Talk:RecentChangesCamp

The following is meant to serve as an invitation

The following is meant to serve as an invitation for any wikipedians who might be able to swing by Portland for a fantastic event. I'm not sure that this is the best/right place to advertise for wikipedians ... any thoughts? BrandonCsSanders 05:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I cut it -- at this point it's outdated and this was never the right place for it, anyway. The invitation is preserved on the camp website, for those interested. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 04:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Announcing recent changes camp 2007

So I've added the next recent changes to the page, but I'm afraid it goes through as a Wikipedia:Vanity_page, since I'm one of the non-organizers, so I won't go further than that.

Again, we invite all wikipedians to attend. People needing hosting or travel arrangements can request them on the RCC wiki. We also need help cleaning up that wiki and coordinating the event. TheAnarcat 15:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

notability

I don't mean to sound like Scrooge here, but we need to be fair to other non-notable articles that have been deleted or redirected or merged. Outside of being a Wikipedia related event, how exactly is this notable enough for an article? As far as I can tell, it isn't. Less than 200 attendees. No occurrences in the major media. Kingturtle (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, no offense to anyone, but I keep looking for news items on this, and all I find are blog entries and self-promotional postings. If this was not a Wikipedia related event, I think it would be deleted. Please get some legit sources and provide reasons in the article for notability. Kingturtle (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There's an exclusive news article by The Oregonian in the References section presently. As WP:N doesn't even require exclusive coverage, just substantial, I would say the conference is notable. There are people from many notable wikis attending this year, including Foundation staff. VanTucky 20:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The link to the Oregonian story doesn't even link to the Oregonian website. And I can't find any other news stories on this item.

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources [plural] that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable."

There is no significant coverage. There is but one source, and it doesn't link to the newspaper's website, and we can't use the attendance of Wikipedia Foundation staff as a source - that's not independent; it is self-referential. Kingturtle (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I was mentioning the attendees to refute the idea that this doesn't have anyone of note attending, not to assert independent verification of notability, sorry if there was any confusion. The linked article is a reposting of the entire thing, mostly because the Oregonian doesn't keep their articles up on the web forever. I can use the library records of the paper to get it if need be, but for a news article to be used, it doesn't have to have a live net link. The largest newspaper in Oregon gave significant coverage to Recent Changes Camp, and that meets notability by far. If you're really suggesting that the article is a fake, call Mike Rogoway at the paper. His number is right at the bottom. To suggest that an exclusive news piece on the front page of the business section isn't enough coverage to make an annual event notable is not in line with WP:N from my perspective. VanTucky 21:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

A) A notable attendee does not a notable event make.

B) The reason I wanted to see the actual Oregonian article is to find out what page it was on. Was it on page 1 or tucked away in page 20 of an insert? How significant was the coverage?

C) The article needs many more independent references to make it up to snuff. Kingturtle (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't need multiple exclusive news stories. Either multiple trivial sources combined or a very few large, exclusive articles. Notability policy requires significant coverage, which is defined as "more than trivial but less than exclusive". If not even exclusive coverage is needed, and the subject has it, then it is therefore obviously notable. VanTucky 22:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. WP:N specifically states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.". It meets everything but the word "sources" (plural) which it says "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.". READ "generally preferred" not required. This is notable. And if you'd like - we can even have a vote about it. --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 22:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Style guidelines for conference articles?

For each instance of a major conference, please include links to

• A conference announcement
• A schedule or active schedule/presentations page on the conf site
• A post or publication wrapping up the event.

In this case, rather than having one major section per year, I would have a section on background and motivation; a section on the style of the conferences and information about them that is shared year to year; one on the body of the conferences, with a paragraph and citations for each year; and a section on references and results and implications in the wiki world / in the media including links to related events.

The current article is surprisingly sparse for one about a wiki conf. I don't think it should go away, but it should be written with much more precision. +sj + 06:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• things I think are missing right now: who started RCC (it was people at AboutUs, but I need a good source for this); topics covered (could be extrapolated from conference pages); attendance. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

--It wasn't just AboutUs people because Ward was not in the WikiVan, for example. Can we get some highlights from the movie under the section about definition?Kristinwt (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The exclusion of Ward doesn't mean it wasn't (other) AboutUs people :) anyway, it's hard to cite a movie unless it was formally published. Not terribly encyclopedic, anyway. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 22:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Two things to note: the "AboutUs" people started RCC before AboutUs existed (I believe), and John Abbe (not affiliated with AboutUs, now of Wagn) also played a key role. Steven Walling (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Look at all this good information resulting from a supposedly-spurious afd :) A true count of the number of RCCs created or imagined since the name stuck would be neat also; and some notes about the facilitators for places that took open space seriously. 09:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This years press

http://www.montrealmirror.com/2010/062410/front.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.236.154 (talk) 00:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on RecentChangesCamp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080114052256/http://2006.recentchangescamp.org:80/CampProceedings to http://2006.recentchangescamp.org/CampProceedings

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)