Talk:Shipwreck Conservation Centre
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Onel5969 in topic Page Curation (pov, notability, primary sources)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Page Curation (pov, notability, primary sources)
editSorry, but I can't agree with imputations.
There is no OR at all. All informations are from Museum web-site.
Making article I try to filter all POV (natural on owner web-site). Presently, only modern equipment may be considered as "not neutral" but it's proper description. (Some similar workshops complain for lack of modern equipment and necessity to use old tools and machines).
I don't suppose, museum, part of National Museum, containing reamins of XVth century ships and older boats is not notable. Therefore I would like to ask you for rmovind template. Ciacho5 (talk) 11:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Since User:Chiacho5 asked me to comment on this, here I am. The tags have been added few days ago by User:Onel5969 with no rationale. As such, they can be removed at will by anyone who disagrees with them. In my own review, I find no justification for NPOV tag, nor for notability (museums are almost always notable). The only template which is justified is primary sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping, Piotrus - First, when curating, there is no facility to add notes to the particular tags added, so there being no rationale is irrelevant. You are absolutely correct about the NPOV tag, don't know why I added it, could possibly have been a stray click. However, I am unaware of any inherent notability clause for museums. WP:GEOFEAT does not mention it, nor does WP:OUTCOMES, WP:MAPOUTCOMES in particular. WP:NPLACE (also in outcomes) does say that attractions "often survive AfD", but that does not mean that they are automatically considered notable. I didn't mark this for deletion because I feel that this very well might be notable, but that in its current condition it does not pass notability criteria. As such, I've returned the notability tag until its references are improved. Take care. Onel5969 TT me 19:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- @User:Onel5969: I checked Polish media ([1]) and I think there is enough coverage (despite this museum being very new, or perhaps because) that we can remove the notability tag (it would be nice if someone would integrate those refs into the article). Major outlets: Onet.pl ([2]), TVN24 ([3]), TVP3 ([4]) regional Radio Gdańsk, Dziennik Bałtycki and some lesser ones I don't recognize. But I think it suffices to remove the tag? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hi. As long as the issue of notability has been addressed, of course the tag can be removed. Onel5969 TT me 12:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- @User:Onel5969: I checked Polish media ([1]) and I think there is enough coverage (despite this museum being very new, or perhaps because) that we can remove the notability tag (it would be nice if someone would integrate those refs into the article). Major outlets: Onet.pl ([2]), TVN24 ([3]), TVP3 ([4]) regional Radio Gdańsk, Dziennik Bałtycki and some lesser ones I don't recognize. But I think it suffices to remove the tag? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping, Piotrus - First, when curating, there is no facility to add notes to the particular tags added, so there being no rationale is irrelevant. You are absolutely correct about the NPOV tag, don't know why I added it, could possibly have been a stray click. However, I am unaware of any inherent notability clause for museums. WP:GEOFEAT does not mention it, nor does WP:OUTCOMES, WP:MAPOUTCOMES in particular. WP:NPLACE (also in outcomes) does say that attractions "often survive AfD", but that does not mean that they are automatically considered notable. I didn't mark this for deletion because I feel that this very well might be notable, but that in its current condition it does not pass notability criteria. As such, I've returned the notability tag until its references are improved. Take care. Onel5969 TT me 19:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)