|
26 Sep 16 - 05:58 AM (#3811370) Subject: Deficit of Doerflinger From: SPB-Cooperator To my surprise, there is no Wikipedia entry for William Main Doerflinger, while there is a substantial entry about Leaving of Liverpool which mentions his name in passing. Is there anyone around which the knowledge of how to rectify this omission. |
|
26 Sep 16 - 07:40 AM (#3811374) Subject: RE: Deficit of Doerflinger From: Stilly River Sage Read up on Wikipedia and become a member. You can then start a squib (at the very least) that others can build upon. And link to what you find here at Mudcat. |
|
26 Sep 16 - 10:46 AM (#3811394) Subject: RE: Deficit of Doerflinger on Wikipedia From: GUEST,Ed Wikipedia:Your first article would be a good place to start. |
|
02 Oct 16 - 12:35 PM (#3812361) Subject: RE: Deficit of Doerflinger on Wikipedia From: Mr Red OK, I have submitted an article on William M Doerflinger. We will see how proficient I am. It awaits review and is in a queue of 1000+. But if anyone wants to create an article, I would ask they wait and edit mine. Maybe if you have registered then try this URL Doerflinger Wiki Draft entry Let me know if it is visible generally. TIA |
|
02 Oct 16 - 12:55 PM (#3812368) Subject: RE: Deficit of Doerflinger on Wikipedia From: cnd If your draft is denied or deleted, you can always start it in your "sandbox" page for drafting articles over time, here: sandbox I posted that link here so other people can edit it too if you end up working on it there |
|
03 Oct 16 - 03:42 AM (#3812433) Subject: RE: Deficit of Doerflinger on Wikipedia From: Mr Red I re-submitted it. They objected to references to Wkipedia pages. But I think they will accept WMD as a "notable" person. There are enough external references IMNSHO. It does not return the page as a search, yet. |
|
08 Nov 16 - 05:43 PM (#3819083) Subject: RE: Deficit of Doerflinger on Wikipedia From: Mr Red Wiki on William Main Doerflinger now officially accepted. Maybe I should make the related Wiki pages as links. I made them references but self-referencial references are not allowed. |
|
08 Nov 16 - 06:41 PM (#3819094) Subject: RE: Deficit of Doerflinger on Wikipedia From: Stilly River Sage Congratulations! Anyone interested in seeing how the sausage is made, so to speak, can look at the View History link. |
|
09 Nov 16 - 01:30 AM (#3819159) Subject: RE: Deficit of Doerflinger on Wikipedia From: SPB-Cooperator Great, I don't think I could have done it myself. |
|
16 Jan 17 - 02:10 AM (#3832896) Subject: RE: Deficit of Doerflinger on Wikipedia From: Tony Rees Hi Mr Red, I applaud your efforts to create the article on William Main Doerflinger and in best Wikipedia tradition, have hacked it around a bit with the aim of expanding and improving on your initial work. I hope you will not mind too much and see the value of my additions/alterations :), see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Main_Doerflinger By the way, I have created WP articles in the past (most recently a day or so ago) and have never had to wait for approval before they have become visible. They do, however get reviewed, and if found to be deficient in some way (e.g. insufficient evidence of notability) can be candidates for deletion unless improved. Just my experience, anyway. (Maybe it is because I have not written drafts and just gone straight to "create article"). All the best - Tony |
|
16 Jan 17 - 06:43 AM (#3832934) Subject: RE: Deficit of Doerflinger on Wikipedia From: Mr Red Looks good to me, Thanx. Maybe there are two more wiki pages that refer to him that could be put back in as links this time like the "Leaving of Liverpool". I have been thinking about it. I am fluent in HTML and JavaScript but Wikispeak is a whole other. I didn't know he edited Woody Guthrie's "Bound for Glory" or Sir Edmund Hilary's autobiography. I'll PM you on another Wiki issue relating to content from my Audio History of Stroud to see if you have advice on the conflict of media. |
|
16 Jan 17 - 04:49 PM (#3833028) Subject: RE: Deficit of Doerflinger on Wikipedia From: Tony Rees Thanks for the tick of approval! FYI the bulk of my additions originate from an article originally on www.tradsongs.com, which seems to have disappeared but an archived copy is available here: http://web.archive.org/web/20080928013815/http://www.tradsongs.com/wmdoerflinger.htm I could probably be accused of a degree of plagiarism but I could not find a lot elsewhere since the Folk Music Journal article is not accessible to me. I note the WP entries for the songs "Leaving of Liverpool", "South Australia" and "Poor Paddy Works on the Railway" already have links to the WMD article (weapons of mass destruction??) - not sure what others should have at this time. By the way if you can handle HTML, wikipedia syntax is pretty easy to learn especially if you look at what is behind other pages in "edit" mode. Basically it's just a mindset that once you are in seems (fairly) natural... Best regards - Tony |
|
16 Jan 17 - 10:02 PM (#3833061) Subject: RE: Deficit of Doerflinger on Wikipedia From: Tony Rees PS to the above: I've now linked the pages for "South Australia" and "Poor Paddy Works on the Railway" from the article, also added a bit more info I found about his second wife (and corrected the spelling of his first wife's surname!) Cheers - Tony |
|
18 Jan 17 - 05:54 PM (#3833434) Subject: RE: Deficit of Doerflinger on Wikipedia From: Tony Rees Well, I've carried on researching items on W.M. Doerflinger and added what I have found to the Wikipedia article, which has thereby grown a bit further, but should probably stop there. One small mystery remains, as noted on the article's "Talk" page: In the initial version of the article the title of his 1951 book was given as "Shantymen and Shantyboys" in the body article and "Shantymen and Shanty Boys" in the reference. I have standardised on the former for internal consistency but have not seen the original; web citations seem to use both versions (also "Shanty-boys", another variant). Anyone know which is correct? Also some sources give it with a subtitle, example: "Shantymen and Shantyboys: Songs of the Sailor and Lumberman". If this is correct I/we should add that in to the citation as well. Is there anyone out there who has an original copy of the 1951 edition and can check/report back? By the way it was not until researching facts for the article that I discovered "shanty boys" were not junior shantymen(!) but lumberjacks (presumably from the temporary huts or shanties they lived in). I imagine the similarity of the terms for contrasting occupations (and with entirely different origins) was amusing to Doeflinger which is why he used it for the title (as it amuses me too, a half century later). Regards - Tony |
|
20 Jan 17 - 02:46 PM (#3833746) Subject: RE: Deficit of Doerflinger on Wikipedia From: Tony Rees Mystery solved via this link: http://www.loc.gov/folklife/news/pdf/FCN_Vol30_3-4optimized.pdf - Tony |