Talk:Jenista
Add topicLatest comment: 9 months ago by 204.111.137.106 in topic WP:INVISIBLE
 | This set index article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Does not list use of hidden text as proposed here as an acceptable use case. The validity of the entry is based on the existence of a valid Template:Ill, not on a single user's assessment of notability. There are other better places to suggest that the article be created locally if that is the intent. 204.111.137.106 (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, some editors claim that {{ill}} is not a valid reason for an entry in the list, referring to WP:REDLINK guideline, whihc says gthat redlines are allowed if there is a reasonablle expectation of notability. Therefore I am adding this hidden text. And there is nothing wrong with "single user's assessment of notablility as long as other users can verify this assessment. Now, regarding, "acceptabler usecase", the guideline merely gives examples of rreasonable and uunreasonable hidden texts. Whatever is usefor for the purposes of Wikipediia, is reasonable. Unreasonable case are frivilouus hiddent texts of these which are against the spirit of wikipiedia, such as assertion of WP:OWNership, etc. I hope I explained why my hidden text is not against the purpose of Wikipedia. --Altenmann >talk 05:04, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- User:Altenmann what is against the purpose of Wikipedia is squishy, people asserting ownership usually believe they are acting to further Wikipedia's purpose. The relevant guidance as directed from MOS:DABNAME is WP:APORED which categoricaly disfavors any redlinks. However, transclusions of Template:ill have been used as an example of conforming pages and in previous discussions it would seem the principles MOS:DABRED are likely to be applied even if they are not required which is substantially looser. Either way an assertion of notability makes no differrence, and the only way to verify is with AFD anyway as notability is often disputed, and also may cause confusion. Why is only one ill being annoted when there are multiple? Is the implication the other entry is not notable? If you want to encourage article creation it is more logical to place listings at requests for article translation or requests for new articles. 204.111.137.106 (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- The other entry says the person is M.P. , which is an assertion of notability, so I didnt think a note is required. I strongly disagree with your interpretation of guidelines, but at this moment for me it will take less time to write a stub than to argue with a strong-willed opponent. --Altenmann >talk 16:49, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Very well, if your intent is to create those articles locally in the near future the discussion is indeed moot. 204.111.137.106 (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- The other entry says the person is M.P. , which is an assertion of notability, so I didnt think a note is required. I strongly disagree with your interpretation of guidelines, but at this moment for me it will take less time to write a stub than to argue with a strong-willed opponent. --Altenmann >talk 16:49, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- User:Altenmann what is against the purpose of Wikipedia is squishy, people asserting ownership usually believe they are acting to further Wikipedia's purpose. The relevant guidance as directed from MOS:DABNAME is WP:APORED which categoricaly disfavors any redlinks. However, transclusions of Template:ill have been used as an example of conforming pages and in previous discussions it would seem the principles MOS:DABRED are likely to be applied even if they are not required which is substantially looser. Either way an assertion of notability makes no differrence, and the only way to verify is with AFD anyway as notability is often disputed, and also may cause confusion. Why is only one ill being annoted when there are multiple? Is the implication the other entry is not notable? If you want to encourage article creation it is more logical to place listings at requests for article translation or requests for new articles. 204.111.137.106 (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2025 (UTC)