Talk:Gregor and the Code of Claw

Removed content

I've removed three sources: two blog posts and a merchant site. I can't find the Booklist review, but the authors site could back this up slightly. It's not perfect, mind you. However even without it there's still enough to show notability. Now the reason I removed the WP:SPS is because they undergo little to no editorial oversight. One of them was by an author who publishes via a writing group in LA. This could be considered somewhat to be self-publishing of a form since the organization looks to be fairly small. If it was a major-major organization (ie, one that's routinely in the news and cited in RS as an authority) then we'd have more wiggle room on this, but from what I can see this does not appear to be the case.

Now I'm aware that this was likely not done to establish notability but to establish a theme. The problem is that all content needs to be able to be verified and hold up to academic scrutiny and most blogs will fail this criteria regardless of what they claim. The blog authors are giving their opinions on something, but even so, Wikipedia isn't really a place to show what random people think but rather what highly thought of critics tend to think about something. Is this a fatal flaw? Yes, in some regards, since there are some things that really won't ever be covered by things that Wikipedia calls reliable sources. However the fact still remains that coverage of any type - even if it's something as "simple" as an opinion - needs to be in a verified source. Blog posts just don't cut this unless the person writing them has a fairly high pedigree and is known for being an authority. Again, I don't see where this is the case here. This is the type of thing that isn't really going to easily change any time soon. The best way to change this would be to get consensus in places like WP:RS/N, however the reason that these rules came about was because people were flooding Wikipedia with things sourced from various blog sources. Some of it was harmless, while some of it was done in an attempt to promote a blog or even to deliberately spread information or a biased viewpoint. It eventually got so bad that there was a consensus that SPS should not be used for these reasons because the content is usually done "off the cuff" and doesn't get edited to ensure its accuracy or quality. This has really negatively impacted the literature related articles because there are a lot of great places that would be considered SPS on here. They might have large followings and be well respected, but it didn't translate into them getting the coverage needed to be considered an authority. However at the same time, there have been blogs out there that have done some pretty shady things and the SPS rule safeguards Wikipedia from having to include their information as well, so there's still a good side to this.

Other than that, I also removed a long section about the Prophecy of Time. The problem here is that that this would be considered a WP:COPYVIO. We cannot post content wholesale from the book to that extent, even if it's credited. This meant that the other sections about the prophecy needed to be removed because they wouldn't be easily understood without the poem. There was also a bit of a concern about it being WP:OR as well, since the section is an interpretation of the prophecy. It might be mostly from the viewpoint of the characters, but interpretation sections have to be done very carefully. It could be re-written and as long as it's backed up with specific page cites that back up the claims, it's all good. It's just that this is the type of thing that would have to be sourced a little bit more to show the page/sections that verify the claims. Mostly it was the copyright issues, since the entire poem was posted. To give you an idea of how strict Wikipedia is, we can't even host song lyrics of popular songs on here beyond a few words. It'd be helpful if we could, but the copyright laws are that strict on here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• To give a good example of why blogs aren't used in articles, take the Emily Giffin affair from a couple of years back. Long story short, Giffin and her husband called out a one star review of one of her books on Amazon, a review that seemed to genuinely be one person's opinion and not an attempt to harass anyone. Her actions were seen by some as encouraging cyberbullying since it's fairly obvious what a group of fans will do if you highlight a negative review in any sort of light. The blogging world pretty much fell on her en masse, with some pretty outrageous claims made on both sides. The infamous STGRB group got involved, which whipped things into even a larger frenzy. Eventually people decided to add this information to Giffin's article, causing some to wonder if the content could pose a WP:BLP issue. Since the coverage of this was almost exclusively by blogs, it was removed - and for good reason. The longer it went on, the more negative and nasty things got on both sides, with many arguing it as a critique of the book or of the author's publicity style. This might be seen as an extreme case and to a degree it is, but it's a good example of why SPS aren't usable on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Tokyogirl79: Thanks so much for the detailed explanation. I did want to ask more in depth about the "Prophecy" section, because you bring up some points which involve a large number of the articles I've worked on. As I understand it, the actual prophecy is out because of copyright issues. Does the fact that it's listed here change anything? (I don't really think so, but I wanted to check.) And the "translation" is out just because of the way it was written, and the lack of sources. The stanza interpretations were paraphrased from the actual novel, which is the only place I've seen the actual explanation of the meaning (aside from on Wikia, which is useless for our purposes). I can dig around and see if I can find some sources to back up a rewrite of the interpretation, but as it stands now, it's out. If I were to write a section which provides a general interpretation of the prophecy (not going stanza-by-stanza, I mean) with appropriate references, would that be acceptable? Thanks once again for your input. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Sadly, no. The only time we can really use something is when the copyright has expired or when it's something like WP:CC BY-SA. It's kind of frustrating since while the publisher likely wouldn't mind if we used it, it's not our use that they have to worry about, it's the people who would republish content from the article. (It's also why we can't use the official jacket synopses in articles, which is a shame since it'd make so many things easier.) Many copyright holders are hesitant to allow copyrighted material to be used in articles except in very specific circumstances because they're afraid that it would weaken their rights. In any case, I think that you could probably use the Scholastic link as something to back up some of the prophecy section, though. Now what you can do is use a line from the prophecy here and there to elaborate on things, since you can do that without it really setting off the copyright sensors on Wikipedia. It's a pretty complicated song and dance, TBH. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)