2 ms·
>The graph was interesting but this wasn’t the primary objective of this exercise. I wanted to write “He is the n-times great-father of his current successor Qu
by permo-w 5y ago
>The graph was interesting but this wasn’t the primary objective of this exercise. I wanted to write “He is the n-times great-father of his current successor Queen Elizabeth.” on King Alfred’s Wikipedia page.
Wouldn’t that contravene Wikipedia’s rules on original research?
- bawolff 5y agoI also think its of questionable relavence to the topic at hand. Just because a fact about something is true doesn't mean it should be in the article on the topic. But yes, citing your own blog isn't a valid source, and neither is citing wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-p...
- Mathnerd314 5y agoIt's not original research, more like synthesis. Reading the policy he's probably OK under the routine calculation exception. The edit got reverted because there was no clear criteria for mentioning Queen Elizabeth III but not the other descendants. If he made an info graphic or info box with a clear inclusion criteria and stuck it in the Alfred article it would probably stick.