Diskisyon Wikipedya:Paj pou efase

Modèl:Eboch

Modèl:Eboch

I think that we should delete Modèl:Eboch. This says (just) "Draft" and is present at the top of about 2% of articles. It communicates nothing useful (for example, it has no instructions on how to edit the page). I think it should be removed. WhatamIdoing (discussion) 6 fevriye 2016 à 22:33 (UTC)

Resolved by merge: Modèl:Eboch redirects to Modèl:Ebòch

Modèl:Ebòch

Modèl:Ebòch

I think that we should delete Modèl:Ebòch. It has no content, except a hidden HTML comment that refers to a different template. This is present but invisible in more than half of articles. I am worried that having this "do-nothing" template code at the top of articles will make it harder for new people to edit. WhatamIdoing (discussion) 6 fevriye 2016 à 22:35 (UTC)

I’m not sure if I agree with deleting this template. I’m positive it doesn’t belong at the top of the article. (Note that {{eboch}} and {{ebòch atik}} now redirect to {{ebòch}}, which at least isolates the issue... or kicks the can down the road. —LLarson (di & fè) 28 avril 2016 à 16:57 (UTC)

IMMAGINE&POESIA

IMMAGINE&POESIA

Should be deleted

File:Ferlinghetti meets Immagine&Poesia representatives.jpg – Photoshopping to claim a connection This article is part of a cross-wiki campaign to promote the movement. The article is already deleted on english, french, german, swedish, norwegian and even on the italian (!) wiki, and is discussed other places as well.

Most part of the campaign is performed by only 3 users - who hasn't written about many other things on Wikipedia:

• Angler45,
• Alessandroga80 and
• Aeron10

Please also note that this picture, that is a part of the cross wiki campaign is a hoax; photoshopped to give the impression that two representatives from I&P met the known poet Ferlinghetti. See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ferlinghetti meets Immagine&Poesia representatives.jpg, and ask Angler45 for an explanation. Bw --Orland (discussion) 12 mas 2016 à 12:16 (UTC)

Should be kept

Never seen such a cross-wiki-attack coming from one User: Orland. The article has been on Wikipedia since 2011. The meeting with poet Ferlinghetti was real and arranged by his spokesman Garrett Caples and was also documented in Italian newspaper La Stampa [[1]] The photo is not a hoax, but a photoshop improvement of the original photo that was not professional enough for uploading on wiki as Angler45 explained. The page is not promotional as it only tells the story of the Movement. When it was deleted on some of the mentioned wikis a book about the Movement was not published yet---Oberon12 (discussion) 15 mas 2016 à 07:46 (UTC)

Please note that Oberon12 is an almost fresh user, woken from 3-4 years of slumber, only to engage in this discussions. This must be understood as if the four previous contributors engaged in this article worldwide (Angler45, Alessandroga80, Aeron10 and RiverTeifi) are burned as Single Purpose Accounts.

If there really was a "original photo that was not professional enough", the easiest thing in the world would be to provide this picture now. Please do.

I do not read italian, but according to google translate, the article in La Stampa describes a meeting between only Chiarelli and Ferlinghetti, with no mention of the "movement" we are discussing here. Wheether Chiarelli and some other italian person really met Ferlinghetti i 2013 does anyway not establish any notability for the movement as such. It is more interesting that Angler45 believed that this photo could be such an important evidence that he had to "improve" it.

Within the Wikipedia system, the basic principle is that the contributors must provide reliable sources for their contributions. This has not been done in this case so far. The most remarkable thing about this, is not that questions are raised now, but that they haven't been asked before. If our concerns were false, and the arguments and sources of the defenders were good enough, this article would have been kept as a good article. Instead, the number of articles have fallen from 69 languages to 29 in two weeks. That is not my work alone, that is a series of independent decisions by different administrators.

Oberon12 tries to establish me as the problem (forgetting K9re11 and swedish sysop Hangsna) Such accusations is an old strategy, and I've met them before, in some of the other cross-wiki-spamming campaigns I've fighted. You can read about them on my en:wp user page: en:User:Orland. I can't blame Oberon12 for not knowing that cross-wiki-spam is quite common on Wikipedia, but they are, and there are several of us trying to deal with it.

There is no such thing as a "cross-wiki-attack" here, Oberon12. This is just good old administrator work to defend the credibility of Wikipedia from being used for promoting someones interests. Please stick to the matter: provide good sources. And; if you can't convince italian Wikipedia to keep an article about the movement, that is not a good token. Bw Orland (alderique) 23:00 15 mar 2016 (UTC)

@Orland: Congratulations for this amazing result!

With your help, a page re Culture, Art and Poetry has been destroyed in many wikis and will be in others. With the page you have also destroyed the message of Peace and cooperation among peoples of different cultures, a message in which artists and poets of the movement had believed. Next time before proposing the deletion of an article please read and understand the content better. As to the independent reliable sources, articles from poetry reviews of different countries have been added; on your request another photo of the meeting with Ferlinghetti has been uploaded. What's more ?--Oberon12 (discussion) 17 mas 2016 à 07:23 (UTC)

@Oberon12 : There is no good argument in playing hurt, or in accusing me for not beeing able to "read and understand". Do you really think that "the message of Peace and cooperation among peoples of different cultures" is depending upon this Wikipedia entry? Either you provide good sources that could convince all of us experiences users that are looking into this now, or you take the blame for trying to use Wikipedia for promoting your network. Bw --Orland (discussion) 1 avril 2016 à 10:26 (UTC)

@Orland, Oberon12, ak WhisperToMe : The subject of the article has no verifiable secondary sources, is not yet notable and involves living people. I believe the article should be removed until the subject is described by a reliable secondary source. —LLarson (di & fè) 16 mas 2016 à 23:23 (UTC)

@LLarson :. Please note that independent secondary sources have been recently added (poetry reviews from different countries). Yes, it involves living persons like hundreds articles on Wikipedia re living actors, singers, sportsmen etc. Living persons that love Culture, Poetry and Art with the aim of mutual understanding and peace. What a failure if the page will be deleted again--Oberon12 (discussion) 17 mas 2016 à 18:29 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I've transcluded this to Diskisyon Wikipedya:Paj pou efase. (I do not understand why anyone would care whether Person X did or did not meet Person Y in a particular place. Surely all sorts of people have met this person.) WhatamIdoing (discussion) 17 mas 2016 à 04:32 (UTC)

@Oberon12 : I appreciate the sentiment. My biggest motivation in volunteering to edit Wikipedia is the liberation and preservation of knowledge. However, we must follow the rules, and I don’t believe that the topic IMMAGINE&POESIA does follow the rules. This discussion has little to do with you and much to do with following the rules. I reviewed the references added early today, and I have the following concerns:

@Oberon12, Orland, WhisperToMe, ak WhatamIdoing : I find the four recently added references problematic: (i) 2084‑1124 is a proper ISSN, but it’s for a blog (ii) The Seventh Quarry is a magazine, but it doesn’t seem to review poetry as Oberon12 indicated twice — even in cases where the poets are featured (iii) I am unable to verify the content of any of these new references as they are cited (iv) I am also unable to verify that the articles as they are cited even exist. Finally, this many red flags from a single edit, is itself, another red flag. Thank you. —LLarson (di & fè) 17 mas 2016 à 19:31 (UTC)

http://worldcat.org/issn/2084-1124

“articles from poetry reviews of different countries have been added”

“independent secondary sources have been recently added (poetry reviews from different countries)”

http://rua.ua.es/dspace/bitstream/10045/53707/1/2015_Gaspar-Jaen_The-Seventh-Quarry.pdf or https://imgur.com/mmvbs2v

Do those refs actually mention this group by name, and say something about the group that exceeds merely "This poet belongs to (or founded) this group"? WhatamIdoing (discussion) 18 mas 2016 à 21:27 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing : @LLarson : I have added a reference of the Art Review on ArtSlant re what the Movement is and what it does [2].

All the references added mention "Immagine & Poesia" as an art literary movement. The Seventh Quarry is a poetry review published in Wales: since 2014 it has published articles re the Movement once a year (of course not the issue referring to 6 Catalan poets posted by someone). Krytyca Literacka is above all a paper poetry review published in Poland. There is a book published in NY [3]. I don't think that all the articles on Wikipedia have more references than these. Let me know please what else is needed. Thanks--Oberon12 (discussion) 22 mas 2016 à 14:10 (UTC)

Hi, Oberon12. The "book published in NY" is useless. It's written by the founder herself, and the US Amazon website says it's just a collection of her poems.

Do those sources say anything else about "Immagine & Poesia" other than "it's an art movement"? A namecheck simply isn't enough to support a whole article. Here's how this usually works:

1. Find all the reliable sources.
2. Throw away (temporarily) anything written by or influenced by the people involved in this (e.g., any article by or interview with any person whose name is in the article, plus any of their best friends/family members/business associates/whatever).
3. Throw away (temporarily) any self-published source, which includes nearly all websites. (I think you've already done this.)
4. Look only at the reliable sources that are left.
5. In those sources, find the sentences/paragraphs that are explicitly/directly/by name about the movement'. This means, for example, that you have to exclude all sentences that talk about Lidia Chiarelli's life and art.
6. Make a list of the facts that are left. For example, most of the remaining sources probably say something like "Immagine & Poesia is an art movement" and "Immagine & Poesia was founded by Lidia Chiarelli". So that's two separate facts, even if those facts appear in one (or one hundred) of the remaining sources.

From what I can see, I'm guessing that there aren't very many separate facts that appear in these (independent, non-self-published) reliable sources. But it's the list of those facts that determine whether there is, in the jargon of the English Wikipedia, "significant coverage" of Immagine & Poesia itself. If you can share that list, then we might be able to help you out more easily. WhatamIdoing (discussion) 23 mas 2016 à 00:47 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing and thanks for your info. Sentences/paragraphs about the movement are in The Seventh Quarry (UK) and in Krytyca Literacka (Poland) that are independent, reliable sources (but you say you can't verify them). You can verify the Art Review published on ArtSlant [4]. Here you can read sentences like: Immagine & Poesia, an international movement that publishes and exhibits poems paired with visual artworks...Immagine & Poesia was founded 8 years ago, by Chiarelli, Aeronwy Thomas, Gianpiero Acits, Alessandro Actis, and a group of other artists, critics and poets, on the belief that when art and poetry are presented side-by-side, each has the chance to inform, enhance and interact with the other. The audience's response can be multiplied by more than the power of two, as imagery and words resonate separately or in harmony. As to the book published in NY (that unfortunately is useless because it was written by one of the founders) it is not only a collection of poems and images, but in its 2 Forewards (in English and Italian by an American and an Italian critic) there is the story of the Movement and its aims.--Oberon12 (discussion) 23 mas 2016 à 06:07 (UTC)

For this purpose – for the purpose of deciding whether people outside the movement pay enough attention to independently publish things about the movement – that book (including the forewards) are useless. Nothing about the book was published by someone separated from and independent of the movement.

Are there any other facts left? Because if not, then the movement itself really isn't getting enough attention to qualify for a separate article. (As a rough rule of thumb, we need enough independently reported facts to write more than 10 good, long sentences.) That doesn't mean that the information can't be mentioned anywhere in any Wikipedia; it just means that it doesn't get its own, separate page. For example, at the English Wikipedia, it might be perfectly reasonable to add a short description (similar in style and length to the others) about Immagine & Poesia to w:en:List of poetry groups and movements. There's currently no similar page here, but a similar principle applies (or you could create a new list here  :-) . WhatamIdoing (discussion) 24 mas 2016 à 05:44 (UTC)

As other users have said, "a brief research suggests that Immagine-Poesia is indeed a genuine artistic movement in Italy, even if a small one, and if Aeronwy Thomas is involved it is worth a short article at least".

WhatamIdoing asked "Are there any other facts left?". Yes there are. Added articles from Montecarlo News, from a Tunisian newspaper and other quotes from The Seventh Quarry. Now the references are 14, including ArtSlant, 8 of which are independent, secondary sources (articles not written by the founders of the Movement). But probably whatever we add or do is useless, if the decision to delete the page is already taken. I wonder if all the articles on Wikipedia have all the references you ask. Moreover, as WhatamIdoing (who seems to be an experienced user) suggests to add a short description at the en.wikipedia, I'll be grateful if he can help to do so in the right form, for ex. preparing a draft in a sandbox. This way all info re the Movement will not get lost. I thank anyone who can help to save the page--Aeron10 (discussion) 1 avril 2016 à 06:56 (UTC)

We are so honored that one of the events organized by IMMAGINE & POESIA has been included in the international celebrations for #DylanDay http://www.llenyddiaethcymru.org/dylan-day-events/

Turin, Italy-16 May - Tribute to Dylan Thomas- Conference on Dylan Thomas and his stay in Italy. See HERE [5] for more details.----Oberon12 (discussion) 28 avril 2016 à 16:38 (UTC)

Please just have a look at the Anthology of IMMAGINE & POESIA (2016 edition) and see how the Movement works [6]: you will find 60 contributions from Poets and Artists of 34 countries of the 5 continents, all working for the love of Beauty and Peace--Aeron10 (discussion) 16 me 2016 à 13:26 (UTC)

Pages to be deleted (pages à supprimer)

I propose to delete the following pages(je propose de supprimer les pages suivantes):

• Joëlle Ursull (with the accent) because the page Joelle Ursull exists and is linked to the pages of this singer in other languages.
• Kategori:Aktè Meksiken because the page Kategori:Aktè meksiken exists and this category contains almost 20 pages.

--Gilles2014 (discussion) 21 me 2017 à 16:42 (UTC)

Hello, Gilles2014. I have redirected Joëlle Ursull to Joelle Ursull. This way, readers will find the correct article no matter which spelling they use.

Why do you think that there should not be a category for Mexican actors? It seems to be common on other Wikipedias. WhatamIdoing (discussion) 22 me 2017 à 15:26 (UTC)

Hello, WhatamIdoing. Thanks for the page on Joëlle Ursull.

I propose to delete the category Kategori:Aktè Meksiken (with an uppercase for Meksiken) because the category Kategori:Aktè meksiken (without an uppercase for meksiken) exists and this second category contains almost 20 pages.

Ah, I see it now. That sounds perfectly fine to me. Let's see if we can flag down a passing global sysop, since we seem to have let our local admin expire. User:MoiraMoira? User:Billinghurst? Can one of you delete the redundant category for us? We certainly don't need two categories with the same name/different capitalization. WhatamIdoing (discussion) 23 me 2017 à 18:50 (UTC)

Fè category deleted Billinghurst (discussion) 24 me 2017 à 14:56 (UTC)

Mèsi WhatamIdoing (discussion) 24 me 2017 à 20:31 (UTC)