This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
Please read
MOS:EGG and stop trying to force this link into the lead of the
Taiwan article. The target of a link should be something a reader would expect from the blue text, and that is certainly not the case here. The two concepts are connected, but they are not at all the same.
@
Kanguole:The two concepts are connected, but they are not at all the same. How come they're not the same at all in spite of the intersection of the references? Thanks for the reply. --
Formosa's storyteller (
talk)
15:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I remove 3 references in the lead section. These references are only cited in the lead section, which are not used in the other part in the article. By the way, there are 13 references cited in the end of that paragraph after I remove 3 reference.--
Wolfch (
talk)
17:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@
Wolfch:These references are only cited in the lead section, which are not used in the other part in the article. Any rule of Wikipedia supports your claims that "references only cited in the lead section should be removed"? --
Formosa's storyteller (
talk)
17:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Is it necessary to use 16 references to support one paragraph (about 300 words) in the heading section? I think we can keep the major references. If the reference is necessary in this article, it will also appear in the main part, instead of appear in the heading section only-
Wolfch (
talk)
05:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
It's important to know that each article on Wikipedia will be improved over time by any Wikipedian. There's no final edition. Again, it's better for us to comply with the regulations of Wikipedia instead of clinging to personal favor. Regards. --
Formosa's storyteller (
talk)
06:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
About the Chinese name of this article
The Chinese was listed as é‡åŒ—è¼•å— in the leading section. That name is removed now. However, the corresponding article in Chinese wikipedia is still
zh:é‡åŒ—輕å—. There is an article
zh:å°ç£å—åŒ—å·®è· in Chinese wikipedia. Maybe it is the proper Chinese translation of this article.-
Wolfch (
talk)
06:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello? If everyone agrees with my statement, I think I may want to recover the reference as you can read the body of that references and know it's truly a reliable source. Regards. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dormantor (
talk •
contribs)
09:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I think I am going to wait for a day or two to see if folks have raised their enlightning points here. There's no hurry at all. My thought is that if people agree with my proposal without having time to say, I would assume that we have reached a silent concensus and then go ahead.
Kaldari removed the reference on 10 Mar, with the comment "PeoPo is all user-generated content, not a reliable source". (Kaldari didn't mentioned "personal blog"). I am not sure whether PoePo is a reliable source. For the time now, I don't agree Dormantor recover that reference, unless the discussion is done in
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard to make sure that it is a reliable source. Dormantor can start a discussion there.--
Wolfch (
talk)
15:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Wolfch. But I saw the tempo and pace of discussions at
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard are generally fast. Whereas, I cannot edit Wikipedia round the clock, meaning I might not be able to be proactive in the discussion if I open it. Would you have a recommendation to give, please? Incidentally, I detected a hint of kinda abrasiveness towards my prior comment from your bolding empasis on your stand. Would you please treat me with a little more respect, I promise I will try to love you!
Dormantor (
talk)
09:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello Dormantor. I think that it makes sense that you start the conversation at such noticeboard, instead of I. Sorry for that.--
Wolfch (
talk)
11:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank y'all for all recommendation and discussion. Sorry for the late reply. Life is busy. I am uncertain about the quality of all content from PeoPo but I would suggest that "just looking into the specific news coverage that is cited by
North-South divide in Taiwan". We do not need to make effort to completely review PeoPo, which can be exhausting to us.
Dormantor (
talk)
17:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
2009,
Kuo Kuan-ying, a high-profile diplomat under
Ma Ying-Jeou's government, submitted several pieces of articles to his blog calling islanders as stupid Taiwanese while calling himself as superb mainlander.[1] In response, islanders labeled him and the decent fellow as Celestial Dragons.[1] As Taiwanese mainlanders are concentrated in Taipei City, such metaphors soon applied to Taipei residents overall.[1] Till nowadays, people from southern Taiwan still believe residents of Taipei unfairly occupy a bunch of resources and despise southern Taiwanese.[1] The phenomenon suggests there has accumulated an immense tide of strong passionate hatred between islanders and mainlanders of each other owing to north-south divide in Taiwan.[1]
2009,
Kuo Kuan-ying, a high-profile diplomat under
Ma Ying-Jeou's government, submitted several pieces of articles to his blog calling islanders as stupid Taiwanese while calling himself as superb mainlander.[1] In response, islanders labeled him and the decent fellow as Celestial Dragons.[1] As Taiwanese mainlanders are concentrated in Taipei City, such metaphors soon applied to Taipei residents overall.[1] Till nowadays, people from southern Taiwan still believe residents of Taipei unfairly occupy a bunch of resources and despise southern Taiwanese.[1] The phenomenon suggests there has accumulated an immense tide of strong passionate hatred between islanders and mainlanders of each other owing to north-south divide in Taiwan.[1] doesn't appear in the article. What you restored? 10:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Not so much lovers as friends (
talk •
contribs)
I've shortened this down to just two sentences for now. There's too much POV going on.
I will restore the article to the version Nkon21 edited on 26 May.
I will restore the article to the version Nkon21 edited on 26 May
[1](the version before socksuppet Agile Agility's edit) in this week.
If anyone has opinion for it or think it is not ok to do so, please let me know that.
user with IP 188.182.13.127 added a "Very long" template
[2] later. If I restore the article to that version, there is no "Very long" template. How do you think? Do you think this template is necessary?
Frankly, you attempt to use sock to justify your deletion. But you only patrol this article and track one editor only. You're far away from a patroller but a single-use account.
Not so much lovers as friends (
talk)
10:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Wolfch, consensus usually is to just leave these alone unless they're not constructive. Reverting constructive edits just because the account this blocked for whatever reason could be an example of
WP:GRAVEDANCINGEd6767 (
talk) 10:21, 27 May
Ed6767 I don't think that restoring to the old "stable" version, ingoring the date formats correction is "constructive"
[3]. But if it is the opinion from most peoples, I will respect these opinion and leave them alone --
Wolfch (
talk)
10:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
If someone wants to add 2019 data, then they can make a request edit here with sources. Or, if you agree with the 2019, and it is sourced correctly, then you can just restore that portion.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
20:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank for your reply. If I restore it to this version, I will also fix the Taiwan map, maybe a map without place links of
Taipei,
Tainan...... The place link will not in the correct place if the map is smaller--
Wolfch (
talk)
21:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Just registered an account. Regarding your statement, I just checked and found
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper): Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Never use self-published sources as independent sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.Loaded Question? (
talk)
04:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Thats not content, its an overly detailed section see also that contains links within the page... Which is absurd. It was also in the wrong spot.
Horse Eye's Back (
talk)
14:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
For your information, referencing sections within the same article is valid according to {{Section_link#Usage}}.
If you think it improves the article you can always restore it. Also for formalities sake I have to ask whether or not you’ve ever edited wikipedia under another name. You wouldn’t happen to be the banned user who added all these things whose removal you object to, right?
Horse Eye's Back (
talk)
15:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
With regard to the mater's dissertation,
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources mentioned "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence."--
Wolfch (
talk)
23:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
If I have a master degree and have master dissertation, maybe my dissertation is also cited by other paper/dissertation/thesis. It doesn't means that my master dissertation have "significant scholarly influence". I don't think it is usual for a master dissertation have significant scholarly influence. As far as I know, those master dissertation don't have such significant scholarly influence. That's why I remove those references.--
Wolfch (
talk)
06:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
The "[Department of urban plan] <National Science Council>" is not a peer-reviewed journal. It is a report, not a significant scholarly influence paper--
Wolfch (
talk)
06:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
In general, masters' theses are not considered reliable in their own right. However, there are certainly masters theses that are important (and at times foundational) scholarly papers in relevant topic areas (one example is the
published masters thesis of
Claude Shannon, which founded the entire field of digital circuitry). If a masters thesis is particularly widely cited for facts by reliable sources without comment, then I could definitely see a
WP:USEBYOTHERS argument being presented for the specific reliability of the particular source—provided that we keep in mind that a masters thesis/dissertation being reliable is the exception, and not the rule. I can't evaluate the
WP:USEBYOTHERS myself here for the first source (I do not know the quality of the 16 publications or how the publications actually use the source), though I think that the argument deserves consideration.
Anti-crackdown, would you be willing to explain a bit regarding the quality of the publications that cite the first dissertation, as well as the specific manner in which the source is used (e.g. for facts w/o comment, to cite an argument that the article is criticizing, to note that some authors think a certain thing to be true, or some other purpose)? —
Mikehawk10 (
talk)
06:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@
Wolfch: Sounds good. If it's just being cited in masters theses then it probably doesn't have a
WP:USEBYOTHERS case for being reliable based on those citations. Seems like a reasonable removal of the sources, though I wonder if other sources exist that could be used to verify the content that is on the page that was previously cited to the thesis (such as works cited by the thesis itself). —
Mikehawk10 (
talk)
08:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)