Talk:Bisa Butler
 | This article (or one that was redirected to it) was nominated for deletion in the past. The result of the discussion was keep. |
In addtion to the notability issue, the categories need work and the references as so screwed up I dont even know where to start with that mess. --Creol(talk) 12:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback. As noted, our students are mid-project and there is not an expectation that they will be in good shape at this point, as noted on the school projects page. I very much appreciate your committment to SEW, and your long history of contributions. I do wish you could be kinder in your wording as you are refeering to mid-production work done by a minor who is still in school and who is sincerely trying to learn the process of editing. Castilibrary2 (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding the references (I just went through and did a quick clean up, will look more carefully at them shortly) we are having a lot of trouble as both the autocomplete citation tool and the manual citation tool for webpages are broken. I am not sure if other citation-related functions are also broken. But certainly my students are having trouble given the current limitations for the citation tools. I've noted these issues on Simple Talk and elsewhere (also here), but if you have any ideas about who in the SEW universe can help fix the issues, @Creol:, I am sure it would be helpful to all Wikipedians. Thank you, Castilibrary2 (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- The main issue here is two fold. The cat probkem is common enough an can/will be dealt with later. The primary issue is notability. As is this article could have been put up for quick deletion as it does even attempt to claim why the subject is notable. Tossing it up for RfD gives the benifit of a doubt and more time for people to show why such an article should exist. The ref issue is a totally different issue. For anyone other than the person/people creating the article, ref redefinining is very hard work. No one else knows what each reference was backing up without extensively reading the article and all the reference material. As written, only the people putting the references in know what each one is for. With all the references named one of two things that would be like all your student either being names Micheal or Lise. Total mayhem when you try to call any one of the for something. Each individual reference needs an individual name although they can be used multile time with that same name. ie If one reference backs up multiple points, it can be named and defined once and refered back to each time it is used ( <ref "name=mojo>" {{cite web|url=...rest of the template..}}</ref> defines it and <ref "name=mojo"/> lets you use that reference you already (or even later in the article) defined. If doesnt have to difined then used, it can be in any order. It just has to be defined under 1 unique name or alarms go off. --Creol(talk) 15:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Additional notes on references. References should only be defined one and all other uses should link back to that one. If not, there is a huge chance that later the reference goes dead and some bot will fix it to an archive version. This causes an issue because the bot will only fix 1 entry of the reference which now will be defined as two seperate things (linked to the original text and to the archive version- more error messages for someone to deal with. Also to aid in use, the names used for reference should reflect the reference ir NYPost, biography, etc rather than just a number. --Creol(talk) 03:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Creol, sorry for the delayed response, but I wanted to thank you for the longer explanation. It was helpful. I hope that the edits that have been made strengthen the argument. As for the citations, I am sorry -- I thought I had caught and fixed all of the errors (the citation tool is broken, both auto an manual, so citation-writing was certainly more difficult for the kids this year). I think they should all be fixed at this point. In any event, thank you for these helpful and actionable explanations.Castilibrary2 (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Castilibrary2: Sorry to interrupt, but are you having issues with the built-in citation tool? Or were you referring to a different tool? -Griff (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Creol, sorry for the delayed response, but I wanted to thank you for the longer explanation. It was helpful. I hope that the edits that have been made strengthen the argument. As for the citations, I am sorry -- I thought I had caught and fixed all of the errors (the citation tool is broken, both auto an manual, so citation-writing was certainly more difficult for the kids this year). I think they should all be fixed at this point. In any event, thank you for these helpful and actionable explanations.Castilibrary2 (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Additional notes on references. References should only be defined one and all other uses should link back to that one. If not, there is a huge chance that later the reference goes dead and some bot will fix it to an archive version. This causes an issue because the bot will only fix 1 entry of the reference which now will be defined as two seperate things (linked to the original text and to the archive version- more error messages for someone to deal with. Also to aid in use, the names used for reference should reflect the reference ir NYPost, biography, etc rather than just a number. --Creol(talk) 03:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- The main issue here is two fold. The cat probkem is common enough an can/will be dealt with later. The primary issue is notability. As is this article could have been put up for quick deletion as it does even attempt to claim why the subject is notable. Tossing it up for RfD gives the benifit of a doubt and more time for people to show why such an article should exist. The ref issue is a totally different issue. For anyone other than the person/people creating the article, ref redefinining is very hard work. No one else knows what each reference was backing up without extensively reading the article and all the reference material. As written, only the people putting the references in know what each one is for. With all the references named one of two things that would be like all your student either being names Micheal or Lise. Total mayhem when you try to call any one of the for something. Each individual reference needs an individual name although they can be used multile time with that same name. ie If one reference backs up multiple points, it can be named and defined once and refered back to each time it is used ( <ref "name=mojo>" {{cite web|url=...rest of the template..}}</ref> defines it and <ref "name=mojo"/> lets you use that reference you already (or even later in the article) defined. If doesnt have to difined then used, it can be in any order. It just has to be defined under 1 unique name or alarms go off. --Creol(talk) 15:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)