User talk:Low Sea

Re:What's normal ?

The waiting time for a bot request, as well as whether or not it gets done at all, depends on several things. Most requests are relatively simple, asking for WikiProject tagging and so forth. In your case, you are asking for completely new code so you may have to wait a while. Additionally, as you said this would probably have to be run off of the toolserver and there are a limited number of people with toolserver accounts. In any case, bot operators will fulfill requests when they have time to do so, and like any other contributor devote time to requests that particularly interest them or strike them as being important first. So, it's basically completely unpredictable. I wouldn't be too discouraged yet though; it's only been about a day. Your request strikes me as the sort of thing that stands a good chance of getting done. About your providing suggested logic: I wouldn't worry about it. It could be helpful to the person who makes the bot, but even if it isn't I don't think it would scare anyone off. If no one responds in a week, you could leave another message so the request doesn't get archived; if a week after that there is still no response I'd just let it get archived and come back in a month or so. As in all things of this nature, be persistent without being a nuisance. (On an unrelated matter: When you archive your talk page, try to remember to blank the redirect after you move it. It was kind of confusing clicking on your talk page link and ending up at your archive.)--Dycedarg ж 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dycedarg, again all good advice and well presented. I think while I wait (as if I had nothing else to do .. haha) I might try to learn how to code my own bot. I have some older programming skills (Pascal, COBOL, various assemblers, etc) although I am not versed in most web languages (java, perl etc). Still, if time permits there is nothing lost by tinkering with code (offline of course) for fun and learning. Low Sea (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

wp:vpa ?

Hi, Low Sea. I added a response to your question at WP:VPA#Commercial News Archives. --Gwguffey (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Dawoodabro

Pardon, but what exactly is WQA? I looked at the page, but I've never heard of it before: what exactly are you asking me to do? Nyttend (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

1. WP:WQA = Wikiquette Alert (don't blame me, I didn't nickname it)
2. Just hoping you can route some WP helpers in this guy's direction if you know of any. I am willing to do what I can but I am still learning the ropes myself. I was hoping you might know of users who actually are good at mentoring clueless newbies. If he(she?) does not learn then he will eventually end up being disciplined for his many bad edits. That might chase him away. He seems industrious and that can be good if not done poorly. WP could use more editors like him if he cleans up his act. An ounce of prevention as they say. -- Low Sea (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

WT:NOTE

I support what you said about the rececent changes to the guideline and have reitterated what you said in the discussion.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:DEL and WP:N

Man, this is a thorny one. :)

OK. Let's start with the history of notability. The earliest form of a notability guideline I can find is 2004, here: [1]. It's still clearly a proposal at this stage. It reached its first policy form later in 2004 with this edit: [2]. This was before the policy/guideline distinction existed, and so the precise weight of the page is hard to express in current terms. Note, however, that this is very far from a notability guideline as such - in fact, it's basically a refusal to add any new policies. Notably, even this mild form was controversial at the time and was edit warred over. (This is another reason why WP:N will never attain policy status - its implementation was too vexed and controversial over time) In fact, importance never gained consensus. Finally [3] replaced it with WP:N on July 12, 2006.

Notability, however, began over a year before that with this edit: [4]. It was imported from Demi's userspace, where it was an essay for her personal use. It was a much, much harsher than importance, and begins to approach the current definition of notability, particularly in its last paragraph. The page rapidly evolved to become a place where the arguments about notability were summarized. It never reached policy in that form either. In December of 2006, it was also retired and a new page was started at the same location, this time ostensibly to cerate an actual policy. It began with [5] - a very simple description. By this time subject area inclusion guidelines had already been created - the music guideline, which I think was the earliest, actually predated any page at Wikipedia:Notability. [6]

So notability policy really grew from the bottom up - there was a lack of general consensus about notability, but local consensus formed on AfDs and in subject areas. It attained guideline status within a few weeks [7]. This also enshrined the current definition of notability in terms of sources.

OK. All of that done, we get WP:DEL. This page is much, much older than notability - it dates back to 2002. [8]. At the time that importance was started, the deletion policy did not mention any such concept: [9]. At the time notability was started, the page also did not mention any such concept [10] (though the phrase "completely idiosyncratic non-topic" appears, which is clearly a very low notability threshold). When notability was switched to guideline form the sub-guidelines like [{WP:MUSIC]] had been added to WP:DEL - [11]. In this case, however, they are clearly not added on the level of required deletion - the structure is "If the article has problem X, use Process Y to delete it." i.e. it is not a "delete non-notable articles," but "this is the right forum for notability deletions." Note the table name - problems that may require deletion.

This table was replaced in this edit: [12]. This edit served to change the wording to "reasons for deletion." The edit summary explicitly noted that this was NOT a change in meaning. I can find no discussion of the change from "may require deletion" to "reasons for deletion." I am therefore led to believe that the change in meaning was inadvertent.

So, summary - notability has a long and contested history where it has always been more popular in specific applications than as a general rule. It grew from the bottom up (a good way for policy to grow). The revision to effectively bootstrap notability to policy was inadvertent. Notability remains a guideline that describes current practice, not a proscriptive rule. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Do what you like. I'd ask Radiant about the revision as well - he may have insight into the logic on the change of wording. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)