Talk:Jester/Archives/2018

Modern Day Jesters

Obsessing about the longterm accessibility of the record of our process, i set out to put some chaos on this talk page to rights, and made a further mess. I should be able to resolve both in the next 36 hours. Sorry.
--Jerzy•t 08:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

As of the timestamp on this contrib, the foll'g contrib appeared imm'ly after the secn hdg "#Modern Day Jesters & imm'ly before a 19:23, 14 October 2016"-timestamped contrib.
--Jerzy•t 05:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The inclusion of Russel Erwood is relevant. There is no reason to delete him from this page. I have included many citations as to his appointment. Modern Day Jesters of which are his own website. All written by third parties. Yes they are all news articles. But they are surely relevant. From my research in to the subject, his appointment is the only one to have happened in modern times. Therefore his inclusion here is relevant and should be included. Without his inclusion the history of jesters would appear to end in the 20th century, and this is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.49.14.112 (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

As of the timestamp on this contrib, the foll'g contrib appeared imm'ly after a 19:23, 14 October 2016"-timestamped contrib & imm'ly before a 19:25, 14 October 2016"-timestamped contrib.
--Jerzy•t 05:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, this page is not specifically about Court Jesters. It is about those who are or have been jesters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.49.14.112 (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

As of the timestamp on this contrib, the foll'g contrib appeared imm'ly after a 19:25, 14 October 2016"-timestamped contrib & imm'ly before a 12:41, 15 October 2012"-timestamped contrib.
--Jerzy•t 05:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
All jesters in this section are notable as they all have external websites that show active performance as jesters. Please do not remove Robynthehode (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

As of the timestamp on this contrib, the foll'g group of contribs appeared imm'ly after a 12:41, 15 October 2012"-timestamped contrib & imm'ly before a group of contribs that begins with a 18:13, 27 October 2012"-timestamped contrib.
--Jerzy•t 05:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Stop the removal of Erwyd Le Fol Erwyd Le Fol is a notable modern jester. He may not have an article about him in the New York Times, but he is the only jester to have lived within the medieval town of Conwy for over 700 years. The previous jester-in-residence was Tom Le Fol who was jester to Edward I. In a small medieval town like Conwy to have a jester is a big deal. I feel it is wrong to delete Erwyd from this section. Unlike other modern jesters Erwyd is the town jester. It's not just a title. He's not just another kids entertainer in a jester outfit. It's his way of life and he deserves to be mentioned here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustymagic (talk • contribs) rerences to the Nigel Roder article and tagged it for notability. As for adding modern-day jesters I think the problem remains. If notability for the National Guild of Jesters could be established then maybe it could be mentioned (with a link to their site) which then lists a number of jesters. But honestly, a quick search on Google does not leave me hopeful that the National Guild or any of its members are notable. However, if you find two independent, reliable sources that discuss any of the jesters in significant detail then you can certainly include those names in this article. This is basically the same notability requirement as used for creating an article but saving you the hassle of creating a whole new article by just having the references here. What it comes down to is this, if notability cannot be established then they do not belong in Wikipedia. This sucks for someone who is passionate about the subject but that's how Wikipedia operates. Also, just providing links to various jesters, assuming they don't pass notability, would be considered spamming and would not be allowed either. SQGibbon (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Quite. This is not the International Jesters' Database, nor is the wiki a means of establishing notability, and the fact that some people run red lights does not mean that is a valid reason for doing so. Another article or list of notable jesters might be proposed for creation and then linked in this article as is correct, but this article should not be used to circumvent the process of vetting content for encyclopedic appropriateness. Besieged (talk) 04:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again to SQGibbon and Beseiged for clarifying about notability. I think you may have misunderstood my intention re editing this article and you may have also misunderstood Wikipedia's advice on notability. Yes I know there are inconsistencies all over Wikipedia (and numerous articles written by people who know only a little on the subject). I am trying to be one of those editors who has the ability, time and knowledge to rectify errors in the pages I know something about. I have most of the books on jesters and fools that are available in print and out of print and have read large sections of all of them. My suggestions re the list of jesters page was trying to limit duplication and to place all jester references not appropriate to a history of jesters elsewhere (disambiguation page). But heh let's just go with that 'list of jesters' page which I will edit and add citations. As regards notability Wikipedia editing guidelines state and I quote 'The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.' So the correct guidelines to check re article content are usually 'due weight', verifiability' and 'NPOV' (among others). So my intention is to include relevant references to past and present jesters in the article with some 'see also' links and some external links for readers to pursue further study. Would this seem right to both of you? Or any other editors that read this? Thanks in advance for your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robynthehode (talk • contribs) 18:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

As of the timestamp on this contrib, the foll'g contrib appeared imm'ly after a 18:13, 27 October 2012"-timestamped contrib & is the last contrib in the "Modern Day Jesters" sec'n.
--Jerzy•t 05:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the guidelines surrounding lists and elements within those lists. I've participated in this exact same conversation dozens of times throughout numerous projects and have witnessed many, many more. What I am saying is that by requiring each member of the list to be notable (WP:GNG), this will save everyone from endless arguments and edit wars about some arbitrary set of criteria being used to establish membership in the list. If instead you follow general Wikipedia practice (especially with regard to living people -- more on that below) then it will go so much easier for everyone involved.

You'll also want to be careful to not include links to the official sites of modern jesters. If the person is notable and has an article then that article can link to their page. Including that link anywhere else (especially if the person is non-notable) will be seen as using Wikipedia to advertise for that person (basically, spamming). If instead of this you mean for your "external links" to point to other good sources of information about jesters then that might be OK.

Finally, I applaud your effort in tackling this project in order to clean it up. It's a thankless job and because "anyone can edit" Wikipedia there will always be the danger of someone coming along to maliciously undue your hard work which can be disheartening. If you follow some of the advice I've presented here then I think the process will go much easier for you. Good luck. SQGibbon (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)