Talk:Constantin S. Nicolăescu-Plopșor

"C" class assessment

As of the January 2, 2010 edition of the article, I find that it meets the 5 of the 6 criteria to be considered a "B" class article.

1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. = yes

2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.= yes

3. The article has a defined structure.= yes

4. The article is reasonably well-written. = yes

5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.= yes

6. The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. = no

I feel that the article is too long and has an overwhelming amount of details so that it is not accessible to the general audience. The article should be trimmed to include only the essential amount of information needed to understand this person. If the reader wants more details, they can find it in the references that the article provides. --Tea with toast (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Constantin S. Nicolăescu-Plopșor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090725133326/http://www.cnc.ro/absolventicelebri.php to http://www.cnc.ro/absolventicelebri.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212212306/http://www.muzeulolteniei.ro/despre-noi/ to http://www.muzeulolteniei.ro/despre-noi/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091009050038/http://www.mjolt.ro/ist_muz.html to http://www.mjolt.ro/ist_muz.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212212222/http://www.muzeulolteniei.ro/casa-baniei/colectii-de-patrimoniu/alte-colectii/documente-etno-folclorice/ to http://www.muzeulolteniei.ro/casa-baniei/colectii-de-patrimoniu/alte-colectii/documente-etno-folclorice/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Ramuri

@Fred Zepelin:, I’m curious about the thought process that led you to decide that, regarding Ramuri, you were “not seeing a possibility of this redlink becoming an article”.

Did you bother to open the standard literary dictionary published by the Romanian Academy? Did you care to peruse the biographies (here and elsewhere) of Nicolae Iorga, Elena Farago, Emil Gârleanu, Tudor Vianu, Victor Eftimiu, leading to the realization that such vital figures being major contributors to the magazine might reflect on its own notability as well? Did you make the effort to browse the pages of Sămănătorul, Sburătorul and other magazines of the 1910s and ‘20s, where you would have seen a copious intellectual exchange with Ramuri? How exactly did you decide that it lacked potential?

Oh, and if it didn’t meet your standards of notability, why did you not remove the 62 other incoming links, instead leaving in place dozens of redlinks apparently without the possibility of becoming articles? Would it be too much for me to invoke WP:COMPETENCE? — Biruitorul ^Talk 08:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

If you think I'm incompetent, I encourage you to go ahead and report me for incompetence at WP:ANI. Good luck, my friend. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Fred Zepelin, I am unsure of the motivation behind your edits. This was already really unhelpful. This article and Luceafărul were written by an user that has been writing on the site and on this topic area for quite a few years. I am sure they have the critical capacity of discriminating between topics worth an article and those that aren't, and that this capacity is inevitably superior to that of an user who rarely edits in this topic area. I will please ask you not to remove references nor red links in the future. If you have any concerns, please use the talk page of articles. Or you could research yourself for a few minutes to see if the topic in question has coverage in sources. Maybe you'd then have seen the magazine's Romanian Wikipedia page showing, for example as an indicator of notability, that it saw a few dozen bluelinked authors write on it. Super Ψ Dro 10:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I started by looking for significant coverage in reliable sources that exists over a period of time. While I did find some material that briefly mentioned Ramuri, I did not see any significant coverage in secondary sources that discussed the magazine in depth. The fact that the magazine has a Romanian wiki page has no bearing - I have no idea what the requirements for an article are in that wiki; I'm only going by the requirements in the English wikipedia. If I was fluent in Romanian I'd probably nominate the article for deletion, because among the 4 sources there, 3 are dead links and the 4th is a personal website. If you think those are enough to create an article here on Ramuri, I encourage you to go ahead and create it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Fred Zepelin -- can you name some of the sources you have consulted, and more precisely the sources you use to assess relevant topics in the field of Romanian literature? As we stand, the sources in the aforementioned articles already clarified that the magazine is copiously mentioned in prime sources (for instance, George Călinescu's definitive work has an entire chapter on Sămănătorist journals, with at least one paragraph on Ramuri; the new edition of Ramuri, involving Miron Radu Paraschivescu, is amply mentioned for instance in Ovid Crohmălniceanu's accounts of literary dissidence; Florea Firan has an entire monograph on this topic, and glossing over Arcanum database will reveal countless mentions of Ramuri in nationally circulated literary magazines -- including Firan's work being reviewed by Zigu Ornea). So please let me and others of your readers know: what precise sources did you consult in determining that the magazine is not worth a link? Author, publisher, date, please. Dahn (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

You tagged me in a comment where you claim I make you feel unsafe editing, or something of that nature. Yet it appears you are engaging a bit a bit of WP:HOUND, by now going over articles I edited, which you apparently pick out from my DYK record, and making questionable, seemingly capricious edits, which, as you note, have already been identified as such by other users. I take a bit of umbrage, because you apparently want me to; but either way, please don't ignore my request that you please explain what sources you use in editing and assessing articles on Romanian literature. Dahn (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so you claim it is not my DYK history, but simply my edit history, which is supposedly not a WP:HOUND/WP:BATTLEGROUND issue -- just another way of picking at my edits. To give you the background: the IP (IP-range) I was reverting there had tagged entire articles I had written on topics related to Romani people (of which, you will note CSN-P is one), also picked out from my editing history, as having "too many redlinks". Including an article which had, if I recall correctly, no more than three redlinks (see a since-blocked IP being reverted by another user, who independently noted this issue). After they had done this over and over, and spilled over into this article, I asked them, in a rather annoyed way, to read what the policy actually says on redlinks (namely, that they are valuable for the project), and then to "get themselves another hobby" (other than stalking my edits, that is). I would tend to believe that you are picking up the baton of that stalker, by selectively picking out one redlink to remove, and only in one article where it is linked. You say this is after careful consideration, that Ramuri (now incidentally bluelinked) is not worth the link. To substantiate that this is indeed a careful judgement, and not a capricious form of pushing my buttons, please let us know what sources you used in your original assessment of Ramuri's notability. Dahn (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

As a general note to all users interested in redlinks and the issues they pose: the approach on the part of many users, particularly those not focused on content-creation, and who position themselves (rightfully or wrongfully) as content-filters on what others write, is to default on the position "fill out this redlink, or else it is not worth a link". This implies a request to immediately write a decent small article, with finely cited sources, for each and every link, and being pressured to do so on a whim. (It is no longer sufficient to "stub" articles, since another kind of gatekeepers are there to swiftly delete content that is unsourced, or whose sources do not show them enough notability.) The very request places an immense burden on content-creators, of which the other kind of users seem blissfully unaware. This approach simply consumes whole portions from the lives of people who, like me (and I presume most of you gentlemen), also have other things to do with their time, imposing on them open-ended chores with diminishing returns. Take your time to consider how collegial this is -- especially when weighed against the alternative: that users who want redlinks removed actually take the time to research the topic for a bit, "in vitro", and actually consider that the article may be warranted on its own. Dahn (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)