User talk:Hippo43/Archives/2009/July

Line-up graphics

Discuss this issue on the talk page before making any more changes. Your change has been objected to, so the article should remain the way it is until the issue is resolved. – PeeJay 22:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Your version was objected to, by me, and no consensus was reached on the talk page, so the version which existed before your ugly graphics arrived should be retained. Discuss this issue on the talk page before making any more changes. --hippo43 (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

My version adheres to a standard set by the 2007 Rugby World Cup articles. Yours is the one that needs consensus before we adopt it. Btw, you should also be aware of WP:3RR. – PeeJay 23:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Your version doesn't adhere to any standard, it just looks the same as some other articles. That doesn't make it right. There is a wide range of styles used in articles on rugby tours and competitions. Moreover, the rugby world cup doesn't feature non-test matches so is hardly a perfect comparison. By introducing these graphics you made a major change to the previous stable style, so the non-graphics version is the one which needs to stay for now. --hippo43 (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

BI and wp:brd

Are you aware that wp:brd operates on the British Isles page. You are not supposed to revert your reverted edits. You can discuss here [1]. Tfz 19:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's blatant original research. If you have a source for the claim that publishers have dropped the term, put it in the article. The discussion is a pretty pointless fight drummed up by POV warriors. I've replied at the talk page. --hippo43 (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

X Division Articles

Moved to article talk page. --hippo43 (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

BI

I really think that understanding WP:NOR is like those magic eye pictures which pop out on a page - some people just don't get it, but once you do, the penny drops and you get it forever. Anyway, glad you're on board for this ridiculous discussion that we wouldn't need to have if everyone understood policy. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you're probably right, and you're definitely right that this is a ridiculous discussion. In this case, I think there are some smart editors on the other side who are maybe playing dumb. The longer a discussion like this goes on, the more valid the opposite view seems (at least to some), and the more likely a false compromise becomes. --hippo43 (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, definitely right that this is a ridiculous discussion. All so self-righteous here, and don't think I'd like being on your "side". One thing about the Irish, they never conquered, so they never conspired. Tfz 20:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Conspired? We definitely found a great secret place for our conspiring. No way anyone would be able to find our conversation here. --hippo43 (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Erdős–Bacon number

Your extemist approach to the article is inappropriate, disruptive, and contrary to much of Wikipedia policy of consensus. A huge portion of what you removed WAS reliably sourced. If you find individual sentences, paragraphs, or sections that are not properly source, please tag or remove them. But do not make a wholesale destruction of 95% of the article simply because some parts of it are not reliably sourced. Such sweeping changes need consensus on the talk page, not unilateral decision-making by a single editor. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied at article talk page. --hippo43 (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You've been blocked 3 times for edit warring, and I won't hesitate to make a 3RR complaint

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Erdős–Bacon number‎. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ward3001 (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

IMDb

IMDb is not an unacceptable source for lists of cast members in films. See Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. Ward3001 (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not what has been done here. Erdos numbers have been calculated using the Oracle of Bacon tool. According to Wikipedia:Citing IMDb (which is not a policy, but a failed proposal), only credits marked with 'WGA' are usable. There is no way of knowing if the data used by the Oracle of Bacon meets this criterion. Calculating actors' Bacon numbers from credits listed on IMDb or elsewhere is also obvious original research. If Erdos numbers, Bacon numbers or Erdos-Bacon numbers are not published in reliable sources, they shouldn't be restored.

Why on earth are you re-inserting this crap? It obviously fails WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. The burden of evidence is on you to provide appropriate references. It's abundantly clear that you didn't check every example before restoring it, as I did before removing them. --hippo43 (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

And it's abundantly clear that you removed sourced information inappropriately. The IMDb information is not a policy, but it is a guideline. And it is not failed. It is divided into acceptable, unacceptable, and disputed uses of IMDb. In the absence of a policy against use of IMDb for cast lists, it can be used for this purpose.
It is consensus that will determine whether the article has crap in it that should be removed, not you alone. And beyond the issue of whether some of the material belongs in the article, I and most Wikipedia editors have little or no tolerance for your bullying and bulldozing approach to editing that assumes you make the decisions without consensus. You're skating on thin ice here. Keep it up and you'll get a fourth block. Now, I'm not arguing further with you. If you want a consensus to remove information from the article, seek it on the talk page like everyone else. Ward3001 (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Re citing IMDb, did you read the big box at the top of the page: "This proposal has failed to attain consensus within the Wikipedia community. A failed proposal is one for which a consensus to accept is not present after a reasonable amount of time, regardless of continuing discussion."?

When the argument you use is "if you do it again you'll get blocked" you clearly don't have a strong case. Discussion is not needed in advance to remove OR and unverified shite. I note you haven't addressed the issues at all. --hippo43 (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll repeat for the last time: In the absence of a Wikipedia policy against use of IMDb for cast lists, it is acceptable to use it. And if you think you won't be blocked (again) for edit warring, go ahead and try. End of discussion here. Take it up on the talk page for the article. Ward3001 (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Except my objection isn't to using IMDb for cast data. My objection is that calculating Bacon numbers, and also Erdos-Bacon numbers, by using this data, rather than reporting their presence in published sources, is original research. You haven't addressed this point. --hippo43 (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The calculations that are done at the University of Virgina are based on IMDb. So the source is IMDb. Just as someone can use a calculator to perform a calculation of a formula created by someone else, the formula is the source, not the calculator. I'm not arguing this any further with you. Ward3001 (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

US Postal/Discovery

The cyclist infobox specifically notes that the team names given are those from the beginning of the time of the rider associating with the team. Consider Mark Cavendish - he accomplished almost nothing with "T-Mobile Team," but that's who is listed as his team from 2007 ("Team Columbia-HTC" is also there, as "current team"). Or even Carlos Sastre - he only rode with "CSC Tiscali" for one year, but that's the team name in his infobox. We (WP:CYC) decided on this a few months ago. If you think it needs to be changed, bring up with the Project. Personally, I don't think this is necessarily perfect (because when/if Cavendish changes teams, it'll indeed look a little odd), but the situation is waaaayyyy too broad to approach it case-by-case. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 18:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case maybe the cyclist infobox is not infallible?? If Cavendish's info is so misleading, maybe the cyclist infobox practice needs to be changed? Is there a policy that says we can't deal with it case by case? In any case, 'what usually happens with cyclist infoboxes' does not trump verifiability. Armstrong did not ride for US Postal in 2005. He rode for Discovery. That is not in any doubt. It would be entirely incorrect to write that he rode for US Postal from 1998-2005. --hippo43 (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Please bring it up with WP:CYC (or if you'd like, I will). Armstrong rode with the team that was known as "US Postal" in 1998 from 1998-2005. This is a correct fact, and it is what the cyclist infobox reflects. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 19:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I won't be starting a discussion at WP:CYC, I don't have the time. If you raise it, I will try to contribute. The article needs to be verifiable, in line with policy. Cycling project conventions do not trump this.

You're absolutely right that "Armstrong rode with the team that was known as "US Postal" in 1998 from 1998-2005". However, this is not what the article says, nor would it be worthwhile including in the article. What readers want to know is 'which team did Armstrong compete for?' In 2004 it was US Postal. In 2005 it was Discovery. "1998-2005: US Postal" is in no way correct. --hippo43 (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Erdős–Bacon number

This edit: are you serious? To take a similar example: Natalie Portman says she was born in 1981 (for which there are no refs, but let's assume there are). It also says "(age 28)" in the infobox. Do you put a {{cn}} on the "age 28"? No, because it follows logically from the birth date, and anyone can see that. I don't see why you insist that a citation is needed for the fact that for <the sum of one's Erdős number—which measures the "collaborative distance" in authoring mathematical papers [...] and one's Bacon number—which represents the number of links, through roles in films [...]> to be well-defined, it is necessary for one to have both appeared in a film and co-authored an academic paper. It follows logically from the definition. We only put {{cn}} on things that could possibly be false. I don't understand what your intention is. Shreevatsa (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. The part that needed referencing was the "but not sufficient" bit - I didn't see that in the references. Anyhow, I've copyedited the lead to make it more comprehensible. --hippo43 (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's obvious too, isn't it? Having a paper doesn't automatically mean there's a publication path to Erdős, and acting in a film doesn't automatically mean you're connected to Bacon — so it's not sufficient. The point of the "No original research" policy was to avoid crackpots; it doesn't mean that articles shouldn't expound and explain obvious things — not every single line needs to have already been written in exactly those words somewhere; it is only necessary that everything be supported by references. It does not mean that Wikipedia should be "merely an elaborate copy-paste job" as someone said. Shreevatsa (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If it was obvious, I wouldn't have tagged it, would I? The point of the No Original Research policy, as I understand it, is nothing to do with crackpots. It is about maintaining a certain level of encyclopedic quality and credibility. As far as I'm concerned, all material in every article has to be verifiable - it has nothing to do with being written in the same words. If it isn't verifiable, this isn't the right website for it. --hippo43 (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

We agree on that; you just seem to have a different notion of what "verifiable" means. Nevermind. Shreevatsa (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand it to mean 'can be verified in referenced reliable sources', kind of in line with WP:V. What other meaning is there? --hippo43 (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, "can be verified from", not "is already present in". In computational terms (see the examples at P = NP problem), the sources only need to be a "certificate" proving the claim, not necessarily be a complete proof themselves. Verification (even when there has only been paraphrasing) always requires the use of a brain. Going by the ridiculous discussion currently taking place at Talk:Erdős–Bacon number, it seems you want to impose rather restrictive constraints on the power of that brain. Shreevatsa (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>According to WP:V "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[nb 1] The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article.[nb 2] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." To me, this reads like "is already present in," not "can be verified from." If you have to ask readers to dig through various questionable sources and add stuff together to verify something, rather than pointing them toward a reliable source which has actually made the statement, that to me is OR. --hippo43 (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)