7oto

Welcome!

Hi 7oto! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

About the removal of the sections and working on Wikipedia

Hello. I did not want to talk about personnal or general WP matters on the talk page of the article. So, here is my answer to the rest of your previous message.
I understand your pain, I myself have often worked a lot on something on WP, only for my arguments and works to be ignored or for my work to be wiped. But, that's how it goes on Wikipedia. If you want, maybe WikiChristian has policies that would allow a list of this kind to stay there (altough it must be noted their license is not compatible with that of Wikipedia since WikiChristian's is a non-commercial one).
I have nothing personnal against those lists. The closest thing is that from a random reader's point of view having this long list is a waste of space, even filling most of the table of content. I simply want to improve Wikipedia (and especially avoid citogenesis), make it better for both users (hence the numerous DAB I created) and readers. I believe most policies, as they stand currently, are sound and help reach those goals. Veverve (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Veverve, for your reply. I might try to use WikiChristian, however, currently I lost motivation. Maybe in the future. :) 7otto (talk) 10:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I TOTALLY AGREE! He and the Teahouse "editors" have destroyed the articles by taking out the dates, for instance

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar_of_1954

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar_of_1960

3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar

ALL OF THE ARTICLES ARE COMPLETELY USELESS!

Because of they attitude, today I have removed my charity donation that I give each month to Wikipedia ... a sad commentary on what I thought was a great deal with in started ... Bob Tarver (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@BobTarver, while I understand you and agree with you, let us all calm down.

@Veverve only edits Wikipedia articles according to Wikipedia rules and policies. Just a though: have you ever read an encyclopaedia (a real book) with such a long list of anything? I haven’t. And Wikpedia strives to be just like that.

Anyway, I am in the middle of of reformatting of the celebrations lists into Markdown and place them in a GitLab repository. For now only celebrations from General Roman Calendar, later I plan to add National calendars of the Roman Rite, Personal jurisdiction calendars of the Roman Rite and Institutional and societal calendars of the Roman Rite. I’ll keep you posted if you want to contribute other celebration lists.

I believe a link to an external website which lists all the celebrations is a valid reference, isn’t it, @Veverve? 7otto (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Great! Without the dates it does not make sense ... do you have an external or internal sources that you can tie both https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar_of_1954

and the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar_of_1960 into the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar ??? I prefer the internal sources so that the Wiki articles tie together. The "See Also" section of the Wiki articles needs to be redone, especially the "General Roman Calendar" ... I am GLAD with your RESPONSE, and help with out in the future until we get the Calendars back into order! Bob Tarver (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@BobTarver: are you aware personnal attacks such as those (against me and @Cullen328, RudolfRed, and Gråbergs Gråa Sång:) are not accepted on Wikipedia and can get you banned?

7oto: personnal works are sometimes accepted as external links, yes. The current EL of the GRC is one such example. However, WP:BLOGs are not WP:RSs. Veverve (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I will NOT trying a personnel attack to you, but now the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar_of_1954, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar_of_1960, and the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar are really messed up, and it is because of your activity changing the articles ... Bob Tarver (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

He and the Teahouse "editors" have destroyed the articles by taking out the dates [...] ALL OF THE ARTICLES ARE COMPLETELY USELESS! and [Those articles] are really messed up, and it is because of your activity changing the articles: those are clear personnal attacks. Veverve (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@BobTarver, @Veverve, let us at once calm down. Wikipedia is not about individual users (be it editors or readers). Yes, I too was angry at you, @Veverve, however, I understand the Wikipedia policies are against lists such as celebration lists, thus I want to provide an external resource I’ll try to update on any update to the calendar propers.

I hope the Wikipedia contributors will help us update the propers in my GitLab repository (I’ll share it soon).

Just a side note: there is no such word in English as personnal. There is personnel (a body of persons employed in an organization or place of work) and personal] (of, relating to, or coming as from a particular person; individual; private). I think both of you wanted to use the latter (personal attack). ;) 7otto (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@BobTarver, I don’t really understand what do you mean by external and internal sources. Could you be more clear please?

I was thinking about creating some folder structure like this: `${cal_revision}/${cal_type}/${cal_name}.md`, e.g. `1969/general/general_roman_calendar.md` for the GRC 1969 celebrations list. We might want to change the folder structure and/or the names (like calendar revision: is year sufficient? I presume yes, however, I haven’t checked it).

Also, I’d like to define contents format, so that all celebrations lists would look same.

At least for now, I am not interested in liturgical rules, however, I might change my mind (though I am sure I don’t want to include them until we have the all celebration lists removed from Wikipedia moved to the repository).

As for previous calendar revisions (before 1969), I have no idea about the liturgical rules (albeit I am interested in them), therefore I’d like to have other contributors who will create an MR for them. I think the following Wikipedia article revisions can be useful (they are the last revision before @Veverve modified them):

• General Roman Calendar of 1954;
• General Roman Calendar of 1960.

7otto (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

For instance, in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar article, internal sources was be another wiki article ("See also"), and external sources would be "External Links" (there is only one article in the "General Roman Calendar as applied to a specific year"), and yes the articles https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1092030756 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1104648537 need to be included somehow (smile) ... Bob Tarver (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

You mean this revision of General Roman Calendar of 1960? Which do link from External links you mean exactly? I don’t really think they could be regarded as official sources, when we have the Roman Missal (Latin and English). For the GRC, the Latin Missal (with later changes to it, such as celebration inscriptions) is the ultimate source and I have an electronic copy of both of them.

For particular calendar propers (as well as some historical calendar revisions) other, less reliable sources might be used, however not for the GRC 1969. 7otto (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, I am a little confused, I am thinking of a wiki article entitled "General Roman Calendar (Month by Month)" on the "See also" section of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar. This would allow a detailed list of the months January thru December. If you say that the Roman Missal, for instance, demonstrate all the feasts, then why would that not be sufficient as far as Wikipedia goes? You know that was why I was so upset about the "new" calendar, if you don't have a listing month by month then what is the "Calendar" for? If I went to buy a calendar and all the pages are blank, I will not buy it! (smile) Bob Tarver (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@BobTarver, if I understand you correctly, you are still talking about keeping the celebrations list in the Wikipedia articles, right? The reason for removing them are the Wikipedia rules and policies (such as WP:BURDEN + WP:V + (potentially) WP:CITOGENESIS for missing citations and WP:NOTLIST for celebrations lists are quite long, and partially also WP:NOTDIRECTORY). When you open an encyclopaedia (a real book), would you expect to find there celebrations list? I wouldn’t. I would simply expect a most general description of each included keyword.

> If I went to buy a calendar and all the pages are blank, I will not buy it! (smile)

Well, even a regular calendar (list of all days and months in a year) is not published in the Calendar article. The Calendar article only defines various calendar types, their division, differences between them, etc.

Likewise, @Veverve tries to do the same with the GRC articles.

Now, fighting the Wikipedia rules won’t help anyone. All we can do is move the celebrations lists outside Wikipedia and provide a link to them in External links of the GRC articles.

Have I answered your questions? ;) 7otto (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, then why is the wiki article https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States acceptable? After all it long, and has 3 ONLY references - get rid of it - if that is the policy. Now consider the "See also " section of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar article, it has the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_of_saints_(Lutheran), which is just the way to the General Roman Calendar use to be, so get rid of it! You know I have been a supporter of Wikipedia, but not now because it seems that one user can destroy ALL that articles which he has mind too ... Bob Tarver (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@BobTarver: List of Catholic saints exists, and I have no plan on removing it. Calendar of saints (Lutheran) has been turned into a redirect, thanks for pointing it. Veverve (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@BobTarver, I am not the right person to ask.

However, I think that 46 presidents of one of the most influential countries is much, much shorter that approximately 228 celebrations inscribed in the GRC (1969). That is for WP:NOTLIST.

As for WP:BURDEN, you argue that it has only three references. I don’t the number of references changes anything, granted that all information within an article is sourced. And in case of List of presidents of the United States, the first reference to White House website provides a source of all the US presidents. Some information (table column data), though, is sourced from the two other references.

On the other hand, some (most) of the GRC 1969 national calendars (National calendars of the Roman Rite) have (actually had) no citations at all.

> Now consider the "See also " section of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar

See also section is not considered as a citation source (at least in case of the GRC (1969) article (both general and particular calendars). There are (were) only links which provide additional information. All sources are (were) in the References section.

> it seems that one user can destroy ALL that articles which he has mind too

You seem to be harsh misinformed about what happen.

@Veverve simply acted according to the Wikipedia rules and policies. He also asked another Wikipedia user/editor for his opinion (he agreed with Veverve) and even in WK Teahouse additional two users agreed with him. Therefore at least four WP users/editors agreed on the removal, backed by Wikipedia rules and policies.

---

In the end, I don’t think this conversion on re-adding the celebrations lists makes sense: as I understand it, they won’t be re-added, as per WP rules and policies. 7otto (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, best of luck to you ... Vaya con Dios (smile) Bob Tarver (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@BobTarver, I have ported the GRC (1969) celebrations list to Markdown. It is hosted at https://gitlab.com/tukusejssirs/romcal_calendars. The celebrations list of the GRC (1969) is located here.

Before trying to contribute, I encourage you to read the `readme.md` first. Feel free to ask anything you want. No rules set by me are hard-coded.

Anyway, I have no idea if you have ever used Git and a Git host like GitLab or GitHub. If you have no experience, I gladly help you out. ;) 7otto (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

GitLab

The discussion on the GitLab link should take place at the talk page of the article from where it was added to then removed from. Therefore, if you want, you can open a discussion at Talk:General Roman Calendar of 1969 about it. Please try to keep discussions contained in their related articles.

As for my opinion of whether it is WP:ELNO or not: I will see the arguments from both sides, and see for myself. Veverve (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)