Talk:Joanne Pransky

message: Ms. Pransky has a degree from the mid 1980s from Tufts in child development and has no computer science experience other than reporting robotic news. I believe if the page stated her BA is in child development it will make it clear she is not a computer scientist. Her website states she is an entertainer and is involved in edu-tainment. I can not find one reference that refers to her, even self promoting material, as a computer scientist. I did not delete this information before waiting to have a discussion. What do you think?
:The article does not claim she is a computer scientist, nor trained in computer science. So yes, I agree the Category: American computer scientist can be deleted. What field she got her degree in - 40 years ago - does not matter, and should not be added to the article. What does matter is that her career has been in understanding and explaining the robot:people interface. David notMD (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joanne Pransky is not a computer scientist. Propose it is removed as a tag 

message: Source used is not a self-published source,  but it meets the guidelines because it is written or published by the subject; see WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB. A more experienced editor may be able to make this edit flow better. The page is tagged as being questionable for meeting notability guidelines and I think this resource and her pioneering in the sex robot topic make her unique. She follows David Levy who has a Ph.D. about Sex Robots and is cited on multiple pages on Wiki. I welcome feedback if I am on the right track to add notability.
:I reverted the text, quote and ref. If a person is the subject of an article, what they have written is rarely a contribution to notability, and quoting that adds nothing either. What is essential is what other people have published about the person. Of less importance, not how to create a reference. David notMD (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helping strengthen notability of page. 

message: Our group is trying to establish notability because the page is cited as being questionable. If this source adds to her notability how do we rewrite? Simply state, for instance, she is a pioneer in sex robot development and adds a source? Thank you on behalf of our group. We have five other pages as an assignment and this our last one and we are really struggling! The other ones were easy because the notability was clear.
:First, please remember to 'sign' comments by typing four of ~ at the end. Second, each User account must be an account for an individual. You repeatedly use the word "we". It is OK for one person to have an account and be advised by a group, but avoid "we". Third, if there is a reference that states she is a pioneer in sex robot development not written by her and not an interview with her, that would be a suitable reference to support that as a factual statement. Help:Referencing for beginners should help with formatting refs, but if your new ref is a website, then copy one of the existing website refs from the article to the new location, then replace the url, title and website name with the new information. David notMD (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Last: When ever I work at improving an article I do not also remove tags that identified the weakness of the article, not upgrade the rating on the Talk page. I leave that to subsequent editors to decide. David notMD (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  We believe  Joane Pransky can establish notability by her unique contribution to the literature on Sex Robots. Our edit was rightly erased because of the poor format approach. How do we rewrite our factual data support for notability correctly? Thank you for teaching us to improve as editors.   

message: David, did we do the coding correctly?
:Discussions can take place on an article's Talk page or an editor's Talk page. Comments on Article Talk pages must remain as written. For an editor's Talk page, the receiving editor has the options to leave in place, archive or delete. David notMD (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Section titles at Talk pages tend to be short. Any stance on a topic belongs in the section text, not the section title. David notMD (talk) 01:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this the correct and respectful way to start a dialogue the way we listed a second discussion about page?  

message: Thank you for the feedback.  In my research, I found a webpage that appears valid to add value to the page, not detract from the page. I first thought the page not notable; yet, the overwhelming feedback from a few editors is this is a person of great importance. I was misled by the average site visits of 4 and the misuse of a Dr. title that the page may not be of notability. Obviously, I was mistaken and this person is a trailblazer and pioneer in this field. I am confused by the elimination of her official web page without discussion. Comparing the two sites, Robot.MD and Joanne Pransky they both appear valid. If this doesn't celebrate her reputation as a world-class thought leader in this field I happily agree with taking any information out that would do this lady any disservice to her momentous contributions as a renowned expert in the field of robotics. This my last edit to this page.  
--RobotDaneellives (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no evidence that JoannePransky.com is her official website, and much evidence to the contrary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  That domain was registered yesterday, with "Registration Private" of course. Enough. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 17:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  After feedback, I am trying to improve the page. I found a JoannePransky.com page that appears to be an official page. The other page is Robot.md.