Talk:Ian McFarlane

Notability

On 6 April 2014 User:Mz7 added a Notability template to this article and gave an edit summary (Added {{notability}} tag to article (TW)) with little additional detail. Subsequently Mz7 removed a description of the subject's major work and two references.

According to Wikipedia:Notability (people), any person is likely to be notable if they meet the following standards: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field

McFarlane's magnum opus is his encyclopaedia, which is widely recognised as an authoritative source for information on Australian musicians from the 1950s to late 1990s. The quote removed from the article by Mz7 makes this point, I have returned the quote (with an archiveurl) and added an additional one from another secondary source.

Additional works by McFarlane have been described in edits by User:Dan arndt and myself.

I have recently removed the template inserted by Mz7 and I ask for any further concerns to be aired here prior to questions on its notability being disputed elsewhere without feedback from interested editors.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to the tag. The reason I added the tag was because CaesarsPalaceDude questioned this subject's notability at the Teahouse. I have pinged him, in case he wishes to respond to your reasonings. Best regards, Mz7 (alt) (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

As for my own stance on the matter, I thought notability was definitely questionable in the state the article was in before your edits. I think the sources you have provided now more-or-less show that the subject meets the standards for WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR, so I won't push it. Thank you for taking the time to improve the article. Mz7 (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC), revised 01:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, the essence of the discussion with User:Mz7 was: "I have a big problem with the references". Following the good work put in, I no longer hold that opinion. Secondly, there was never any doubt in my mind about the worthiness of the subject to be covered by Wikipedia. However, notability is a different matter; it is the suitability of the references as evidence that the subject is notable.

Thirdly, I should have documented the concerns at this talk page, but I didn't get to it. That's my fault, not User:Mz7. I don't have any further issues with the article as it is now. In my opinion, it is not a C-class article, and it should be changed to Start-class. But I will leave that to your discretion.

Finally, it would be a big help if a similar treatment (re refs) were applied to The Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop because the references are in poor shape. Please be aware that the only reason I joined Wikipedia was and is to improve the quality, and coverage of Rock music; so we are on the same side. I am currently very busy with other articles on Rock. Thankyou for your work on this article, and I wish you all the best. Have a great day.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I'm happier with this article but it probably needs a bigger Lead now that the main text has been expanded, however I'm busy elsewhere too. Thanks for your help in getting WP improved.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead expanded, should be more C-ish.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a fair call. An image of the venerable Ian McFarlane esq. would improve the appearance of the article, but it's not a priority. I'm learning about images, at the moment.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

March 2021 revert

@Toddst1: removed most of the last ¶, with the edit summary: way, way off topic

I disputed this characterisation and found this to be disruptive editing. I reverted the edit, with my summary: Returned recently deleted material: it was referenced, relevant and updated his career to 2010s;

I ask the user to discuss his preferred version here so that we can reach a consensus.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)00:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Who he chose as a favorite in a single column seems like abject WP:TRIVIA, WP:FANCRUFT and/or WP:EXCESSDETAIL.

It's not clear why this column is that significant in this man's bio to begin with. Has anyone outside The Age Fairfax Media even mentioned that column? How many columns has this guy published? Should we post details of all of them or just your favorite one(s)?

Even if it was a major accomplishment, those details that I removed don't explain why, how or even hint at its impact, so it makes no sense at all to mention them - unless they're your favorite bands of course. Toddst1 (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Toddst1: From the above you seem to be referring to two sentences. Why was the rest of that ¶ removed?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

You are correct: The last three sentences seem reasonable. I apparently selected further than I meant to. The encyclopedia is quite significant. Toddst1 (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I am willing to remove the sentence, "McFarlane chose Stoneage Romeos (1984) by Hoodoo Gurus as his favourite "reckless abandon and sheer fun ... capturing the essence of perfect power pop and wild garage punk in 11 far-out songs".[13]" I hope this satisfies your problem with that ¶.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)