Kelapstick (talk | contribs) →Adding Drew Carey and Kelley Whilden into this list?: my opinion - Wait for the discussion to end, and don't include Drew |
|||
Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
:::I don't completely disagree, however given the number of times things are reported such as "This person posted this on Twitter" (for example the [[Rihanna]] on Twitter article that was just deleted, it was basically just a regurgitation of her posts), I can see a lot of potential for people to think that any time a famous person's Tweets are mentioned by the media, it will qualify for inclusion here (not that I think that is what you are saying). The pricing game analogy is flawed however, because the number of pricing games is pretty limited, the number of Twitter users is massive in comparison. My personal opinion is this page should be renamed to list of Twitter accounts, and include only accounts that have their own articles. Also, the Drew Carey example is not actually about his account, it is about an account he wants to buy (@drew).--[[User:kelapstick|kelapstick]]<sup>([[User talk:Kelapstick#top|bainuu]]) </sup> 07:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC) |
:::I don't completely disagree, however given the number of times things are reported such as "This person posted this on Twitter" (for example the [[Rihanna]] on Twitter article that was just deleted, it was basically just a regurgitation of her posts), I can see a lot of potential for people to think that any time a famous person's Tweets are mentioned by the media, it will qualify for inclusion here (not that I think that is what you are saying). The pricing game analogy is flawed however, because the number of pricing games is pretty limited, the number of Twitter users is massive in comparison. My personal opinion is this page should be renamed to list of Twitter accounts, and include only accounts that have their own articles. Also, the Drew Carey example is not actually about his account, it is about an account he wants to buy (@drew).--[[User:kelapstick|kelapstick]]<sup>([[User talk:Kelapstick#top|bainuu]]) </sup> 07:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC) |
||
Okay, then shall we then simultaneously include @drew account and request page renaming to [[List of Twitter accounts]]? --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 07:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC) |
Okay, then shall we then simultaneously include @drew account and request page renaming to [[List of Twitter accounts]]? --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 07:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC) |
||
:I think that any rename should be done after the merge discussion takes place, I find it tends to aggravate the situation when articles are moved during this sort of thing (mainly at AfD, but in this case I think it would be too). I don't find @Drew to be a particularly notable feed anyway, and I stand by my position (as I noted on the other page) that only accounts with pages on Wikipedia should be included (for example Rihanna's entry was deleted when that AfD closed as delete).--[[User:kelapstick|kelapstick]]<sup>([[User talk:Kelapstick#top|bainuu]]) </sup> 07:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:38, 13 June 2012
Internet culture Redirect‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||||||||||
|
Media NA‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||||||||||
|
POV
List of notable people? Who are notable here? The one who pass WP:GNG? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- This article is called List of Twitter users. It isn't like some fool went and named it List of notable people who have articles on Wikipedia regarding their use of Twitter. That would have been silly, after all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- So should we enter our id also here? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have a feed. Never used it even once as I found it pointless after registering, so I will decline adding mine. I still have followers, oddly enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- So should we enter our id also here? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- "The one who pass WP:GNG?" That is the generally accepted definition, yes. LadyofShalott 02:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- But we dont make reader read our policies. "Hey! This is the list of people who use Twitter and also pass our WP:GNG policy. Come on, read this essay." §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- A defined scope for this page needs to be determined, although I would recommend waiting until after the AfD pans out before trying to agree on something. It would likely be either top 10 or 20 accounts by follower (arbitrary numbers, picked for illustrative purposes), or only those with Wikipedia articles (very restricting on what can go here, not that it would be a bad thing). After the scope is written I would suggest an edit notice and an FAQ on the talk page to give as backup documentation when people randomly add their Twitter account (because it will happen). --kelapstick(bainuu) 06:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- But we dont make reader read our policies. "Hey! This is the list of people who use Twitter and also pass our WP:GNG policy. Come on, read this essay." §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Potential sources
- Marsden, Rhodri; Rawlinson, Kevin; Gonsalves, Rebecca; Dean, Will; Blackall, Luke; Forster, Josephine; Hastings, Rob; Gifford, Ralph (2011-02-15). "The full list: The Twitter 100". The Independent.
{{cite news}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Burrell, Ian (2012-03-01). "The Twitter 100: Britain's titans of the Twittersphere". The Independent.
{{cite news}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Faw, Larissa (2012-05-17). "The Millennials Who Rule Twitter: How Bieber, Rihanna and Gaga Turn Followers Into Fortunes". Forbes.
{{cite web}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help)
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Dead Twitter Users
- Can dead famous people who allegedly use twitter also make this list? E.g., [1] [2][3]--Milowent • hasspoken 05:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
3 columns
- 1: rank
- 2: name, etc all combined with <br/>
- 3: notes
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- No picture? For shame...I have plans for this I haven't even thougt of yet. Our battle isn't over yet Frodesiak! --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- 2: Picture, Account Name, Link, Registered etc..... Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Battle?? Oooooh! It will rain trouts! Remember chapstick, you're just an url away! :) :) Oh, just a sec. we're both on the same side. We're both keep. Anyhow, what about consolidating these columns? All that scrunched up text. We could get a much better presentation. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Let the afd play out, I have a grand idea. --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Very well, my friend, as long as it doesn't involve a giant picture of Lady Gagger. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- How many times must I tell you, it needs pictures of ponies and unicorns. And glitter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Dennis's suggestion + Milowent's (see section above) = Zombies vs. Unicorns on Twitter? LadyofShalott 03:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- How many times must I tell you, it needs pictures of ponies and unicorns. And glitter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- List of Twitter users → List of notable Twitter users
- List of LiveJournal users → List of notable LiveJournal users
– The article titles as they exist are misleading, as true lists of [all] Twitter or LiveJournal users are neither feasible nor desirable. These renames would promote accuracy and perhaps even discourage self-promotion. I'm intentionally not including List of YouTube personalities in this request, as the situations are a bit different—people who are notable due to their YouTube activity versus independently notable people active on Twitter or LiveJournal. -- BDD (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Notability is a within-Wikipedia concept, not something that should spread from Wikipedia AfD discusssions to article space. See WP:LISTNAME: "Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself. ... Words like notable, famous, noted, prominent, etc. should not be included in the title of a list article." —David Eppstein (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- As I said in AFD, WP:LISTNAME specifically says "don't do that". You don't ever put "notable" in the title of a list. It likely needs a name change, but that isn't it as it is against the WP:MOS. If someone moved it, an admin would have it moved back in 5 minutes as an obvious violation of naming guidelines. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose As Dennis and David said. Suggest List of Twitter accounts, as the list is of the accounts not the users. Restrict the list to those accounts that have Wikipedia articles.--kelapstick(bainuu) 22:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Withdrawn I hadn't checked the AFD yet and didn't realize that was policy. I don't think I like it, but ok. --BDD (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Notes column
As I stated at the AFD, People are trying so desperately to get rid of Foo on Twitter pages that they are behaving non-sensically. The Notes column in this list article is being used in a way that works against the usefullnes of the page. The notes should be as follows
- Gaga: #1 in terms of twitter followers since August 2010; first to 10 million and 25 million followers
- Bieber: #2 in twitter followers and rival to Gaga, has ranked 2nd since MMMMM YYYY
- Britney: #1 in Twitter followers from May 2010 to August 2010; first to 5 million followers
- Ashton: #1 in Twitter followers from April 2009 to May 2010; first to 1 million followers
The notes should be short and sweet that is useful. Trying to cram full articles into the notes is not useful. I have never seen a WP:FL with notes like this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am going to have a go at cleaning it up. I think a paragraph would be suitable, summarizing the article's key points. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- There, I just did a massive trim, I think it looks better now. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- The difference between what you have done and what I suggested, is that summarizing the article will lead to obsolescence. Blurbing highlights seems like it would obsolesce less rapidly, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I have no intention of blurbing the articles into obsolescence. My attempt was to shorten the notes so it wasn't a copy/paste of the articles crammed into a small box. If you don't like the way I did it you can fix it yourself. --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry about what you obviously feel is a lack of appreciation for your efforts. I just wonder if we shouldn't use a few bulletpoints in the notes column.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Probably. --kelapstick(bainuu) 03:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry about what you obviously feel is a lack of appreciation for your efforts. I just wonder if we shouldn't use a few bulletpoints in the notes column.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I have no intention of blurbing the articles into obsolescence. My attempt was to shorten the notes so it wasn't a copy/paste of the articles crammed into a small box. If you don't like the way I did it you can fix it yourself. --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- The difference between what you have done and what I suggested, is that summarizing the article will lead to obsolescence. Blurbing highlights seems like it would obsolesce less rapidly, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- There, I just did a massive trim, I think it looks better now. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Adding Drew Carey and Kelley Whilden into this list?
Sure, "Drew Carey on Twitter" and "Kelley Whilden on Twitter" are not notable enough for a stand-alone article, but at least it was newsworthy: Yahoo, Youtube, HuffPost, and Google searches. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- This page's inclusion should be governed by WP:WTAF. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- That cited essay has been practiced for Cliff Hangers and Plinko and other non-notable games, and now they were merged into List of The Price Is Right pricing games. Back on topic, look at WP:LISTPEOPLE; even "non"-notable twitter accounts of Drew Carey and of Kelley Whilden may be suitable here. --George Ho (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't completely disagree, however given the number of times things are reported such as "This person posted this on Twitter" (for example the Rihanna on Twitter article that was just deleted, it was basically just a regurgitation of her posts), I can see a lot of potential for people to think that any time a famous person's Tweets are mentioned by the media, it will qualify for inclusion here (not that I think that is what you are saying). The pricing game analogy is flawed however, because the number of pricing games is pretty limited, the number of Twitter users is massive in comparison. My personal opinion is this page should be renamed to list of Twitter accounts, and include only accounts that have their own articles. Also, the Drew Carey example is not actually about his account, it is about an account he wants to buy (@drew).--kelapstick(bainuu) 07:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- That cited essay has been practiced for Cliff Hangers and Plinko and other non-notable games, and now they were merged into List of The Price Is Right pricing games. Back on topic, look at WP:LISTPEOPLE; even "non"-notable twitter accounts of Drew Carey and of Kelley Whilden may be suitable here. --George Ho (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, then shall we then simultaneously include @drew account and request page renaming to List of Twitter accounts? --George Ho (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think that any rename should be done after the merge discussion takes place, I find it tends to aggravate the situation when articles are moved during this sort of thing (mainly at AfD, but in this case I think it would be too). I don't find @Drew to be a particularly notable feed anyway, and I stand by my position (as I noted on the other page) that only accounts with pages on Wikipedia should be included (for example Rihanna's entry was deleted when that AfD closed as delete).--kelapstick(bainuu) 07:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)