Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:The answer to life, the universe, and everything/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Youtube

Please add youtube to the list of examples of unreliable sources. I've had to explain how it's unreliable on more occasions than I care to remember. -- roleplayer 11:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a reminder: YouTube is not always unreliable, so it can't be simply dismissed. Plenty of reliable sources officially host content on YouTube, such as news sources, music distributors, bands, well known authors, etc. Even video press releases can be reliable as primarily sourced content, though independent sources are preferred. Editors should carefully evaluate any YouTube citation or external link for appropriateness for Wikipedia per WP:V, WP:IRS. --Lexein (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Examples of cases where YouTube is a reliable source:
  • YouTube is the primary source - "Gangnam Style has more than 1 billion views on YouTube" (source)
  • A reliable YouTube's channel hosts a primary source - "Bill Nye said creationism is not appropriate for children" (source)
  • A reliable YouTube's channel hosts a primary source (in the the description and in the video) used to draw a simple conclusion (no WP:OR) - "Justin Bieber has recorded a clip with Jaden Smith" (source)
  • A reliable YouTube's channel hosts a primary source (in the video, but not in the description) used to draw a simple conclusion (no WP:OR) - "Oscar Pistorius' lawyer said Pistorius is obviously emotional" (source)
Conclusion: YouTube frequently is a reliable source. It should be used with caution, but generally recommending it not to be used is harmful. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources

The community played fast a loose with the words "primary" and "secondary" for a while. "Primary" was a code word that meant "bad source", and "secondary" was the code word for "good source".

We're cleaning that up, but it will take a long time to re-educate our user base. You might find it helpful to read WP:Secondary does not mean independent. Source independence is often more important for notability purposes than whether an academic would classify the source as "secondary". For example, a handful of newspaper articles is good evidence for notability—even though newspaper articles are officially classified as primary sources according to the historians (=the academic discipline that invented this whole distinction between primary and secondary). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

And "primary" shouldn't mean that a source can't be used to help establish notability. "Interviews" are an example. An interview may be technically a primary source but depending on who's doing the interview and who's publishing it, it is an instance of someone "taking note of" a subject. Example, if someone is interviewed by Barbara Walters and that interview appears in Time Magazine, that should count toward notability even though it's a primary source. However, too many delete !voters in AFDs automatically dismiss interviews using the "P word". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I really wish we'd stop giving newspapers as examples of "reliable sources". They're barely adequate sources at best, mix opinion and speculation with factual reporting – when they aren't being outright deceitful. There's an old quote that says it all: "Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for that rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge." —Erwin Knoll
I don't think we'll ever convince the community to stop relying on those rags, but can we at least stop pointing at them as exemplar? — Coren (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
It's sad but true, newspapers are contemporary documents we have to rely on, for the last few hundred years. They are widely disseminated and hence widely available. Some of them go to great lengths to be accurate, and even unbiased. It is a question of detail as to what reliance can be placed on individual facts from a given report in a given paper on a given date. (Times obituaries content is usually pretty good, for example, London Gazette is technically a newspaper.) Rich Farmbrough, 17:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC).
Furthermore, we are talking about the issue of whether or not we should have an article on a subject, not what can be used to site information in the article. A newspaper report on a subject from a well known newspaper with editorial oversight is evidence that someone has "taken note of" the subject and therefore can be cited in an AFD "keep" argument. Whether or not it can or should be used to cite anything in the article is another issue. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Dewey defeats Truman. The Carpathia is towing RMS Titanic into New York, New York right about now. What is there not to trust about newspapers? 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
And what small percentage of reporting from reliable newspapers consists of examples like that? And how many errors like that go uncorrected within the following days, or in today's internet fueled era the following hours?--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not really an essay

You know as I think about it, this isn't really an essay at all, it is a summation of very relevant Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I'm tempted to remove the essay disclaimer altogether but realize this could be seen as controversial.

My concern is that with a lot of NEW users being directed to this page (vis a vis the article wizard, articles for creation, and #wikipedia-en-help) that users will not affix due weight to the requirements listed on this article because of the "essay" disclaimer.

Thoughts on this?    Thorncrag  13:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

What kind of page do you think it is? Perhaps an informational or help page? Or would you prefer to take a WP:NOTAG approach?
The {{notability essay}} tag isn't strictly necessary. You could just add the category manually. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
That's pretty much what I was thinking, yeah. But given this is a high-visibility article, I thought it would be a good idea to get some thoughts on it.    Thorncrag  02:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, the tag is not needed. Avicennasis @ 05:23, 15 Sivan 5772 / 05:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree it's a summary of policy and guideline, and not an essay. However, because this is referred to very frequently on IRC, and is linked to by several shortcuts, I think some sort of tag which at least shows the shortcuts would be helpful. So I've boldly hauled off and done that. --Lexein (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Followup: I've added the guideline category, even though this isn't a guideline, because it accurately, concisely, helpfully summarizes and links to guidelines. --Lexein (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but I reverted that edit. If this isn't a guideline then it shouldn't be categorized as such. ElKevbo (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Well then, this falls into a categorization gap: not an essay, guideline, redirect, or disambiguation. So what is it? It has proven to be helpful to newbies; I think most helpers at IRC #wikipedia-en-help would agree. In fact, it was created for that purpose. So is there a category for help documents? --Lexein (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
We have the Help namespace, so there should be a corresponding category. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 04:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, it is technically an essay, which is the catch-all designation for anything and everything that doesn't fall neatly into one of the other pages. Guidelines and policies go through the WP:PROPOSAL process. Pages that weren;t officially adopted but summarize the policies and guidelines are essays. But that doesn't mean it's a low-value or disputed page: WP:BRD, WP:5P, and WP:TE are all "just" essays. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree, its obviously just an essay since it hasn't gone through the proper process. Dream Focus 13:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:The answer to life, the universe, and everything

Man, what a misuse of a great title. 213.120.104.147 (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

So true! It should be renamed. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I have now renamed the page from the name "Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything" to "Wikipedia:Notability (summary)". Thank you for egging me on to do so. Unforgettableid (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I initially and for years strongly supported WP:The answer to life, the universe, and everything for this helpful, concise essay, because Notability and its sister Reliable Sources are so important, and have come under increased scrutiny and enforcement over the years. They became essentially Topic One over at irc://irc.freenode.net/#wikipedia-en-help, and this became, and probably still is, The Answer, to the vast majority of questions there. So it didn't come out of thin air, just sayin'.
Anyways, in the spirit of plain English names for important policy-related topics, I support the just-done rename, and hope the redirect stays pointing here. --Lexein (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I support this rename. For historical context, the former name refers to The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything, which was a phrase from Douglas Adams' book The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. In that book, the Answer was "42", and WP:42 is still a shortcut to this summary. I agree that this summary is very useful, and it will make more sense to people in more cultures now that it is renamed WP:Notability (summary). Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I thank you both for the compliments. Unforgettableid (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Cool, so let's not move it anywhere else. I had an admin undo the move to Template:, ok? --Lexein (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Lexein. I moved the bulk of the page Wikipedia:Notability (summary) to Template:Notability (summary) on purpose. The notability summary is transcluded at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions. Look inside the div labeled "Expand this box to learn about when to decline a submission". Now that you've undone my move, there's a box inside that div that starts "This is an information page ..." which shouldn't be there. Is there any particular reason you don't want any part of the summary to be a template? Kind regards, Unforgettableid (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not at all usual to make radical changes of namespace from Wikipedia to Template, for informational articles or essays. This essay was first, and is quite popular both in links in and access via IRC. The fact that someone may have (as you stated) copy/pasted it from here to one other place does not call for converting this to a template, and two editors agreed: me and the admin who moved it back. Moving to Template space necessitates removing the topnote explaining what this document is, which is a disservice to new editors (for whom this summary essay was intended). We don't send new editors to templates for policy/guideline/essays. When I earlier visited the page you'd mentioned, Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions, prior to requesting the unmove, neither this text, nor the template, were visible! Editors approved your renaming to WP:Notability (summary) - what convinced you to keep going with these (what I consider to be) radical changes? None of this makes sense. It should just be left alone. --Lexein (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Addendum Why did you "merge" text from somewhere else back into this essay? This essay is prime, first, high traffic, and contains edits from many editors over time to improve it. If anything is merged, it should be this text into your AFC instructions. Further, your initial claim was that the text was copy/pasted to there. I say, leave it copy/pasted, and don't complain about an experiment not really working out. And, by the way, there is mediawiki code to prevent transclusion of a part of a page, like the topnote you dislike. Use that, instead, if you absolutely must transclude. Please, just don't templatize. --Lexein (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
As a frequent citer of this page, I agree with Lexein. It is an important and frequently-used one; please propose changes here and get consensus before making them. JohnCD (talk) 10:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

About your point about how the text from here is more authoritative than the text that was at WP:AFCR: Fine. Point accepted. About the split: I split the page into two parts. One was Wikipedia:Notability (summary). The second was Template:Notability (summary). The former included a template call to the latter. True, if you looked at the latter, you would see only some of the content. But you weren't supposed to look at the latter. You were supposed to look at the former, and if you did, you saw all the content, including the topnote explaining what the document was. Now that you know this, do you agree that the split was fine to do? Unforgettableid (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't care about details of implementation. The point is that this is an important and well-used page, and should not be tinkered with to fit a secondary use at AFCR without prior discussion and agreement here. If there are problems in transcluding, why not simply link to it? JohnCD (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Fine. I propose to split the page again into two parts: Wikipedia:Notability (summary) and Template:Notability (summary). The former will include the topnote, interlanguage links, and a template call to the latter. The latter will include the page's main content. Once this is done, Wikipedia:42 and Wikipedia:Notability (summary) will include all the content you're used to seeing. What do people think of this idea? Cheers, Unforgettableid (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Provided it doesn't change the appearance of what you see when you click on WP:ANS, I don't see any objection to that; but wait a day or two to see if there are other comments. JohnCD (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose: I have not seen a rationale yet for the the actions taken, only an explanation. That's what and how, but not why. There isn't any value in templatizing or transcluding, merely due to someone enthusiastically copy/pasting from here to exactly one other (low traffic, default hidden) place. Such a low reuse rate (once) surely doesn't justify either templatizing or transclusion. If you absolutely will not be deterred from transcluding, go the other way. This article is the source, and should remain the source, and standalone. How? See the articles (not the redirects) WP:NFC and WP:NFCC. Is WP:NFCC in Article or Template space? It's in Article space. Is it standalone, or a fragment? It's standalone, including <noinclude></noinclude> code. By extension, this article should remain entirely in Article space, with noinclude code for the topnote, for when it is transcluded elsewhere. That's how it's done. No Template space fragments. --Lexein (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
<noinclude></noinclude> could work. But I think that, if the page were split into an outer page plus a template, it might encourage people to transclude it into more places. For example, onto new users' talkpages. And perhaps I could even get consensus to get it transcluded into a new "Summary" section at the top of Wikipedia:Notability. But I feel I'm less likely to get consensus if I can't show people exactly what would be transcluded, and if I use <noinclude></noinclude>, then indeed I can't show people exactly what would be transcluded. Unforgettableid (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Would you care to take hands off the wheel and let me set it up the way NFC/NFCC is set up? You'll see there's nothing lost, and when transcluded, will still comes up clean, without resorting to template space. --Lexein (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the <noinclude></noinclude> solution would be useful and would make most use cases possible. But I insist that the splitting solution would allow certain additional use cases which the <noinclude></noinclude> solution would not permit: do you agree? —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd rather see any template simply transclude the essay, since the essay is source. This is also done. --Lexein (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That would work too. But if the essay transcluded the template, the template would be more discoverable, and so more would discover its existence. —Unforgettableid (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, now I've made there be multiple pages again.
Is this acceptable to everyone? It doesn't need to be beloved: it just needs to be acceptable.
Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
No: goddamnit, this is still going the wrong direction. This article is prime. It should be transcluded directly, not templatized. You've gone the wrong direction, and I've a good mind to ask an admin to revert everything again, if only to repair the damage done to the history. You've offered no rationale opposing the way it was done at NFC/NFCC. --Lexein (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Lexein. Clearly, you are frustrated and angry. Here is why I did what I did. My way makes the template more discoverable. If the project page is transcluded onto the template, like you wanted, then fewer people will discover the template's existence. So, fewer editors are likely to subst the template onto the talkpages of new Wikipedians who write non-notable articles. But using my way, seeing the navbox, and discovering that you must click "E" to edit the template, increase the chances that editors will discover that the template is a template. May I suggest that you give it a day, think over the matter more, and let me know afterwards how you feel and what you think. Regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm only frustrated because you went ahead without consensus, and made no improvement. By templatizing it, you've made the prime article more complicated to improve. This is not the way it is to be done, as I've demonstrated at NFC/NFCC. I've stated quite clearly what's wrong with what you've done, and you've gone ahead and done it twice. This is purely disruptive and WP:POINTy. I'm not impressed with your rather intentional slow WP:edit warring. Ridiculous, through and through. Freakin' steamroller, where none was ******* needed. Nobody but you cares about discovery of your new template, except you, all eager to create some random template that's not needed anywhere. Nothing about what you've done makes sense. --Lexein (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC) redacted word -- Lexein.
Ok, I made a poorly formed request at User talk:Someguy1221 to help or discuss, mainly because of the disrespect to the history, and the non-consensus action, and he elected to revert the moves and not discuss. So I did post-cleanup. Fix the other articles you've altered. I only care that this article (which I did not create and do not own, but enthusiastically link to) not be moved to Template space, since it's an informational article intended, with its specialized and colorful formatting, to strongly and briefly summarize its three key points, for new editors who have sought article writing help at #en-wikipedia-help. Such formatting is not bog-standard Wikipedia sober policy/guideline/essay format, and so would be unlikely to be appropriate to insert in other essays or guidelines, IMHO. Perhaps think we need more editors discussing this. RFC? --Lexein (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I still think that my way would be better. But I think I give up; it's not worth my time to argue about it. Looking back on the matter, I realize that the move warring that I did was a mistake. Plus it made you angry for no good reason. I apologize. Unforgettableid (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Belated thanks, acceptance, and apology in kind. --Lexein (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
You are welcome. I accept your return apology as well. It always takes guts for anyone to apologize; I thank you too. —Unforgettableid (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Move back

The page was moved back by User:Yworo from Wikipedia:Notability (summary) to Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything without regard to the above proposal/agreement/move/post-move consensus. I oppose the move back for these reasons:

  1. The move back was not discussed prior to move (the very same thing Unforgettableid is accused of doing in the edit summaries and here), and it disregarded the pre- and post-move consensus and reiterated that disregard here
  2. Perhaps undue appropriation of the Douglas Adams title as mentioned by prior editors above.
  3. General preference for plain English names of things which I mentioned above.
  4. Re: this point, it's not mandatory to propose all moves at WP:RM. It's fine to discuss locally, since the essay is rarely referred to by its full name, but usually by WP:VRS, WP:42, WP:ANS anyways. IMHO.

Discussion? Leave it as it is now, or go back to Notability (summary)? --Lexein (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Contested moves are required to be listed at WP:RM. See WP:RM/CM. This would be a contested move. I contest it. Please start a new section at the bottom of the page per the instructions on requested moves if you intend to proceed with this. Yworo (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Forget it. You bypassed discussion. We're STILL discussing, and you don't get to bypass it anymore. RM is not needed, as discussion started here. Sorry you can't have it all your way. Let others discuss as they did before. --Lexein (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
No, that's not the accepted process in a disputed move. Who made you king? Yworo (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
He said, obviously, rudely, and incorrigibly still wanting to bypass existing consensus and not backing down. Edit summary "wah wah"? Who thinks they're king? BTW I invited Addshore. You're welcome. --Lexein (talk) 05:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
If y'all had followed process for an obviously controversial move to begin with... Yworo (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
No, look here: count the controversy! None! You went against existing recent pre- and post- consensus and created the controversy, and worse, you're wikilawyerly forum shopping (insisting that an entirely different group of editors than have worked on and use this page give consensus) because you didn't like the outcome. Further, you didn't even bother to actually start the formal process you used as an excuse for your revert, which, if you feel so strongly about it, you obviously should have done. Why can't you see all of that? --Lexein (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Move requested

I have been pointed in the direction of this :) Please see for those that wanted the move and for those that contested the move saying it should have been on WP:RM the top of this section now shows the article is listed in WP:RM.

It has been proposed in this section that Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything be renamed and moved to Wikipedia:Notability (summary).

A bot will list this discussion on Wikipedia:Requested moves within half an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached. More information about closing discussions is available at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions. Remember to base arguments on article title policy, and to keep discussion succinct and civil.

·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 02:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

One paragraph coverage

The essay currently says:

"there must be at least one lengthy paragraph, and preferably more, directly covering it."

The Notability guidelines do not say this or anything like it, there are no mathematical numbers involved in what counts as "significant coverage". This is very misleading. In fact, the notability guidelines leave the definition of "significant coverage" ambiguous and open to interpretation, as it should be. But there is guidance on why the rule exists under WP:WHYN: "so that we can actually write a whole article". So that is all, we need sources sufficient enough to write an article with. The essay should be modified to accord with what the guidelines say, literally and/or in spirit. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree with this. You ought to stick a yardstick somewhere, that's generally good enough (and if it's not, there's a workaround) to count. Otherwise you end up with tit for tat like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Donovan (musician) where there's a load of back and forth about whether a one sentence title of the article's subject counts as "significant coverage". If you keep it vague, then people will misinterpret it, perhaps deliberately just to cause havoc and mayhem. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Ritchie333. The real rules have subtlety, but this page is trading a lot of subtlety for a short explanation which works most of the time. Saying that a subject is notable if somewhere in the entirety of publication someone has written a single paragraph about it is too high of a standard for all Wikipedia articles, and so it is not correct to say that this is the standard. But in AfD, the majority of articles which fail to meet this arbitrary and incorrect standard do get deleted and a lot of the articles which meet this standard do get kept. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no "yardstick somewhere" in the rules for good reason. It is normal and appropriate for discussions to center around what counts as "significant coverage". I have had this essay used against me in AfD's precisely on this point, as a way to avoid discussing what counts as significant coverage. People take this essay to be an accurate reflection of the rules, and it's not. It's not even a summary of the rules, it's an incorrect understanding of the rules. The way I had it was perfectly accurate and did not trade subtlety by adding length. Unless by "length" you mean this essay is meant to avoid having lengthy debates in AfD about what counts as "significant coverage", in which case you have created your own customized shortcut here out of thin air with no consensus, there is no rule about the number of words needed, period. In fact the way it's currently worded is a gross misunderstanding of the rules and would impact many more cases than you might believe. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
You make good points. I do not disagree that what is there is incorrect. I just think it is better than what you proposed. "Sufficiently in-depth" is Wikipedia jargon and this page is intended to briefly explain to non-Wikipedians what constitutes "in-depth" without using that jargon term. I support what you are doing but not the particular execution you proposed. You are completely correct that this page is incorrect.
If this page is causing problems at AfD then post a notice somewhere that this page should not be used to settle AfD discussions, because it should not.
All short explanations of Wikipedia rules will negatively impact many cases. Not having short explanation causes problems also. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
You realize my "proposal" was an exact word for word cut and paste copy from the guidelines? Ok if it was just a clarity problem I might agree, but the current text is something entirely original and new, not just the wording, but the content of the rule. It is a new guideline that exists nowhere else but in this essay. It's more than a summary, more than a short explanation, it's a completely new rule. If you agree that it is problematic, at least return it to how it was so it accurately reflects the rules and is not crossing the line creating an entirely new rule. If we can't agree on that I would probably open debate on Talk:AfD about the viability of this essay at all, because it doesn't appear possible to come up with a "short explanation" or paraphrase of the rules, without new rules being introduced in parallel causing problems. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
"It is normal and appropriate for discussions to center around what counts as "significant coverage"." Sadly, what really happens, if you follow AfDs regularly is people start getting hot under the collar, arguing lots and lots and lots, maybe with a bit of name calling thrown in for good measure (especially if the article is anything to do with politics), and after pages and pages of really lengthy discussion, an admin takes one look, throws their hands up in the air and says "No consensus". For newcomers (which is where this essay is aimed towards), it's better to suggest something that, in the majority of cases, will without doubt satisfy WP:GNG, and that's really what it's all about. Do bear in mind that every single policy and guideline on Wikipedia was original at one point. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I do not know what is best. I think it is troublesome to leave it as it is, troublesome to change it to what Green Cadamom suggests, and it would be the most troublesome thing of all to delete this page. I do not want to take further action but I encourage anyone else to do so. If anyone wants to propose this page for AfD then that would not be unreasonable, but if the page is to remain then Wikipedia:Dispute resolution might be a better forum for improving this page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I think this is fine. It may slightly understate the requirements (even a lengthy paragraph won't let you write a whole article), and it's not technically necessary for your sources to be in "paragraphs" (if you somehow only had photo captions and bulleted lists about a subject, but they contained as much information as several long paragraphs, then we'd accept that), but it gives people the right general idea without going into all the gory details and endless caveats, and that's the point of this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
This page is not a "summary" of the rules - it's an original essay created without consensus being used to circumvent policy from those who don't know better. It's now an even greater problem by framing itself as a "rules summary" fooling less experienced editors, and tipping the balance of power in favor of deletionists. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey, now. This was created and revised by Wikipedia editors who frequently help at #en-wikipedia-help to clearly, concisely state the fundamentals of three policy points, for new editors who struggle with reliably sourcing their new articles. It also helped avoid a lot of copy/pasting, and "put a pin" in a place that's easy to find (WP:42) with prominent links to the relevant policy pages. That was its only intent. To assume bad faith about this essay/guideline summary/informational article is way off course here. Please relax. I'm an inclusionist, and I've never perceived this as tilting power toward deletionists. To the contrary: it is a powerful assist to get new editors to seek good sources early and frequently, to avoid deletion, and maybe to avoid creating articles in mainspace that can't be reliably sourced yet (instead, keep in AFC or sandbox). --Lexein (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

One paragraph again

If the one paragraph is going to be included, there must be some way of making it clear the rules do not say "one paragraph". You can't call this page a "rules summary" and then make stuff up. Whatever good intentions for end result, there are reasons why the rules don't specify how much coverage counts as significant. I suggest making a footnote clarifying the issue, directing readers to this talk page, or best of all remove it entirely and summarize what the rules actually say. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Look at the origin, intention, and history of this page, and slow your roll. As a strong supporter of the intended integrity of this page, its intended fidelity to policy, and as an early editor of it, I've boldly changed out the text about "one paragraph". The policy text about "in detail", and "non-trivial mention" covers the requirement. In practice, a paragraph of several sentences is no guarantee of sufficient detail and non-triviality, so it's not a great rule of thumb, IMHO. We want meat in our sources, not filler. Please note, however, that extensive history online at IRC has shown that people, especially English as a second language editors grasp the notion of "paragraph" better than "in detail" or "non-trivial". My point to you is that this change which you've demanded may not stick, because it may not help new editors as much as the original phrasing. It may in fact bite us in the ass in terms of helpfulness. If that happens, I'll just direct them to your Talk page, mmkay? --Lexein (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
It strikes me that this page has lost much of its functionality at the hands of pedants. As Lexein rightly points out, this page was designed to be a rough guide, using simplified language, to assist new editors with grasping the key policies concerning what makes an acceptable article. It was an incredibly useful tool at Articles for Creation. Unfortunately, pedantic, wordy amendments, such as "There must be reliable sources for the content of the article to meet the Wikipedia requirement of being verifiable", as opposed to "The content of the article must be verifiable", have taken away most of this page's functionality. The death-rattle was sounded when it was renamed to "Notability (summary)", which gave it an undue policy-esque bearing. Pol430 talk to me 10:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Question about public sources vs. private sources

I have been thinking about a possible scenario in which a notable term won't qualify as an article just because there aren't public references and sources to back it up, but there are private ones. These could be materials which are reliable, independent and stand alone, and yet, for various reasons can't be published. For example, a document or an image that is copyrighted. In my opinion, such cases should be examined privately by Wikipedia editors, and approved as being reliable sources, without necessary adding these sources / references to the article itself. I will be happy to hear other opinions about that matter. - Michael Haephrati (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If these sources are not publically accessible, how do they satisfy WP:V? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey, sorry, Redrose64- I didn't see your comment while editing, and didn't get an edit conflict warning. --Lexein (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
See WP:Verifiability. I nominated a new article, about a new term, here for immediate deletion because the cited sources were not published, were implied to be classified or unavailable except privately, and therefore could not be verified without the possibility of violating secrecy or embargo. "Private verification" without citing the source is not on: we always publish the means of verification. Where personal privacy is involved, such as WP:BLP, we allow the subjects of articles or their legal representatives to request edits to articles regarding corrections of fact, and that is done by private communication to meta:OTRS. Some image license verification is also done by private communication to meta:OTRS. Sources, no. --Lexein (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything → Wikipedia:Notability (summary) – See talk page. Apteva (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

  1. "been this way for quite a while" until discussion led to move.
  2. The move back was not discussed prior to move (the very same thing Unforgettableid is accused of doing in the edit summaries and here), and it disregarded the pre- and post-move consensus and reiterated that disregard here. That inconsideration alone is enough to justify an immediate revert.
  3. Perhaps undue appropriation of the Douglas Adams title as mentioned by prior editors above.
  4. General preference for plain English names of things which I mentioned above. --Lexein (talk) 05:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Here, the desire for renaming was (briefly) discussed and (by three) consensed, just not the specific new name. Then there was post-move discussion and consensus... IMHO. --Lexein (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose move (i.e. keep at "The answer to life, the universe, and everything".) People who don't like the humour of the title simply don't have to use the page. There is no reason why they should prevent those of us who do from using it. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - calling it a "summary" gives the incorrect impression of being authoritative. The humor ensures it won't be mistaken for anything than what it is. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Cardamom. The move would definitely give the page the impression of being authoritative. Besdies, nothing wrong with a little humor in the title.Josophie (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support "Notability (summary)" until and unless someone has a better title The current title, "The answer to life, the universe, and everything" is a centric to Western culture and named after a joke from an English comedy book. English Wikipedia is used by people who are not familiar with this joke and they are not well-served by this joke title. This is an important summary and because it is concise, it is especially useful to people for whom English is not a first language. The alternate title, "Notability (summary)" may not be the best title, but it is better than this joke and it is a sufficient title pending any better idea. The WP:42 redirect should remain and that can be enough of a joke. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The proposed title is too easily confused with a formal guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose move per Pol430, and because if this has too "official" a title we shall be more likely to get into arguments about exact meanings and phrases; we do not want this to develop into another carefully-worded but unreadably long policy/guideline. JohnCD (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose move where this is essentially an essay and not a guideline/policy, the current title is fine (even if you don't get the literary reference). Hot Stop (Talk) 13:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Refactoring discussions in progress

DO NOT refactor dicsussions in progress. It quickly become impossible to fix and it is very difficult to determine if all the comments have been preserved. That was a highly inappropriate move and has been reverted. The time to set up any structure is before any !voting has occurred. Once !voting has started, it should be left in sequential order. Admins can identify and count without your help. Yworo (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with Yworo on this. I had seen such refactoring done in the past, without much harm, and so didn't revert it on sight, just swapped the wrong section titles. --Lexein (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The re-ordering was entirely unnecessary. There are fewer than a dozen !votes – surely not too many to overwhelm the decision making capacity of the eventual closer. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

needs/need

I fixed a grammar error, pointed out to me by Houyhnhnm (talk · contribs). This fix was lost when Yworo (talk · contribs) undid the template/transclusion coding added by Unforgettableid (talk · contribs). I re-instated the grammar fix.

Today, Unforgettableid has undone the grammar fix, with the edit summary "Restoring my work eliminated by Yworo. Page is already transcluded on one talk page, and is meant to be transcluded more often. John of Reading was fine with my work. If you don't like it, please WP:TALKDONTREVERT".

Three comments

  • I suspect that Unforgettableid's edit was not the one he meant to make, since it has not restored his work.
  • At no point have I said that I was "fine" with Unforgettableid's work
  • When the edit war is over, can someone please fix that grammar error ;-)

-- John of Reading (talk) 06:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

John, I'll simply rewrite the need/needs sentence to avoid that grammatical trap:
fm: And there needs to be several of these good references, not just one,
to: And several of these good references are required, not just one,
Furthermore, Unforgettableid, you and I (I thought) settled the matter of not transcluding this page anywhere, due to its non-bog-standard highlighting and emphasis, all put there for the benefit of new editors (yes, including kids). It was built for IRC #wikipedia-en-help and for WP:AFC discussions, and basically, nowhere else. I just can't imagine this page being accepted for transclusion anywhere. It's too big for a banner or a flashcard, and too small to be a comprehensive policy page. It's just a cheatsheet/primer on three important points. --Lexein (talk) 06:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


New Standards, These Outdated?

Why need third-parties so bad when access is freely granted to the entire first-party source (the subject) itself. You can't write about something unless its been written about? Notability is a separate issue but say there is notability but few sources. When the entire subject is made freely available as Wikipedia is for anyone with internet access, why should a third party have to be relied upon? When the whole thing is freely right there able to be reviewed, searched, and verified to anyone's heart's content why wait for New York Times to see it first? If a painting is in front of you and you need to scrutinize its 'x'-ness, go ahead and do it. That's what we apparently tell Wikipedia users. Go check out that Mona Lisa or whatever to assess its beauty or the claims on Wikipedia as to some aesthetic quality or another. Or, if you wait for the weatherman to say 'it's sunny out' you probably could have just pulled up the shades. So if the shade is up and the sun is right there why would you need to wait until someone walks by and points up and says 'that's the sun'. The third party certainly helps but is redundant. Just go to quantonics.com and see that the source itself contains all the subject necessary in a freely accessible way, for any reasonably interested Wikipedia user to verify a neutral unbiased article should one be written. The third-party exclusion thing is for kids putting their garage bands up, not a formulated theoretical construct developed over years and internally consistent and coherent as explicitly not only laid out but laid out for all with a configured wifi device or networked ethernet line etc. just like this site and its content. Quantonics Is exactly like Wikipedia in that way. The logic being used is inverted. 'Since other comparable subjects have gotten press, they're in, but this one is out'. No. Lack of significant coverage only curtails the chances of notability, it's not the baseline by which we judge a thought system or belief system. --108.227.134.169 (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Tl;dr -- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia's seek to collate what is already documented. They always have. Additionally, encyclopedias seek to be as neutral as they can be, and the third perspective is helpful in balancing what an encyclopedia writes. Pol430 talk to me 17:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Pol430. Did read: Third party sources are not redundant at all. The voice of Wikipedia is the voice of its sources. If we rely solely on primary sources, Wikipedia will be nothing but a giant press release. Other wikis do that, we do not. By requiring that independent sources discuss a topic, preferably sources which possess an editorial process and fact checking, or academic sources which possess a peer review process prior to publication, or authors with extensive credentials in their field, we offer our readers facts verified by sources other than ourselves, not just claimed by the primary source. Articles about companies and products, and biographies of living persons are all thorny problems, not solved by lowering our verification and reliable source standards.
Oh, and this informational page is to help new editors get on the right track, by putting the key policies and guidelines about sourcing in accurate nutshell form. This Talk page is intended to discuss improving the accuracy and usefulness of this page as it relates to those already-existing policies and guidelines. The correct forums to debate WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability is at their talk pages or WP:Village pump/Policy or similar. Be aware that a Request for comment about the intro paragraph of WP:V raged on for months; have a thick skin before launching into the territory of "who needs verification". --Lexein (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Independent?

This pulls up the fact that sources need to be independent, and devotes a whole section to it. Well and good - I certainly agree that sources should be independent, but ... The independence section only links to Wikipedia:Independent sources, which is tagged as an *essay*. If this article attempts to be an encapsulation of Wikipedia policy, it would probably do to come up with some non-essay sources for the prescription of independent sources. - For example, reliable sources talks about verifiability, so the independence section could touch on WP:NPOV and WP:NOR (which aren't just policies but "core policies"). - Having independent sources is not a policy of the project per se, but is more a way of fulfilling other policies, and if this page is intended to be a summary for the new editor, the description should probably reflect that fact. -- 71.35.127.227 (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

  1. Who says that the page "attempts to be an encapsulation of Wikipedia policy"? What the page itself says is that it "describes communal consensus on some aspect of Wikipedia norms and practices". That is not at all the same thing, and there is no earthly reason why it would refer only to policies, not to other pages mentioning norms and practices.
  2. The purpose of the link to Wikipedia:Independent sources is to enable anyone reading the essay to find more information about what are considered reliable sources, not to provide authoritative justification for the assertion the reliable sources are required.
  3. It is a mistake to think that "having independent sources is not a policy of the project". The policy document Wikipedia:Notability explicitly repeatedly mentions that there is a requirement for independent sources.
  4. Yes, the independence section could touch on WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, and it could touch on numerous other issues. However, the whole point of the page is to emphasise very briefly and concisely the single fact that Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. We have plenty of other pages (some of which you have mentioned) which go into more detail: making this into yet another one of them would be unnecessary duplication, as well as destroying the whole purpose of this page. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Significant Coverage Constraint Seems Incorrect

Hi, in the Significant Coverage section, the article makes the statement:

"To count as "significant coverage", a cited reference must be about the subject – addressing the subject directly in detail, and more than a trivial mention. Passing mentions don't count, directory listings don't count, any old thing that happens to have the name of the subject in it doesn't count. Furthermore, several of these good references are required, not just one, to show that the subject of the article meets the Wikipedia requirement of being notable."

This seems incorrect for a number of reasons. First, it is a rule that is not consistent with the requirements for publishing to other Encyclopedias. So, I wonder why it would stand for WP. Second, there are many very solid and citable sources that do not get extensively written about, such as public Dictionaries/Glossaries (too many to list), Public Government Databases (e.g. US Patent and Trademark databases), etc. In fact, Wikipedia has what appear to be many millions of existing citations to low and even no coverage sources. And, many new citations to such low and no coverage sources make it into public wikispace, daily, setting a public example that Significant Coverage is not really necessary.

As a result, I believe that the Significant Coverage constraint is incorrect, misleading, and needs to somehow be corrected.

Thanks, --FGuerino (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  1. What other encyclopedias do does matter somewhat, but you have not established that Britannica, for example, cites sources which do not discuss the subject in some detail.
  2. Poor sources and non-discussing sources are gradually weeded out and/or tagged{{Dubious}} and discussed in article Talk. Sometimes sources which seem poor can be rehabilitated and documented at WP:RSN. More often, a crap source is replaced by RS by a conscientious editor like me, and, hopefully, you.
  3. Your argument that our sources are already crap, so why pretend to want good quality sources? is indefensible, because it goes against the WP:Five pillars, which emphasizes building an encyclopedia. To throw out the requirement for good sourcing just because some editors don't or can't yet do it is like turning over the whole apple cart and abandoning it because two of the apples have worms.
  4. This essay does, and will always, cite and paraphrase existing pillar, policy, and guideline. --Lexein (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Second, there are many very solid and citable sources that do not get extensively written about,
So? The source does not need to be notable (=qualify for an article on the English Wikipedia). The subject of the article needs to be notable (=qualify for an article). It does not matter if the "very solid and citable sources" have ever been written about. You can use any decent English dictionary if you need a dictionary definition, even if you don't believe that the dictionary has been reviewed. (Although from what I hear from the librarians around Wikipedia, it probably has. Apparently there's a substantial 'review any book a library might want to stock' industry.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Misleading and redundant

I agree with comments above that this page is misleading and redundant to WP:N. GNG does not work in reverse as this page attempts to suggest. Coverage is not necessarily required to be significant. There is no absolute requirement for more than one source. WP:N simply does not say this. James500 (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

More than one article has been deleted based on no greater reasoning than coverage in only one findable source. Sorry if that doesn't please the wikilawyer in you - mine obects, too - but them's the breaks. Notability doesn't come from one college newspaper mention, or one supermarket tabloid article, or even one bestselling book. GNG isn't supposed to be a cakewalk. More to the point, this brief summary gets it right for introducing the best practices encouraged for authors of new articles. That is its purpose. It keeps some would-be contributors from wasting their time on articles for which they cannot find support to establish Notability. --Lexein (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
"More than one article has been deleted" doesn't prove what you are saying. You need to prove that there is a consensus that every article that has only one findable source should be deleted. You won't be able to do that because it simply isn't true. James500 (talk) 05:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Over time, Wikipedia standards for notability have firmed up. Over time, each of those single-sourced articles will be correctly nominated for deletion, and they will be correctly deleted, if only one source can be located to support the topic of the article, or only low quality sources can be found. --Lexein (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
If you that is what you believe, you should go to WT:N and ask for the guideline to be changed, not write a counterblast here. James500 (talk) 07:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
To put it another way, IIRC, more than one article has been kept on the strength of the subject notability guidelines, despite failing GNG. James500 (talk) 05:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Surviving deletion once is no guarantee of perpetual survival. --Lexein (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
But it may indicate that consensus for what you propose has yet to be established. Can you offer any examples of the subject notability guidelines being positively rejected? James500 (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
This page doesn't say that it is a best practice for newbies who don't know what they are doing. It doesn't describe itself as "how to write an article in such a way as to make it particularly unlikely to be deleted". If it did, it would be much less objectionable. I have seen this thing waved around at Afd, as though it was policy, either in a bid to outflank WP:N or because the user in question simply did not understand the status of this page. James500 (talk) 06:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Pages don't need to self-referentially brag about what they are to provide solid best practice advice. "How to write"? I direct you to WP:Writing your first article. There's nothing in WP:42 to contradict the letter or spirit of either WP:N or WP:GNG, or WP:V. Anyways, you haven't suggested any constructive changes, only bitterly complained. This document isn't for you. It's for newcomers who ask about sourcing on IRC or at support pages, to briefly and colorfully, (and hopefully impactfully) set them on the right course towards long term good sourcing habits, in line with N, GNG, and V. It's deliberately a pamphlet, and not an overwhelmingly verbose tome with which to overwhelm, intimidate and deter newcomers. The WP:Five pillars, which form the basis of all policy and guideline, encourage a constructive and helpful environment. This brief introduction, with its lighter tone, and easy to remember shortcut, supports those goals. If people try to use it in discussions to replace the policies and guidelines it links to, they should be gently corrected from doing that. --Lexein (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

This page does contradict the letter and spirit of WP:N because it appears to deny that the subject notability guidelines create a presumption of notability and to suggest that GNG works in reverse. This page is likely to be used to intimidate newbies because its advice is expressed in the form of imperative commands. (It reads like "do as I say or your article is certain to be deleted"). I have already suggested one improvement. Here's another: replace "articles require" with something like "articles are more likely to be accepted". Because it isn't a requirement yet. Not according to the guidelines anyway. James500 (talk) 07:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

What "presumption of notability"? There's no such thing. "GNG works in reverse"? Nonsense. This doesn't talk about articles being deleted, but guess what: WP:N does. IMHO you've methodically misread this page, and my discussion, to be argumentative and WP:POINTY. The page works: new editors asking for help, after being directed to WP:42, come back to IRC and thank the helpers for the short and sweet onesheet, then they ask about specific sources they've found which are of much higher quality than they were asking about previously. The page works, and does its job. What are you really on about? If you really think you can do so much better, you should boldly go off and write something else which pleases you more, and see how new users respond to it. There is no one perfect introductory summary. Maybe it will be wonderful!
Oh, and, in case you wondered, I didn't write this page, though I've spent some time improving it while keeping it tight and tidy. A Wikipedian whom I highly respect, and who, with me, spent a lot of time on IRC helping new users, wrote it to save a bit of time typing. I've tested it with several dozen of new users over the years, and achieved great results: their articles were well sourced, and graduated from WP:AFC. The ones they couldn't source well, stayed in userspace or in AFC, and they moved on to other articles they wanted to create. --Lexein (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to what you claim above, the subject notability guidelines do create a presumption of notability. This is because WP:N says:


Contrary to what you appear to say above, I did not say that GNG works in reverse. I said that WP:42 misleadingly insinuates that GNG works in reverse. To put it another way, I said that WP:42 misleadingly insinuates that articles must be deleted if their topic does not satisfy GNG, because WP:42 describes the criteria of GNG as a requirement, and the word "require" thus used in WP:42 sounds like a command. I appreciate that WP:42 doesn't mention deletion in express words, but it is equally obvious that people are going to read between the lines (and infer that any article that doesn't meet the so called requirement is going to be deleted), because that (reading between the lines) is what many people do.

Contrary to what you suggest, I am not saying this in order to be pointy or argumentative. I am saying this for the purpose of clarification only because you don't seem to understand what I said and you don't seem to understand what WP:N says either.

If you are not prepared to re-word WP:42, I would like to remove the template that says that WP:42 describes communal consensus on an aspect of Wikipedia norms and practices. It is clear to me that WP:42 does not describe consensus, because it prima facie contradicts WP:N, which does describe the consensus that actually exists. I think that, in its present from, WP:42 should be tagged as an essay, because that is what it really is. James500 (talk) 08:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for not honoring discussion threading indentation. If all you want to do is replicate the exact words used in WP:N, then go do that somewhere else. This is necessarily a paraphrase, a shortening, a capsule summary. Pay attention to the world around you, rather than the world you would rather see, and stop being so high-handedly uncivil. This article is what it is, for the purposes stated, and it fulfills its purpose without blathering endless literal quotation of already existing policy pages, or unnecessary digression. Do you really think newcomers need digression and exception-taking? Conditional presumptions of notability? You said there was a "presumption of notability". Well, there isn't. It's conditional. Further, none of the subject-specific guidelines, not one, advocates abandoning WP:GNG, the core of WP:N. The essence of notability is betrayed by your removal of the word "if", meaning conditional in your arguments for exception language. But never mind that for now. Have you spent time at #en-wikipedia-help getting to know what newcomers really need to know? This article is not for you. It is for them. There's time to deep dive into exception-thinking after the fundamentals are understood. Get that. Or not (the more likely). But by all means keep insulting and attacking me. At least it might keep you too busy to attack the newcomers. --Lexein (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Your comments are either irrelevant or nonsense or both. I want to remove the template {{Information page}} from this essay because that template is not appropriate for this essay. Are you going to let me do that without an RFC? Yes or no? James500 (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

No. Do, please, file an RFC. Your refusal to respect discussion thread indentation clearly signals your refusal to discuss in context. Not getting your way, you now want to forum shop. Go ahead. But be aware, others will see that your insulting, misinformed, and misrepresentative claims got no traction here, quite correctly. Nobody else has stood to defend your position, because it is extreme, nitpicking, and misinformed. Others will see clearly that you are going against vocal and silent consensus, and against the letter and spirit of the policies and guidelines you, for some reason, think you're supporting. Your insistence on altering this page to be merely a full copy of policy pages is obviously intended to destroy its direct, immediate usefulness and comprehensibility to newcomers. --Lexein (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
All that I asked you to do was to agree to the removal of a template. The opinion that WP:42 does not reflect consensus had already been expressed by Dream Focus above on this talk page. James500 (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I, for one, have always interpreted the more specific notability guidelines such as WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP or WP:PROF as lists of criteria that make it very likely that significant coverage in reliable third-party sources exists. WP:CORP includes this language in the very first line, WP:MUSIC only says people or things may be notable if they satisfy a bunch of other criteria, WP:PROF says they are notable but may still not be appropriate for an article "because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject". I don't think describing this requirement for significant coverage in reliable sources as anything but a widely-held community consensus is appropriate, certainly not without an RfC. Huon (talk) 07:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
A requirement that it is considered very likely that significant coverage in reliable sources exists is not the the same thing as a requirement that significant coverage in reliable sources does in fact exist. It is a less rigorous requirement, the possibility of which WP:42 denies.
The passage in WP:PROF to which you refer does not say that the coverage in the sources to which it refers must be significant. James500 (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, let me be more explicit: I see the more specific guidelines as lists of critria that make it very likely that the subject meets the general notability guideline. If the subject meets those criteria, it is presumed to be notable - unless, despite expectations, there is not enough coverage in third-party sources for an article.
If you believe there is no consensus for labeling this page an information page, the way ahead is obvious: RfC. Huon (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
User:Huon has stated my two points better than I. IMHO User:James500 is frivolously wikilawyering (given his involvement in WikiProject Law) to attack a helpful article for newcomers. He makes false statements: It reads like "do as I say or your article is certain to be deleted"; WP:42 of course does not mention deletion. WP:N doesn't put the central requirements for articles right up front; WP:42 does that. His objection that this article does not cover all of WP:N and its daughters, and therefore cannot be called "informational", seems silly. --Lexein (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree - this is misleading and redundant but also okay. It is also short and easy to understand. Even though it gives misleading information that is not correct, the majority of the people who would use this are those people who are only prepared to read for 1 minute and this is the best available one-minute explanation. No one has developed a better one-minute explanation which is more correct. Anyone who proposes deleting this should counterpropose a better 1-minute explanation or make an argument that the problems that this page causes outweigh the benefits it brings. There are a lot of benefits to having a short explanation which is mostly correct. For all of the best articles on Wikipedia, this guide is completely correct. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I am not proposing to delete this page. James500 (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Do not mistake my ignorance, incompetence, and inability to always say the best thing for sarcasm. See WP:AGF. OP asked if this was misleading and redundant and it is both as has been confirmed in the archives, and I validated the questioning user's observation because it is completely correct and the "misleading and redundant" nature of this should be emphasized and not hidden. I added the text "but also okay" to my statement in response to your concern. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Heh, fair enough. I like the current version best, reverted, as it is, back to its pithy roots. --Lexein (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Reassessment after recent edits

I'd like all the objectors to succinctly list their specific objections to the sentences by number in this article. After the "several" to "multiple" fix, and the "enough" fix, there's nothing left to fix that I can see in the current as of Oct 6 version. --Lexein (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit flurry

I mainly in favor of the recent revert to this page's pithy roots. I would ask that everyone, including User:Unforgettableid, remember that this page is intended for use at #en-wikipedia-help, to answer very frequently asked questions about article sourcing, in this very short-attention-span environment. Leaving out primary sourcing as insufficient would be a mistake, IMHO. Seemingly repetitively expanding on the kinds of sources which are not sufficient is essential for driving the point home without further explanation. And the bolding at the ends of paragraphs is to make the fact that there's a linked policy or guideline page very plain and obvious, so I put it back. All the emphasis was added to make the points more vivid, and to drive them home before the reader comes back to IRC asking the same thing all over again. The shorter, the pithier, the better (down to an irreducible minimum), and I think it's basically there. --Lexein (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

This essay is still being invoked at AfD

Since it is not an accurate description of our notability guidelines, but is in fact a Wittgenstein's ladder, I would like the words "do not cite this essay during any AfD debate" to appear at the top of the essay, preferably in block capitals. James500 (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you share an example of how this essay being cited during AfD debate causes problems? This page contains lots of criticism of this guideline but as yet no one has presented examples of anyone relying on the information in this page and coming to an inappropriate conclusion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
This essay is sometimes waved in the faces of experienced editors who are well aware of what WP:N actually says seemingly in an attempt to suggest that they do not know what they are talking about. James500 (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely not. The page is intended to assist newbie editors understand our core requirements. As such, it needs to be kept as simple and as free from extraneous material as possible. It is not an essay, it is an information page and accurately summarizes the relevant policies. It is not a description of the notability guidelines (accurate or otherwise), nor is it intended to be. I see no reason per se why it should not be cited at AFD. If it is being misused at AFD (you provide no examples or diffs of this actually happening) then the issue needs to be taken up at AFD. SpinningSpark 17:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
It is never, in any of the forms it has taken, even close to being accurate. GNG does not, for example, require several sources (meaning more than two). "Multiple" means more than one and it is qualified by "generally" meaning that there may be exceptions. James500 (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
If the page does not properly reflect policy, that is a case for amending the page. It is not a case for plastering it with caveats that will confuse readers. This legalistic distinction between several and multiple is really getting into the realms of wikilawyering and is largely beside the point. However, just to examine that point for a moment, the OED gives a definition of multiple as "Consisting of or characterized by many parts, elements, etc.; having several or many causes, results, aspects, locations, etc.; manifold." Apparently, they are treating multiple and several as synonyms and do indeed define the latter as more than two, but ironically for a wikilawyering discussion, also provide this definition "In legal use: More than one." SpinningSpark 18:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Webster's II New College Dictionary has it at page 737 as more than one. James500 (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The message box at the bottom pretty much says it all. I have no problem moving this message box to the top where it will be more prominent, but please don't make that change unless there is a consensus to do so. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I was just about to mention that. I don't understand why that template is at the bottom of the page instead of the top. Frankly, I would like it changed to Template:Essay since this essay is never close to being accurate. James500 (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I've moved the box to the top. However I agree with the consensus in the prior conversation that this is best classified as an information page, not an essay. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Do you really think that is a good idea while the discussion is still in progress? It was moved to the bottom for a good reason. SpinningSpark 18:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
No it wasn't. James500 (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • This seems to be an inaccurate mishmash between WP:GNG and WP:V.  Calling it informational gives it an air of authority that it does not have.  This should be marked as an essay and to the extent possible deprecated.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this an Essay?

Guy Macon — Thorncrag — WhatamIdoing — Avicennasis — Lexein — ElKevbo — Wer900 — Dream Focus: Prior to June 2012 (see This is not really an essay above) this page was marked as an Essay. Since that time it has been marked as an "Information" page.

An editor recently changed it, prompting the question "What should the tag be?"

I have reverted the change to the stable version to allow for discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I am a big fan of WP:BRD. Which, by the way, is an essay. :)
I have posted a RfC so that we can determine what the consensus is. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for signalling me. I consider it informational. Its purpose is to, using as few words as possible and with a minimum of editorializing, inform editors about what's needed for articles to meet WP:N, and as a neat side effect, avoid and unpleasant go-around on the PROD, SPEEDY, and AFD processes. --Lexein (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Template:Information page makes claims that are rather more specific than that. It claims that this page clarifies and supplements other pages. No summary ever does either of those things. It also claims that this page "describes communal consensus" which it presently does not because it is not accurate. At the moment, it is a misinformation page, despite its intended purpose.James500 (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Please redirect this talk page debate

It belongs at WP:LAME. Anyone who is in doubt as to the status of this document, has no critical faculties. Guy (Help!) 01:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:The_answer_to_life,_the_universe,_and_everything/Archive_1&oldid=1137458637"