This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
While I think it's better that some of the hundreds of redirects to this article are mentioned in the article than not, I don't think the list of subsidiaries added by Asilvering or the table of imprints restored from an earlier revision by Tavix are beneficial additions. Firstly, there's WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which warns against presenting large amounts of decontextualised information like this. There's also a degree of ambiguity in the information presented, especially in the table: for example, are the "editors" listed editors-in-chief of the imprint or editors responsible for the books published? (Given that the books are more or less auto-generated, we'd also ideally clarify whether these are real people's names.) Then there's the likelihood that the information is out of date: the table gives data on volumes published as of 2011, but the article elsewhere tells us that OmniScriptum published books made up of Wikipedia articles until 2013 (and may have published real books after that). In many (most?) cases the numbers given are contradicted by the numbers in the sources cited; for example, the row for "Secut Press" gives 554 titles, but the reference lists 2,660, "Culp Press" gives 3,757 but the reference has 7,583, and so on. But most pressingly, the sourcing in both the table and the lists is inadequate: commerce sites aren't reliable sources (see e.g. WP:RSPAMAZON), primary sources aren't reliable sources for contentious claims, and to top it off, none of the WebCite links work. There might be scope for keeping some of the content under "Omniscriptum Group subsidiaries", but the table at the very least ought to go. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I care much in any direction here, but it does seem odd to me to delete the redirects because the sub-company name isn't mentioned in the article, while also objecting to having a list of the company names in the article. I suppose someone could make a "List of imprints of OmniScriptum" or something and put some cleaned-up info there instead of in the body of this one. I do think that it's valuable in principle to have this information somewhere if possible.
I don't really see any good reason to waste anyone's time going through the number of titles and editor names to check them - might as well just delete those columns? Re WP:RS issues, I'm not sure what contentious claims you mean? "This company is a subsidiary of this other company" doesn't seem to me contentious or something that can't be sourced to the company itself. -- asilvering (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: Sorry the delay. I've gone ahead and removed the columns with the outdated information. I'm still having trouble seeing the value of the table though. You say it's valuable in principle to have this information somewhere if possible – but why? What's the value in a long list of trade names used by a publisher known only for publishing books of Wikipedia articles? How's it justifiable, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, especially in the absence of any reliable sources? (Ideas of what's "contentious" may vary but I'd say almost any claim made by a vanity publisher about itself is contentious – in this case what they've said has apparently given you the wrong idea that these are actual companies in their own right rather than just names used to give that impression.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've got me a bit backwards here in this case what they've said has apparently given you the wrong idea that these are actual companies in their own right rather than just names used to give that impression - possibly through my poor word choice with "sub-company"; I certainly don't think these are individual separate companies, just sub-entities of the main company - imprints. I may myself be getting you a bit backwards, but I think what you mean here is exactly why I think it's valuable in principle to have this information: to show that these are all in fact the same vanity publisher. -- asilvering (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was "This company is a subsidiary of this other company" that gave me that impression, but I'm glad we're on the same page on that point and appreciate the clarification. I might agree, in principle, with a list of names used by OmniScriptum, but the problem is that in reality we don't have the sources for such a list. If we had an independent reliable source that listed these names that would be one thing, but piecing together dozens of primary sources that don't really even make the claim we're making (the fact that morebooks.de has a page on a "publisher" probably always means it's an OmniScriptum "imprint", but there's nothing stopping them deciding to diversify and sell books published by actual publishers) is another. To reiterate my last point above, WP:ABOUTSELF tells us it's fine to use primary sources for information about themselves in some circumstances, but not when there's "reasonable doubt as to [the information's] authenticity"; as such, in the case of a company with questionable (at best) business practices primary sources aren't sufficient. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what I don't understand here is why you think a primary source is inappropriate when the question is "is this a name used by the company". I'm not sure why that would be a questionable claim, especially when it's so unflattering. -- asilvering (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then there's not much I can do other than repeat myself: because there are good reasons to doubt what OmniScriptum says about itself given its line of business; because, although we can infer a certain amount, the sources don't actually answer the "is this a name used by the company" question; and (perhaps this was left implicit above but is worth making explicit) because Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on secondary sources, and extensive content based solely on primary sources is rarely appropriate, for reasons of both verifiability and relevance. But as those points haven't convinced you yet I doubt they will now. How about a third opinion? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Truly, as I said earlier, I don't care much in any direction! You're welcome to do as you like. I've explained my reasons for saying what I did, since you asked, but I have no intention of doing serious work on this article. So if you don't find what I've said convincing, well, you've heard it, and that's all I might ask or expect. -- asilvering (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess it's unlikely to be absolutely top of anyone's priorities, but it's useful nonetheless to have a resolution of some sort. If we don't list the imprints, then I'll want to eventually renominate the redirects for deletion, which there'd be a stronger case for if there was a broader discussion and clearer consensus not to include them in the article. So I'll request a third opinion anyway – who knows, maybe someone will come up with a viable middle-ground option. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect "Get Morebooks!" and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 14#"Get Morebooks!" until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)