A Wikipedia article on SG

[Ulrich von L...n]

A Wikipedia article has been created for Schola Gladiatoria:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schola_Gladiatoria

It contains some basic details about SG, mainly from this homepage, some external sources (Alexa, Reclaiming the Blade (2009) documentary, etc). At the moment there is no unsorted issues pending, it seems that this article has been "patrolled" (= seen by Wikipedia's editors, and only one minor change has been carried out: re-ordering the sections).

People have also started to rate this article, based on 3 ratings - I assume they are mainly from the forum's visitors - we have the following results:
trustworthy: 5
objective: 5
complete: 4.3
well written: 4.3

You can rate this Wiki article by scrolling down to the bottom and clicking on "Rate this page".

While I could - more or less - agree with the first two results, I absolutely sure that we can improve the completeness of the article. You could create an account on Wikipedia, and start to edit the article, or alternatively you could make your suggestions in this topic.

[admin]

Many thanks for putting this up .

[Ulrich von L...n]

My pleasure

We can add something about Fightcamp, probably even "fake" groups who are deliberately "misusing" SG's name, etc. Some minor issues can be mentioned in Talk section of the article. It is interesting to see how people starting to rate the article, even edit it, also the view statistics are encouraging.

Anyway it has been a very rewarding experience.

[Michael Chidester]

Don't be surprised if it gets marked for deletion on grounds of notability, as have been many HEMA pages in the past.

[Ulrich von L...n]

Hi Michael,

If this happens, then I do hope it will be possible to discuss, appeal, present some valid arguments against such a decision. Why this wasn't possible to do with other HEMA pages?

Anyway, AFAIK at the moment we have the following articles: ARMA (controversial, with a lot of deletions, undos, ugly things etc, since 2005), Chicago Swordplay Guild (since 2010), HEMA Alliance (since 2010), Nova Scrimia (since 2011, with pending notability warning).

And if we examine Nova Scrimia article objectively, there is very little information that supports the notability: the homepage and a Youtube video. Well ...

[knirirr]

Anyway, AFAIK at the moment we have the following articles: ARMA (controversial, with a lot of deletions, undos, ugly things etc, since 2005), Chicago Swordplay Guild (since 2010), HEMA Alliance (since 2010), Nova Scrimia (since 2011, with pending notability warning).

Do we have any idea how many HEMA pages have been deleted for being insufficiently notable? The LSD page was, even though I only added it when some other Wikipedia articles linked to our content.

[Michael Chidester]

HEMA in general is arguably barely a large enough movement to merit an article. Individual HEMA schools are not nearly so big, and generally the consensus is along the lines of "we don't have or need an article on every strip mall karate dojo in the world".

[Ulrich von L...n]

Nevertheless it is definitely interesting that Nova Scrimia article has already survived two months with a notability tag, and also survived a speedy deletion process at the very beginning. This is especially surprising if we take into account that basically there isn't anything in the article that supports the notability of this group: only its official website, in Italian, with very low Alexa Traffic Rank: 22,845,077 and a Youtube video. Despite all that - this article is on Wiki from June 2011.

The situation is far better for Chicago Swordplay Guild. The notability tag was removed in June 2010.

So let's hope for the best.

[admin]

The thing about HEMA is that by nature it links to a ton of online resources/research and to other related sites. Karate McDojos don't.

[Ulrich von L...n]

Matt,

It would be nice to add some more information about the SG's media coverage. I have tried to trace two articles: one published in Metro newspaper, another in Westside magazine. The third, which actually a blog entry, but in a good source (Current Archeology's webpage), has been included in the Wiki article.

Do we have some other articles, etc. which could be used to support the notability claim?

BTW there is a very good photo in the above blog entry:



Who is the copyright holder of it? It would be splendid to have it in our article.

[Michael Chidester]

The thing about HEMA is that by nature it links to a ton of online resources/research and to other related sites. Karate McDojos don't.

I don't disagree, I'm just pointing out what I've observed. I've seen articles on some of the more obscure fencing masters and treatises get deleted as well for not being notable enough.

[Ulrich von L...n]

Matt,

It would be useful to upload the above picture or other copyright free stuff, because otherwise it will be deleted, most definitely. It was already challenged, I have tried to appeal, but without success. A Wiki's editor has already deleted a nice picture of Carletto with a smallsword

I left a remark on Talk page.

Anyway, till now nobody has challenged our article based on lack of notability. This is definitely good thing! To make notability case even stronger - basically you need just one reliable and independent source - I have added WOMA TV video.

[admin]

Hi Ulrich, that photo is already on the wiki page as I see it. Any of the photos taken by Metro or Current Archaeology or others are shared copyright with us, so we can use them freely.

[Ulrich von L...n]

...that photo is already on the wiki page as I see it.

Yes,
But the problem is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train ... at_SG.jpeg

I have tried to claim fair use of a non-free content (especially in the second part):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk: ... at_SG.jpeg

The fate of this image will be decided tomorrow. Let's wait and see.

P.S.
Anyway, another nice, uploaded photo has been already deleted:

"(Deletion log); 00:03 . . Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted page File:An instructor at FightCamp.jpg ‎(File deleted: F7: Violates non-free content criterion #1 (TW))"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk: ... htCamp.jpg

We are talking about this:

[admin]

I have some other pics of training around:

[Michael Chidester]

Hi Ulrich, that photo is already on the wiki page as I see it. Any of the photos taken by Metro or Current Archaeology or others are shared copyright with us, so we can use them freely.

Yes, but in order to use them on the Wikimedia network, 95% of the time you need to wholly own all copyright on the image so that you can release it for use under their creative commons license. Anything that goes on Wikipedia et al. has to be free for re-use by all Wikipedia users. There are exceptions, for things like trademarks and book covers and so forth, but in those cases they can be reused under the same provisions of copyright law as Wikipedia. There's no such thing as allowing Wikipedia and Wikipedia alone to use a picture (or other content).

So you need to take your own pictures, and then mark the box on the upload form stating that you're relinquishing all rights to the image and donating them to the public domain.

[admin]

Cool, thanks for that. I'll take some new photos then.

[Ulrich von L...n]

Yes, new photos and they have to be uploaded by the copyright holder.

Michael,
The Wiki's team seems very professional on copyright issues, but sometimes unnecessarily strict. It was clear that even a photo of SG's longsword training session will be deleted. I believe this is clearly an excessive thing.

A very detailed description was given, a copyright holder, source, publication date etc. were indicated, and the image was used to illustrate SG's article, not something totally different or inappropriate. So the fair use claim of a non-free image was - in IMO - somewhere 90-100%. It might happen that there are some eager new editors who really enjoy to enforce those rules.

[Ulrich von L...n]

An update on the article:
It has been visited at least by two editors and two-three bots. One editor has removed this Wiktenauer link:

http://www.wiktenauer.com/wiki/Matt_Easton

with a remark: "While wikis can be good sources for information, they are not really appropriate as a reference, for various reasons."

Otherwise nobody has initiated a speedy deletion or questioned the notability of the article with a nice sign:


And "Wikipedia article traffic statistics - Schola_Gladiatoria has been viewed 1384 times in the last 30 days." (almost 2 weeks). Interestingly the page ratings were cleared - a software glitch or an intentional action by an administrator, feeling that those ratings were too good for a new article.

[admin]

Thanks Ulrich. I didn't manage to get any photos at class last week, but will try next time.