Talk:Checklist/Archives/2011

External links debate

Hello, can any one tell me, what exactly was wrong with http://i-Checklist.com/ link, which leaded to it's deletion? If you find something wrong there, please tell us here, or at the feedback form, so we can provide the best place to share knowledge in checklists.

Thank you.

Hello,

To whoever is removing checklist . com, I have created this talk to understand why you are doing so. I am curious if there is a reason or it is just vandalism. Here is my rational for adding the site - the checklist page is about checklists. the site has many checklists readily available for user to use. I cannot see the problem with this when there is a link to an article that has absolutely nothing to do with checklists but is just called so. As a fellow pilot, I understand the need to put flying checklists, but those are not the only ones. Looking forward to your response. --Checklistdefender (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Your choice of name is interesting and somewhat disturbing, at least in wikipedia terms. It seems to imply WP:OWN, for instance, which we do not like very much. On the other hand you are the first to come to the talk page to discuss the revert war currently underway. Well done for doing that. Wikipedia has policy on the sorts of sites we should link to. I refer your attention mainly to Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided and to the two sections above, What should be linked, and Links to be considered. Where I think your link is falling down, in the opinions of those on the other side of the revert war, is the balance between informing the article reader about checklists (which arguably it does by providing many examples thereof) versus existing mainly to promote the website (which it certainly would). As a test, if we do a google search for free checklists we get a plethora of sites. Why would we select and promote just one of these?

In general, in my experience, if the linked site does not provide new information on the subject, it fails to make the grade.

On much the same basis, I cannot see why "Questions to Ask at Medical Appointments" is on the list of external links, nor the virtual checklist link. Neither seem to add to our understanding of checklists. On this basis I'll remove both. I'm happier with the other two, which link to articles expanding our understanding of the development and importance of checklists. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If we use the google lithmus test, it means we should not put ANY links on wikipedia: anything can be found using Google. The same goes for saying that a link promotes the site (of course it does!).

If you do a google search for (free) checklist, you do not get databases of checklists but sites that show one checklist dedicated to one topic. I found checklist.com to be interesting because it had MANY checklists and can be used as a reference to what checklists are about. It is free and does not require any registration or payment (unlike other sites) and that's why I think it is great extra info for the wikipedia reader. Looking forward. --Checklistdefender (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

We don't use google as a litmus test. I used it to illustrate that there are any number of free checklist sites, and questioned a) why we should select just one and b) whether they actually add any new information to the user. You are more than disingenuous to suggest that many of the google links are to sites with a single checklist. I clicked on five sites on the first page of the results of my search link and each was to databases of many checklists. Meanwhile we seek to argue for or against ELs in terms of the stipulations at Wikipedia:External links. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Having reread the very first paragraph of this, I see that what we are dealing with is in fact a WP:COI. Naughty naughty. But thank you for 'fessing up to it. Now please read the COI page and proceed accordingly. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What COI are you talking about? Are you guys paranoid???  :::::What COI are you talking about? Are you guys paranoid??? On the topic: you are missing the whole point: google has nothing to do with this. The section of external links is dedicated to site that can provide more insight to the topic. checklist.com definitely does answer that. --Checklistdefender (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

How would you parse If you find something wrong there, please tell us here, or at the feedback form, so we can provide the best place to share knowledge in checklists? "Us". "We". No lack of identification with the site. Here's the bottom line. Wikipedia is not for promoting your website. If that's all you want to do at wikipedia, you are not welcome. Meanwhile, don't fuck with pages out of spite. The New Yorker article is a very good exposition of the benefits of checklists. Grow up. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not checklist.com and I don't know why you keep saying that. And why use such language? "Your pages"? Who made you the owner??? I will contribute as much as I like and won't be deterred by people like you who think they own wikipedia!!! To the point: checklist.com has a big list of checklists. It is free and can provide the wikipedia visitor with examples to illustrate the use of checklists. That's the value and that's why I think it should be included. I don't think that it is relevant that there are other sites on google or that the link promotes the site (of course it does - every link does!!!) --Checklistdefender (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. You're "checklist defender", an entirely different thing. You have failed to argue your point in terms of guidelines. You have failed to identify why that site above all the other lists of checklists sites should be linked. And you are trollishly removing an extended discussion of the benefits of checklists to surgery, an article which makes interesting and general applicable points about the utility of checklists. Quite how you'll convince anyone that an article called The Checklist, about checklists, has no relevance to the subject checklists, is beyond me. But on you go. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Aviation checklists

In aviation, every part of a flight has a corresponding checklist, not just pre-flight and pre-landing. Maybe this part of the text could have a little adjust. Ale murakami (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)