Notability and juggling

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Notability and juggling

Steve Bennett-4
Hi all,
  I really, really struggle with the idea of "notability" and
attempting to work out how much information is "tolerated" in
Wikipedia before people start nominating it for deletion with various
words ending in "-cruft".

So, a concrete example. I would be tempted to add more information on
juggling tricks into Wikipedia. There is already an excellent juggling
wiki (http://www.jugglingdb.com/jugglewiki/), but this poses no
obstacle: our mythical African Wikipedia reader may not have access to
the net.

So, it is almost unarguable that [[cascade (juggling)]] has no place
in WP. This is the most basic juggling pattern, and a term that many
are likely to know.

Next down the notability scale, we have [[reverse cascade]], [[shower
(juggling)]] and [[fountain (juggling)]]. Basic patterns that deserve
to be documented.

Now, how about [[machine (juggling)]], [[Mills Mess]] and
[[Rubinstein's Revenge]]? These are more advanced tricks that a
non-juggler is unlikely to know. He may recognise the first two, but
probably not the third.

Continuing, [[crossed-arms cascade]], [[contortionist (juggling)]] and
[[penguin (juggling)]] would represent even less well-known moves,
that are however known to almost all jugglers.

Even more obscure, how about [[Luke's Lobotomy]], [[Time-reversed
Mills Mess]] or [[Manham's Mangle]]? These are unknown to anyone
except serious jugglers, and very unlikely to be seen in a performance
for a general audience.

And to take one final leap, how about [[Seven Ball Marden's Mayem]],
[[Turbo Wally Walk]], [[Mountain Tennis]] or even [[Hermine
(juggling)]]? I haven't heard of any of these, I found them on
jugglewiki. The last one has possibly never been attempted by anyone
other than its inventor, yet is documented thoroughly with video
footage.

So, my question is: where should the line be drawn on inclusion into
"the sum of all human knowledge", and on what basis? Also, is that
basis really documented anywhere, or does it all come down to the
caprices of the editors who one day decide that these tricks aren't
"notable", and that this jugglecruft (I swear this word will be used)
has to die?

Thanks all for any comments, advice etc.

Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Notability and juggling

MacGyverMagic/Mgm
I would drop them all into an article on juggling tricks/juggling
moves. Perhaps a seperate one for cascades. Without reading them, I
think the articles on most moves are too small to warrant their own
article. Drop them together in a larger article and redirect the
existing names to the new article/list.

Mgm

On 3/24/06, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>  I really, really struggle with the idea of "notability" and
> attempting to work out how much information is "tolerated" in
> Wikipedia before people start nominating it for deletion with various
> words ending in "-cruft".
>
> So, a concrete example. I would be tempted to add more information on
> juggling tricks into Wikipedia. There is already an excellent juggling
> wiki (http://www.jugglingdb.com/jugglewiki/), but this poses no
> obstacle: our mythical African Wikipedia reader may not have access to
> the net.
>
> So, it is almost unarguable that [[cascade (juggling)]] has no place
> in WP. This is the most basic juggling pattern, and a term that many
> are likely to know.
>
> Next down the notability scale, we have [[reverse cascade]], [[shower
> (juggling)]] and [[fountain (juggling)]]. Basic patterns that deserve
> to be documented.
>
> Now, how about [[machine (juggling)]], [[Mills Mess]] and
> [[Rubinstein's Revenge]]? These are more advanced tricks that a
> non-juggler is unlikely to know. He may recognise the first two, but
> probably not the third.
>
> Continuing, [[crossed-arms cascade]], [[contortionist (juggling)]] and
> [[penguin (juggling)]] would represent even less well-known moves,
> that are however known to almost all jugglers.
>
> Even more obscure, how about [[Luke's Lobotomy]], [[Time-reversed
> Mills Mess]] or [[Manham's Mangle]]? These are unknown to anyone
> except serious jugglers, and very unlikely to be seen in a performance
> for a general audience.
>
> And to take one final leap, how about [[Seven Ball Marden's Mayem]],
> [[Turbo Wally Walk]], [[Mountain Tennis]] or even [[Hermine
> (juggling)]]? I haven't heard of any of these, I found them on
> jugglewiki. The last one has possibly never been attempted by anyone
> other than its inventor, yet is documented thoroughly with video
> footage.
>
> So, my question is: where should the line be drawn on inclusion into
> "the sum of all human knowledge", and on what basis? Also, is that
> basis really documented anywhere, or does it all come down to the
> caprices of the editors who one day decide that these tricks aren't
> "notable", and that this jugglecruft (I swear this word will be used)
> has to die?
>
> Thanks all for any comments, advice etc.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Notability and juggling

Ilmari Karonen
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>>
>>So, it is almost unarguable that [[cascade (juggling)]] has no place
>>in WP. This is the most basic juggling pattern, and a term that many
>>are likely to know.
>>
[snip]
>>
>>And to take one final leap, how about [[Seven Ball Marden's Mayem]],
>>[[Turbo Wally Walk]], [[Mountain Tennis]] or even [[Hermine
>>(juggling)]]? I haven't heard of any of these, I found them on
>>jugglewiki. The last one has possibly never been attempted by anyone
>>other than its inventor, yet is documented thoroughly with video
>>footage.
 >
 > I would drop them all into an article on juggling tricks/juggling
 > moves. Perhaps a seperate one for cascades. Without reading them, I
 > think the articles on most moves are too small to warrant their own
 > article. Drop them together in a larger article and redirect the
 > existing names to the new article/list.

I wouldn't, but I suspect this comes down to the mergist / "divisionist"
(just coined that) philosophical difference.  The way I see it, Wiki is
hypertext, and I see no reason to defeat the purpose of hypertext by
lumping independent topics into a single monolithic article.

I any case, I also see no reason not to include most of those -- at
least the ones that are documented in independent secondary sources and
can be considered established.  Having those articles does not interfere
with the rest of Wikipedia, and, given their fairly neutral subject
matter, should not present significant maintainability issues.

As for things like [[Hermine (juggling)]], that could fall foul of our
original research and verfiability policies if there are no secondary
sources to confirm the claims of the inventor.  If included, it should
at least be worded carefully.

--
Ilmari Karonen
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Notability and juggling

Steve Bennett-4
On 3/24/06, Ilmari Karonen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> As for things like [[Hermine (juggling)]], that could fall foul of our
> original research and verfiability policies if there are no secondary
> sources to confirm the claims of the inventor.  If included, it should
> at least be worded carefully.

Well, the video
(http://unknownjuggling.tripod.com/october/hermine.WMV) is pretty
conclusive  that it's possible :) He doesn't claim that anyone else
does it, though.

Anyway, I certainly don't propose that every trick that anyone invents
in their backyard should be documented in WP.

Why exactly *do* we suggest merging separate short articles together
into one big article, anyway? To create "the perfect article"?

Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Notability and juggling

Ilmari Karonen
Steve Bennett wrote:

> On 3/24/06, Ilmari Karonen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>As for things like [[Hermine (juggling)]], that could fall foul of our
>>original research and verfiability policies if there are no secondary
>>sources to confirm the claims of the inventor.  If included, it should
>>at least be worded carefully.
>
> Well, the video
> (http://unknownjuggling.tripod.com/october/hermine.WMV) is pretty
> conclusive  that it's possible :) He doesn't claim that anyone else
> does it, though.

I didn't mean the claim that it was possible: the video should document
that pretty well.  I meant the claim that he invented it, and that the
name he coined for it is accepted.  Those would need verification, or,
in its absence, should at most be documented as claims of one person only.

In this particular case I wouldn't put the bar very high, but we're to
take his claims at face value, we at least ought to be able to point to
another source and say "Well, at least this other guy agrees with him."

--
Ilmari Karonen
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Notability and juggling

Tony Sidaway-3
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-4
This is a basic editing question.  Create separate articles for
everything you can verify.  Don't stand for any nonsense about
"reliable" sources--a good juggling website should be reliable enough,
whatever brain-damaged nonsense may have been stuffed into various
guidelines).  Create a general article on juggling techniques and
refer to the other articles in it.  Include in that article some less
well known (but still documented) juggling tricks.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Notability and juggling

Tony Sidaway-3
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-4
On 3/24/06, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Why exactly *do* we suggest merging separate short articles together
> into one big article, anyway? To create "the perfect article"?
>


Two reasons:

(a) improves the information density of our articles.
(b) the average Wikipedian is less likely to support the deletion of
an article about several several related subjects than one about a
single, rather obscure, subject.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Notability and juggling

Steve Bennett-4
In reply to this post by Ilmari Karonen
On 3/24/06, Ilmari Karonen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I didn't mean the claim that it was possible: the video should document
> that pretty well.  I meant the claim that he invented it, and that the
> name he coined for it is accepted.  Those would need verification, or,
> in its absence, should at most be documented as claims of one person only.
>
> In this particular case I wouldn't put the bar very high, but we're to
> take his claims at face value, we at least ought to be able to point to
> another source and say "Well, at least this other guy agrees with him."

Ah, interesting, I hadn't thought of that. I actually hadn't thought
of questioning the claim - in this particular case, the guy (a very
creative, young juggler from the US) created a named series of tricks
for each letter of the alphabet, Hermine being the 8th.

But there are probably hundreds of better known tricks that I would
focus on first.

Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Notability and juggling

David Gerard
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-4
Steve Bennett ([hidden email]) [060324 23:28]:

>   I really, really struggle with the idea of "notability" and
> attempting to work out how much information is "tolerated" in
> Wikipedia before people start nominating it for deletion with various
> words ending in "-cruft".


You appear to be asking for a cure for blithering idiocy. There is no cure
for such, particularly on AFD.

(No doubt someone on AFD will claim this is a "personal attack." If so,
please detail who it's an attack on.)


- d.



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Notability and juggling

Tony Sidaway-3
In reply to this post by Ilmari Karonen
On 3/24/06, Ilmari Karonen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I didn't mean the claim that it was possible: the video should document
> that pretty well.  I meant the claim that he invented it, and that the
> name he coined for it is accepted.  Those would need verification, or,
> in its absence, should at most be documented as claims of one person only.
>
> In this particular case I wouldn't put the bar very high, but we're to
> take his claims at face value, we at least ought to be able to point to
> another source and say "Well, at least this other guy agrees with him."

I think the substantive point to document here is that such a move
does exist in the world of juggling.  Whether we call the article by a
certain name or credit one particular guy with inventing it is
something to be dealt with by normal editing, but we don't want to be
in a position where we say "we've seen strong evidence of this
juggling move but we can't document it because the name by which the
source knows it may be ideosyncratic.  Let's get all human knowledge
*into* the encyclopedia, and once it's there we can argue about what
name to call things.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Notability and juggling

Steve Bennett-4
In reply to this post by David Gerard
On 3/24/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> You appear to be asking for a cure for blithering idiocy. There is no cure
> for such, particularly on AFD.

Sure there is - well written policy helps. Even if 10 blithering
idiots vote to delete a page, if the 11th points to the rule which
clearly rules out deletion in the particular case, then hopefully the
admin is sensible enough to ignore the 10. If the 11th is only
screaming "use common sense!" then he won't get far.

Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Notability and juggling

Tony Sidaway-3
On 3/24/06, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 3/24/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > You appear to be asking for a cure for blithering idiocy. There is no cure
> > for such, particularly on AFD.
>
> Sure there is - well written policy helps. Even if 10 blithering
> idiots vote to delete a page, if the 11th points to the rule which
> clearly rules out deletion in the particular case, then hopefully the
> admin is sensible enough to ignore the 10. If the 11th is only
> screaming "use common sense!" then he won't get far.

In my early days at Wikipedia I was told about an editor who, in
closing AfDs, actually decided to go by the deletion policy.  He got
into quite a lot of trouble.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Notability and juggling

Steve Bennett-4
In reply to this post by Tony Sidaway-3
On 3/24/06, Tony Sidaway <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I think the substantive point to document here is that such a move
> does exist in the world of juggling.  Whether we call the article by a
> certain name or credit one particular guy with inventing it is
> something to be dealt with by normal editing, but we don't want to be
> in a position where we say "we've seen strong evidence of this
> juggling move but we can't document it because the name by which the
> source knows it may be ideosyncratic.  Let's get all human knowledge
> *into* the encyclopedia, and once it's there we can argue about what
> name to call things.

I think I've been misquoted somewhere :) This particular trick (which
I know next to nothing about, because no one has ever talked about
it), is afaik, simply a rather odd combination of flailing arms and
balls that one guy came up with once, called Hermine, and decided to
publish on the web. As such, it is not, IMHO, interesting enough to be
in WP.

However, applying your above argument to something more common like
ass catches (the "World Juggling Federation" insists on calling them
"blind catches"), I would tend to agree with you.

I would love to document the "thoroughly impossible trick" (genuinely
called that - google it!) 5 balls juggled overhead, straight into 5
balls behind the back, straight back into 5 balls overhead, with no
transition throws. Ouch! (and yes, there is footage of someone
actually doing it) It would be kind of cool to have an article on
[[db97531]] (again, actually called that).

Interesting thing I now realise with juggling is that verifiability is
easy - jugglers have a history of videotaping their creations to prove
to other jugglers that they can actually do it.

Well all of the above is somewhat encouraging. I will try slowly
adding more articles and see what happens. Is it considered
[[WP:POINT]] to nominate your own article on AfD, just to test the
waters? I really don't want to write 20 articles and have them all
deleted several months down the track.

Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Notability and juggling

Sam Korn
In reply to this post by Tony Sidaway-3
On 3/24/06, Tony Sidaway <[hidden email]> wrote:
> In my early days at Wikipedia I was told about an editor who, in
> closing AfDs, actually decided to go by the deletion policy.  He got
> into quite a lot of trouble.

That's somewhat amusing.  I remember the same story, and my automatic
assumption that that admin was *you*...

--
Sam
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Notability and juggling

Guy Chapman aka JzG
In reply to this post by Tony Sidaway-3
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 14:01:21 +0000, you wrote:

>Two reasons:

You forgot (c):

A flower is more beautiful than a scattering of petals.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l