2008 (possibly 2007), or that you are trying to promote Jeffrey Woodward's works on Misplaced Pages, or that so-called "tanka prose" has never seen coverage except in minor, non-notable publications. Please refrain from adding misleading or offensive material to Misplaced Pages. Also, please stop making personal attacks against me on talk pages. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

"Self-published" journals - an oxymoron

In this edit user Elvenscut742 has removed mention of four periodicals from the 'History' section with the summary: Removing reference to non-notable, self-published (via Lulu) "journals". This user has repeatedly asserted that certain periodicals are "self-published" and has been challenged on more than one occasion to explain the difference between a 'self-published' periodical and any other one, but has on every occasion failed to do so. It has also been repeatedly explained to this editor that all periodicals are in effect 'self-published' but he seems entirely unable to grasp this simple fact. Which printer a publisher selects to print their publication is of absolutely zero relevance. The editor, in addition to repeatedly displaying the depths of his ignorance of publishing, has now shown that he has no knowledge at all of the Japanese and Australian journals, reference to which he has removed from the article. The edit summary clearly indicates that the edit was based on ignorance rather than fact and should be reverted. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. User Elvenscout742 has unilaterally removed similar references to periodicals from the body of various articles and removed ELs to various articles based upon the same flawed (or tendentious) arguments about "self-published" and/or "non-notable" sources. I would cite, apart from the current article, his recent removals of similar materials at Renku, Haiga, Index of literary terms and Haibun. In each instance, he has demonstrated his broad miscomprehension of modern publishing and his apparent ignorance of the contents of the specific journals that he has removed. His campaign, across a number of articles, has become disruptive and counter-productive.Tristan noir (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Tanka in English: Difference between revisions Add topic