Talk:Ottawa Curling Club

OCC

Please ensure that information added to this article is verified and encyclopedic. Unverified information can be removed on-sight. Deiz talk 08:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The list of presidents and various leagues are still unverified as encyclopedic - why is any of this notable? Again, seems to be a matter for club records and their own website rather than an encyclopedia. Deiz talk 08:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that User:Earl Andrew has reverted all of Diez's cleanup.[1] Let's please discuss here. I, for one, agree with Deiz that this info is not encyclopedic or properly verifiable (see WP:NOT and WP:VERIFY).

Would it not just be best to include the official website link, where that information is perfectly appropriate? -- Satori Son 14:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have pretty much verified everything through sources. As you can see from the sources, not everything is from the club website, and even the stuff that is is difficult to find. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

But the dearth of "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," while certainly significant, is not the only problem with this article.
The "Leagues" section has too much detail to comply with Wikipedia is not a directory, which prohibits "upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules, etc." And that information is readily available, and presumably kept up to date, at http://www.ottawacurlingclub.com/leagues/index.php?content=home .
The "Presidents" section does not comply with Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is simply no good reason that an encyclopedia entry should include a complete list of the thirty-four past presidents, none of whom are sufficiently notable on their own. And the fact that the official website does not contain this information only confirms its triviality. Same with the "Recent club champions" section.
I have removed most of this and some other information as Diez has previously. I know this topic is important to you, but I hope you can see how including this much detail simply does not comply with Wikipedia official policies. -- Satori Son 19:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your edits, and therfore reverted them. Plus, you removed all the source information. I wish to go by a case by case basis on this, instead of mass culling of the page. I did a lot of work to try and work to form a consensus on the page, but you seem to have just ignored that. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel I am ignoring the opinions of other editors. If you could please point me to those prior discussions that reached a consensus on the current version of this page, that would be helpful. Thanks, Satori Son 20:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I never mentioned anything about prior discussions. I am just saying that I would like to try and reach a consensus on this page. Your mass reverts have been unhelpful. You will not that I have made some constuctive edits in my last edits in which you seem to have removed. (Such as the verifications, plus the removal of some stuff). Now, I would like to get this case resolved, but please try and work together to come up with a consensus. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted to Satori Son's version because he's followed WP:TALK and WP:CON by discussing wiki policies and guidelines that he feels apply to the article. I suggest all editors follow his example. -- Ronz  22:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think consensus among neutral editors is and will continue to be that the streamlined version of the page is in line with policy, and looks much better. Deiz talk 23:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the references that I inadvertently deleted in cleaning up, but Deiz is exactly right: the current, streamlined version is now in line with policy. -- Satori Son 00:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Occlogo.gif

Image:Occlogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)