User talk:Gavin.collins/Archive 7

Page protection

Following some earlier vandalism here, I cleaned the page history and added semi-protection (plus full move protection). Hope this is OK; if you'd like this down-graded and I'm not online, just pop back to WP:RFPP. Bencherlite^Talk 14:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Many thanks.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTE

Gavin, I didn't mark Fiction as failed at the NOTE list, just two others where it seems there is no opposition to the failed tags -- the presentation migh have been confusing. Please take another look. I agree that it is premature to announce that we have consensus for failing Fiction, though my opinion is that we should move on to more productive pursuits. PS: I would never be upset with your good faith correction if I make an error. You're a hard working dedicated wikipedian, and though we disagree from time to time, I think we are working toward the same goals. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis

I know what synethesis is Gavin, I have a Ph.D. If you doubt my good faith efforts then I suggest you go directly to ArbCom with it. Web Warlock (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Don't take it personally, its a question anyone could ask. It might appear that the Dragonlance books and adventures support these statements as "fact", but in the real-world they don't. In the real-world, quotations and excerpts from works of fiction are usally cited to provide a flavour of the work. To avoid any suggestion of synthesis or plagiarism, I recomended you provide verbatim quotations in support of any "attributions". Take this is a good faith suggestion: don't dig yourself a hole; there is no need to provide attributions to statements that could be open to question if they are only indirectly supported by the text.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well to me it looks like you are fighting every change in your old habit of POV pushing. You put yourself on the line by saying there were no more sources then I came in with a bunch more. And more to the point sources they help establish that these are not copyvios, not synethesis, not original research and they are supported by primary, and in some cases, secondary sources. Don't take it personal, you were just not right in your assumptions. Web Warlock (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• In fairness to me, I have combed through the Annotations looking for real-world content, written from the perspective of the creators of the series and found some interesting content about Kender that relates to the development of these characters in the books and games, but cannot find any more similar information about their attributes that the author has indicated is pertinent to their development. The in universe content which I am not comfortable with is about the fictional world in which the Kender inhabit in the imaginations of the editors who added it. Without real-world content to provide context, analysis or critisism, it is just a random subset of these editors' imagination. Even if this content were a comprehensive cataglogue of Kender attributes, Wikipedia is not a platform for primary research about their fictional characteristics, and I am not sure there is an intellectual rationale for including it in the article. However, if you can provide verbatim quotations, then we can quote directly from the primary sources, which can be used to support the real-world content.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:N

Gavin, last year part of the rewrite of N was to very clearly state that multiple sources were preferred but not required. I'm not watering down, N, just taking that issue out of the presumption paragraph. The number of sources required is handled later in that section. Please see more specifics at the N talk page. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretion, as the amendment you have made conflicts with WP:V. Can you take this to WT:N for clarification first please.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion of multiple sources should not be in the paragraph discussing presumption. If you think multiple sources are required, then modify the later paragraph which says "prefered but not required". This was a major compromise without which many of us would not have agreed to reinstating N last year. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think these changes could have been considered in relation to the requirements of WP:V, regardless of any discussion or agreement. Please consider these changes to be contraversial, and I would ask that further changes to WP:N along these lines should be halted for the time being. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Gavin, I think that you are missing the subtle point and presuming me to be radically opposed to your positions. I'm not! I have read a lot of what you have written and what's been written about you (RfC etc.) and generally support your goals. I'm just not sure that we know how to get to where we are going. Consider the following from WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." Nowhere in that passage does it call for multiple sources. I became aware of the change made on April 18 when the section came under dispute this morning. I'm only trying to get back to where we were, not make changes weakening WP:N. I'd like to chat as time permits to see where your concerns lie. Sometimes we get so bogged down in the nuacnes that we lose sight of the real purpose. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• It also says "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". Basically WP:N is a guideline based on this statement, which effectively conflicts with the changes you have been making. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Gavin, I made one change today which was to remove the implication that multiple sources were required to demonstrate notability -- it has nothing to do with WP:V. WP:N deals with secondary and tertiary sources. WP:V deals with all sources including primary sources. In the absense of any sources WP:V would be pertinent, but if there were many primary sources and no secondary or tertiary sources, WP:V would allow inclusion of the information, while the topic would not qualify for WP:N. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Your Posting of Copyrighted Material

In your recent edit of Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender/Sources[1] you posted links to pirated, copyrighted material. You may not have any respect for role-playing games or the people that play them, but please respect the copyright laws that protect them and remove those links. If you are going to go to the primary sources then you should go to ones whose accuracy is 100%, not one that was stolen and scanned. Web Warlock (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware of this issue, but I understand you to may be correct in relation to Wikipedia:Copyright#Linking_to_copyrighted_works, and so I will revert my edit now. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

sub guidelines

Gavin, it seems that you believe that WP:N should be the paramount determinant of inclusion. Why then do you support the sub guidelines? --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• In answer to you, I think subject specific guidelines are important to the application of WP:N, because there are certain issues that affect certain subject areas more than others. For instance, WP:BIO is very keen to emphasise the intellectual independence, because of the risk of self-promotion. Admittedly this is probably an issue dealt with in other guidelines like WP:COI, but I think it is an important consideration specific to the notability of people which justifies the existence of the guideline. Likewise there are certain considerations which are unique to fiction when examining whether a topic is notable or not. For instance, the need to keep a real-world perspective is eloquently expressed in WP:WAF and as a guideline is very important to understanding articles about fiction.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WebTrain‎

Hi - at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WebTrain‎ I have sought furhter clarification regarding your comments. You don't have to reply of course but just in case you wish to ... Regards Matilda ^talk 22:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Horse-chestnut leaf miner

I enjoyed reading your comments about this. I've just found damaged trees near me and this makes interesting reading. I removed the list on spread of the miner. Please see Talk:Horse-chestnut leaf miner - hope this is okay. regards SuzanneKn (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with the removal of the list, which is not sourced. Thanks for your comments. --Gavin Collins (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

an example of size for you regarding Notability

over on WT:N and possibly WT:FICT, you mentioned several times that one problem you have with seeing the other side is "buying" the size issue. I'll give you an example. Pokemon is a fictional work that covers an anime, several mangas, trading card game, and nintendo's #2/#3 best selling franchise. Currently there are 493 of the little buggers and they are represented in each of these four mediums. added to that, several feature length films have been made about them and even a select few "notable" ones have made cross-universe transitions by being playable and NP characters in the Super Smash Bros. series. any and all information about them, not to mention the human characters, can only be derived from primary sources, except in a few very special cases (e.g. Porygon and Pikachu). A few books exist on Pokemon themselves, but any mention of a specific one would only be in passing. And as far as a published gameguide, well we have lots of editors who feel that because the guide is nondiscriminate in how it handles them and offers no synthesis, that the guides don't ascertain notability. So what should we do? Do you really feel that we should squeeze all of them onto Pokemon? This is a case where size is a major issue. Of course i slightly agree that lists don't make any sense, because if 20 pokemon aren't notable enough to warrant their own individual articles, then how does sticking them all together make it better? 20 times 0 is still 0. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• I understand the problem which you describe: there is extensive coverage available from primary sources, but little in the way of secondary coverage. I cannot comment on the quality of the large number of Pokemon articles you describe but I have read the article Bulbasaur and commented on at Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard#Bulbasaur, as the article quality suffers badly from a lack of reliable secondary sources.
  I have reviewed many articles about fictional characters related to Dungeons & Dragons and they too have problems with a lack of secondary sources, of which there are possibly 400-500 articles (see Category:Dungeons & Dragons articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction for examples). Most of these article suffer badly from lack of good sourcing, and so are largely made up of original research written from an in universe perspective. Some of these articles are being redirected to lists of characters, and this will probably happen to the Pokemon characters over time unless coverage from reliable secondary sources can be found.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice

Hi Gavin, I'm been following some of the discussion on notability and fiction and the like that you've been involved in. I just want to say I've been really impressed with your contributions. Hobit (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Bunnies & Burrows

Hello, Gavin. It has been awhile. I was hoping I could ask you to take a look at the cleanup section on the Bunnies & Burrows article. (This goes for anyone else reading this as well.) I need to double check the inline citations when I get home, but I think I have them matched up. Please let me know (here or on my talk, or on the B&B talk), what you think. Thank you for your time. Turlo Lomon (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't get so defensive

If I erased your comment(s) it was an accident during the addition of a new section; that should be rather apparent in the context of the edit. The world is not out to get you Gavin, though sometimes you do invite resitance with your prickly approach. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for restoring my comments which you accidently deleted [2]. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Hey. I just wanted to thank you again for the barnstar. But I also want to thank you for helping to diffuse some of the tension at the notability RFC going on right now. It's a contentious issue, and it will be hard to achieve a consensus. But I see this RFC as taking us a few steps closer, if we can avoid falling backwards completely. I'm glad we have a few smart editors trying to keep us from rehashing every argument on every issue ever raised at WT:N. Thanks again for the sanity check. Randomran (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think you have been reasonable and accomodating to many viewpoints, and have shown skill in marshalling the creative energies of many editors by doing so. What is interesting will be to draw some conclusions from the RFC process, which will be difficult unless all the participants build on the contributions to date.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability RfC

Despite opposition and caveats, B.6 seems like it could be a viable approach. As such, I've made a series of notes for a revised proposal (User:Vassyana/RFC notes). I am trying to address the main points raised by caveat and opposition, while stick to the essential point of the proposal. I believe the alterations outlined in the notes may address your concerns. Your feedback on the notes talk page would be vastly appreciated to see if I am moving towards an appropriate compromise and if I am appropriately addressing your concerns. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• I added my comments, as I am deeply sceptical of this approach, given that the a reasonable presumption of notability runs into the Problem of induction when compared with the more Scientific method which underpins WP:V that requires evidence. Like you, I once considered that a guideline based on a reasonable presumption of notability would provide an opportunity to broaden Wikipedia inclusion criteria, but my opinion has changed, and I now view this approach as not only being intellectually flawed, but it would actually be damaging to Wikipedia, as it can conflict with existing guidelines (e.g. Ashley Fernee, but also make us dependent on so called "expert" opinion when it comes to mergers or deletions of topics which do not cite reliable secondary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comments misrepresent the existing proposal and ignore the notes that I specifically invited you to comment upon. (For example, the need for sources to verify the SNG criteria.) I truly expected a response that took the proposal, comments made on it and the notes for improvement in context. My good faith invitation was abused and I am deeply disappointed. Vassyana (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• No attempt has been made to misrepresent anything you have said. However, I have taken an opposing view to your own, namely that notabality cannot be inhertited/presumed/acknowledged in the absence of reliable secondary sources. I am sorry that you feel your good faith invitation was abused, but every proposal, no matter how well intentioned, has both weaknesses as well as strengths, and both are likely to be commented on.--Gavin Collins (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I accept that there was no intent to misrepresent or ignore the context and points at hand. However, that does not negate my extreme unhappiness with your response. (Your incorrect use of philosophical concepts for your point does not help my reaction, as I am a philosophy buff and the misuse of philosophical ideas is a pet peeve.) If you simply disagreed with the approach and addressed it in context, I would not be disappointed with your comments. The problem is that you did not address the proposal and notes at hand, instead providing response that is disconnected from what is being discussed.

Providing some examples for the sake of being crystal clear: The "premise" you provide is contrary to the notes that were the subject of the invitation (specifically contrary to the first and third bullet point notes). Your comments about the "application to Wikipedia" are similarly out of touch with the notes (specifically the first and sixth bullet point notes).

You are a very intelligent and perceptive editor. I do understand that this is a topic about which you are passionate and have clear views. However, it is quite obvious that you are responding based on a kneejerk response, rather than a mindful reading of the proposal and notes. Reflexive responses that ignore crucial points and misrepresent what is being discussed make it very difficult to assume good faith and take your comments into earnest consideration. I'd be honestly very happy to hear your substantive comments on the proposal and its notes for improvement. Please take a step back and take the time to carefully review what is being put forward. Vassyana (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• I will wriggle out of the accusation that I have incorrectly used philosophical concepts to further my opinion by saying that comparision of Inductive reasoning with Scientific method is still a useful analogy to use when comparing inclusion criteria based on presumption and those based on evidence. In my view, B.6 is just the thin end of the wedge which has B.3 as its base, since both start from the position that reliable secondary sources are presumed to exist. Can you explain why you have proposed B.6, yet oppose B.3?--Gavin Collins (talk) 05:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(I'll address the philosophical point below to avoid co-mingling the discussion threads too much.) B.3 presented SNGs as an exception to the GNG, as well as conflated notability and verifiability. The latter is a strongly inclusionist position, destroying any compromise inherent to the proposal. The former is similarly towards the inclusionist position, but my real distaste for it lies in my general distaste for the general tendency among some to see contradictions between the principles of Wikipedia. I believe the most rational (and philosophically desirable) interpretation of a system is one that reconciles the various rules of a system with maximum coherency (or harmony) using the simplest possible set of foundational principles (by breaking it down to the "smallest parts").

B.6 provides the coherent and reductionist basis that I strongly desire. It casts both the GNG and SNGs as being rational indicators of notability (presumptions). Despite the hype, the GNG's (X = >1) X sources with substantive coverage is far from a perfect indicator of notability. B.6 indicates that notability is sufficient sources existing to satisfy the content policies of Wikipedia. That means sources sufficient to avoid what Wikipedia is not, to be able to ascertain proper article balance, to avoid original research while providing comprehensive coverage, and so on. The principle unites the GNG and SNGs under a common principle that is stricter, harmonized with other extant principles and more focused on the mission of Wikipedia than just falling back to (essentially) "a handful of decent sources". It also places a heavy focus on good sourcing in general.

I also have a personal preference for the exclusion side of things (for examples, see here and here). However, we must accept that some compromise is needed to create a lasting consensus. While the above moves notability into a stronger formulation overall, it also takes the pragmatic view that there is strong support in the community for the ideas that "there is no deadline", "Wikipedia is not paper" and that the SNGs serve a necessary function. The question was how to find a middle road. I took the approach that emphasizing merging, while allowing time for improvement, was a reasonable middle road. This approach essentially prohibits permastubs, while encouraging content retention (serving both exclusionist and inclusionist purposes). I also noted the institutional memory aspect of SNG creation to provide counterweight against SNGs being made from whole cloth.

In the notes, I try to address the points raised in caveats and opposition. Think of them as a rough outline of what "needs to be fixed" with the current B.6 proposal. It needs to be more explicit that sources still need to be found, that a reliable third-party source is needed to verify the SNG criteria, and encourage appropriate discussion about sources. It further needs to state that SNGs need to be vetted and endorsed by a broad swath of the community and that while SNGs indicate what Wikipedia should cover, not all SNG-qualifying topics are appropriate for stand alone articles. The proposal should also indicate that only articles (or daughter lists of such articles) are valid merge targets; articles lacking sources and a merge target are subject to deletion or a move to userspace.

I apologize for the ridiculous length, but I wanted to provide you with a full and fair answer. Do you now better understand where I am coming from? Is there some way my proposed changes (notes) fail to address your concerns? Is there something that could be done to better address your concerns while still traversing the middle road? Vassyana (talk) 06:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking time to explain, and I understand how you are attempting to differentiate between B.3 and B.6, but idealogically I remain opposed to both approaches. In the real-world, I feel we can justify making reasonable presumptions based on observation, but in Wikipedia, WP:V says we can't make presumptions about content, and that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, which must be supported by in line citations. What I think is missing from WP:N is a statement that says the burden of evidence rests with the editor who creates or restores an article, which must cite reliable secondary sources to demonstrate that its subject matter is notable. The presumption that evidence will be found in a future period effectively shifts this burden from the contributing editor to everyone else. --Gavin Collins (talk) 05:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to read my responses and reply. I do appreciate it. While I am very sympathetic to your point, I do not believe it is a practical option. A viable consensus cannot be formed around the inclusionist or exclusionist positions. My sense of pragmatism requires me to continue seeking some compromise in the middle ground. Thanks again for reading through my long response. Vassyana (talk) 06:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• The problem with the idea that a compromise can be found based on notability being inherited/presumed/acknoweledged is that it has been tried before and failed - see Wikipedia talk:Inherent notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Philosophical point

A shorter reply than above! :-) The scientific method is not immune to the problem of induction. We know that, in all probability, the sun will rise tomorrow (taking the classic example). The classic point is that the inductive reasoning of "the sun will rise tomorrow" is that it always rises. The Popperian response is that we have a deductive and falsifiable theory in place of such inductive reasoning. The reply is that while we may base such a theory on repeatable experiments (such as the speed of light, distance to the sun, motion of the sun, motion of the earth, etc) that the theory is still inherently relying on the inductive explanation that the sun will rise because it always rises (because x, y and z observations have always be so, or rather been repeatedly, repeatably and consistently observed). A inductive argument can be based on deductive arguments and their underlying data. Mainstream scientific thought (and the dominant philosophy of science) accepts the presence of inductive logic in the scientific method. It even depends on it in practice (such as through the use of statistics and probabilities to predict phenomena, rates of occurance, etc). I hope that helps explain my objection. Vassyana (talk) 06:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Your argument about induction is reasonable, and I accept your arguement that Scientific theory does indeed accept the presence of inductive logic, e.g. probability theory (which is inductive) underpins statistics (used often as evidence). However, induction suggests that not finding reliable secondary sources for a particular topic is a distinct possibility, and this is what underpins my opposition to this approach. In my experience, virtually 99% of all Wikipedia articles on fictional characters do not provide any evidence of notability. Whether evidence can be found, I could not possibly know. However, it is clear to me that in practical terms, the presumption that sources will be found for these articles is becoming more remote as more and more of them are being created. This is not a trend limited to fiction by any means, but extrapolate this trend into the future, and you can see that at some point the number of articles without evidence of notability will exceed all other articles by a large proportion. My conclusion is that, not only will sources not be found for some topics, but that majority of topics in Wikpedia will not provide evidence of notability if we continue to presume that sources might be found in the future. Any assertion that sources must be found to avoid deletion or merger be can countered by the irrefutable presumption that sources might be found in the future, which is why I feel presumptions of notability are a disruptive force in AFD debates. --Gavin Collins (talk) 05:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Inflation

Thank you for your message. I may return to the matter of the notability guideline but, per WP:BURO, this is not what we are here for. But I thought of you when considering current activity at the Inflation article. Another editor was having trouble adding some content relating to accounting for inflation. It seems that the article is owned by some academic economists who don't wish to hear about the mundane world of business and accountancy. Your user page indicates that you have an interest in this field. Please take a look. Note that WP:OWN is policy and recommends taking breaks from topics. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for stand-alone lists

Since I was feeling a bit insomniac tonight, and the general consensus at N/RFC appears to be that lists need a new inclusion guideline, I've written User:Erachima/Inclusion (stand-alone lists). It's a first draft, obviously, so feel free to mess with the wording or comment on the talk page if anything seems to be unclear or missing. --erachima talk 10:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have responded at User talk:Erachima/Inclusion (stand-alone lists)#Criticism, where I have voiced my concern about the proposal. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Your criticism appears to be based on rather mistaken assumptions about the goal of the proposal, I invite you to reconsider it. --erachima talk 21:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• I am sure the goal of the proposal is well intentioned, but from a practical point of view, allowing unlimited inclusion of stand alone lists does not work, as it is a licence to create content forks. I have responded to you on the talk page. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• And I've replied as well.[3] No need to write back, and my apologies for bothering you about the draft in the first place. I am rather distressed at the turn this has taken, as I would have liked to include you in the brain trust here, but there are equally strong deletionists who have a stronger grasp of the policy-creation process, so I'll turn to them instead. Have a good day. --erachima talk 09:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles

Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ? Thanks ARP Apovolot (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles

Dear Gavin.collins - thank you kindly for the expressed opinion (which is appreciated) - but why do you want to have the review process be left to chances and statistical probability (no matter how high this probability could be) ? Why do you suggest that the experts are indistinguishable from the rest of us ? In my view the experts should be willing (at least temporarily during the review) verifiably reveal their true identity and credentials, which should be at least at the PhD level in the corresponding area of science (or higher). Cheers, Apovolot (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't believe it is possible to verify your Wikipedia identity with your real-world identity, which is a problem with all forms of electronic comunication. For instance, it is impossible for you to tell if it is me who is writing this reply: my identity could have been forged or stollen, and you may actually be corresponding with someone else (unlikely but possible). Wikipedia is not geared up to verify the identity or qualifications of its editors, and the identification of experts from non-experts is not feasible. The other issue is the value of so called "expert opinion". As you know, one of Wikipedia policies is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which states that The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. Basically this policy invalidates the idea that an expert's opinion is more important than any other editor's opinion and that all articles have to "stand on their own feet" in terms of sourcing. Any disputes over articles and their content should be resolved by a review of their sources, not who has written them. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User: Shotwell suggested (on my talk page) "I would endorse a WP:EXPERTADVICE page that outlined the wikipedia policies and goals for researchers in a way that enticed them to edit here in an appropriate fashion. Perhaps a well-maintained list of expert editors with institutional affiliation would facilitate this sort of highly informal review process. I don't think anyone would object to a well-maintained list of highly-qualified researchers with institutional affiliation (but then again, everyone seems to object to something)."

We could start with that if you would agree ... - could you help to push his idea through Wikipedia bureaucracy ? Cheers, Apovolot (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• As I said before, I don't support this proposal because I don't believe it is possible to verify the identity and qualifications of a particular editor. The only way Wikipedia can work is if the content added experts can be verified, and verification of expert contributions can only be achieved by citing reliable secondary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI AN/I thread

FYI, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pixelface_and_WP:NOT. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I made my view known that I don't think this is a matter for the administrators to deal with. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Kender draft

I've moved the Kender draft from Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender/Trim to Talk:Kender/Draft, so it may be used and worked on outside of the mediation case. The mediation is being closed as partially resolved/stale. If I can be of any assistance in the topic area, please let me know. I am willing to assist on a case-by-case basis as an informal mediator. Vassyana (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• I will start moving the changes into the mainspace article. Thank you for your assistance in mediating this case (Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender), as the article itself is much improved.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. If I can be of further assistance on an informal basis in the topic area, please do not hesitate to let me know. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Dan Willis, again

What in the world do you mean by "Attempts to stifle discussion by placing contraversial subjects in archive is not acceptable"? There has been no discussion regarding that topic for nearly 7 months. There's nothing to stifle as it's been a dead conversation for over half a year. Please stop attempting to resurrect a discussion just because you disagree with everyone else who has looked at it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have never seen an instance where a talk page containing so very little discussion has been archived. Your attempt to introduce archiving to the talk page is very suspicious. What is your connection with Dan Willis? Please clarify your interest in this individual. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I've read one of his books and I've taken his picture once. Pretty hot and heavy, eh? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I must compliment you on the photograph - it is excellent, and clearly the work of professional. To have met with the author and taken a professional quality photograph still leads me to believe you are connected with him in some way. Please disclose the nature of your connection with him. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I didn't take the photo currently being used, nor have I ever said that I did. I took this one which was being used before the current picture. Please don't put words in my mouth. You can find out who did take the picture by clicking on it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Please disclose the nature of your connection with Dan Willis.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
          • I've already done so, Inspector. I am not a close personal friend, colleague, or anything else. I've met him a few times at book signings and such, and that's it. There is no "connection". Please disclose the nature and reasoning behind your rabid anti-D&D and ant-Dragonlance position here on Wikipedia. Why don't you go do something useful rather than look for something where there is nothing? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
            • There is no need to be insulting. I don't have "a rabid anti-D&D and ant-Dragonlance position" so I can't respond to your question. Please remember this whole discussion is focused on the notability of Dan Willis. As I have said before, I find it strange that you should be attempting to archive a discussion about the lack of evidence of notability which does not require archiving: I have never seen this done before, so forgive me if I seemed a little suspsicious of your motivation. Your edits more or less coincide with the addition of a new picture, one which appears to have been posed for in a studio, in a format that makes this whole article seem like a publicity piece for the author. Whilst I have nothing against him per se (I am sure he is a really nice guy), I feel a little uncomfortable with the make over of the article, in that whilst there is some improvement, the notability of the subject remains unproven, and it contains little, if any, encyclopedic content. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
              • • Exactly how is it suspicious that I'm archiving a discussion that's 7 months old? It's 7 months old! No comments, at all, for 7 months, so it seemed pretty obvious to me that the discussion was dead. I was only mistaken because you started kicking the desiccated corpse of the horse again, not to mention accusing me of trying to "hide" the discussion (archives are only a link away!) and intimating that I was somehow "connected" to him and therefore under some sort of suspicion. Your whole approach to this issue has been nothing but bad faith from the beginning. You didn't politely ask for additional sources, or post to the various project pages asking for additional work to be done on the article. Instead, you came in guns blazing and then acted all offended when people reacted negatively. How did you expect people to react when you came in acting that way? If you expected a good reaction, you've obviously got a lot to learn about human nature and how to work with others. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
                  • It is suspicious becuase the article still does not demonstrate evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
                    • The Dan Willis dispute has been resolved. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Please

Please tone it down a notch with Dan Willis. While I can understand your frustration, making accusations of a conflict of interest and otherwise leaving snarky comments will only serve to worsen the dispute. I'd recommend taking a short break from the discussion and revisiting it after a few breaths. Try, in as polite and helpful a manner as possible, to patiently explain your concerns about the sources and the relation of your concerns to Wikipedia policy. For example, point out that not only do we generally need to know the identity of a web publisher to follow the principle at WP:SPS, but that the same section of policy strongly discourages such sources in BLP articles. In this way, you can clearly frame your concerns and avoid be accused of personal attacks or incivility. If I can be of assistance or you have questions, please do not hesitate to let know. Vassyana (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• I don't recall making any accusations per se, although I may have suspicions, and asking for clarification is not accusation. However, I will take your advice. Regards, --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Again, if I can be of assistance in any way, please let me know. Be well. Vassyana (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability tags

I just wanted to say that WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons currently plans to work on fixing the notability of all articles, and being put on a timer to do so because of the notability tags actually makes it more likely that things won't get fixed. Might I ask you to use the "Importance" tag instead, because it has the same meaning but without the built-in timer? Thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• No, because these articles do not cite reliable secondary sources as evidence of notability, and therefore the notability cleanup template should remain until such time as reliable secondary sources are added. The presence of the template actually gets more editors to contribute to articles which are tagged for cleanup; evidence of this can be seen in article Kender. Please do not remove cleanup templates until after cleanup has been effected, as this is self-defeating. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• The Importance tag also relates to reliable secondary sources, as does the Primarysources tag. When the Notability tag is used, a timer is applied and things become rushed, which inevitably leads to a lower number of positive contributions. I do not understand why you can't see that; the pages will never get properly cleaned up if you continue to add tags. Why don't you look at some other topic that's full of holes for awhile, instead of picking on D&D? -Drilnoth (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• In the example of Kender, the article did get cleanup as a result of the notability template, so there is no evidence for your view. In answer to your last question, Dungeons & Dragon articles have a lot of cleanup problems, so you will see a lot of cleanup templates on them. I hope you realise that these issues will not go away just because you remove the template; if you really want to improve these articles, this would be better than removing the templates. If I can improve a D&D article, then you don't have to be an expert to do so. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Kender is a special case because it was the focus of a mediation group. And yes, D&D articles do need a lot of cleanup. I'm not saying they don't; I'm just asking that you stop putting them on a timer. It also takes longer to improve the articles than to add tags, so even though I -really- want to improve them, I can't because you'd tag five more in the same space of time. All of my time is then taken up by just switching tags around when I would much rather be focusing on updating one article at a time. And maybe you could do some google searches, too. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) In a roundabout way, perhaps. Kender got cleanup because the notability tag was there, then argued about, then a mediation case came about, and then we collaborated. The relationship is more of an indirect one than a direct one. I would not say that kender would have been worked on in the same way if the notability template had been left to languish there for many moons instead of Vassyana suggesting we all take a look at it. BOZ (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I, personally, agree with you there; but we can't have a detailed mediation case for every single article. I'm hoping that with my weekly focus and weekly tasks, articles will get cleanup faster and better.-Drilnoth (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree. If you don't diagnose the problem, how can you treat it? The cleanup templates purpose is to diagnose the cleaup problems which these articles have; simply removing them won't make the articles any better, and is self-defeating. The mediation case was a test to see if the templates where justified, and it turns out that they were. Read the article yourself: Kender is fully referenced, has at least one reliable secondary sources, has a real-world perspective, and provideds context, analysis and commentary about the development of these fictional characters. If the cleanup template had not been put there, none of this would have been achieved. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please do diagnose the problem. Just don't put it on a timer. {{Importance}} and {{Primarysources}} mean EXACTLY the same thing as {{Notability}}, except without the built-in timer. Just use them and I'll be happy enough for now. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• No. Again, the date stamp is for your benefit. When you go into a doctors office, you get served according to when you made your appointment; you can't get treatment if no one keeps time and your appointment keep getting put back to the end of the queue. Replacing the notability template for this reason just does not make sense. In any case, replacing the notability tag with something else like {{refimprove}} or {{Importance}} is still self-defeating, because you are the issue is writing the article so that notability is expressed in the article itself - it is not just about the issue of sourcing. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Importance can be time stamped, too, it just doesn't have the timer that has caused, and will cause again, the D&D project to grind to a halt because all the members got to discouraged. There was a large dropoff around April, and we don't want that to happen again. And if the project grinds to a halt, none of the articles will get fixed. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in the Input Requested section of the WP:D&D main page. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Not so. If you keep removing the tags, it is just a short-term fix that won't achieve anything, it will only be self-defeating in the long run. If you want to improve an article, do so. D&D articles are not an editorial walled garden, they are subject to Wikipedia policies and guidelines like every other subject area. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• However unlike a doctors office, the timesstamp means nothing as to the order in which things are done. It only serves to state when someone placed the tag. It does not mean an earlier tag must be dealt with first, or that even the tag placed was correct, but for those reading the article to know that some random person added the tag. As anyone can edit wikipedia, and it is not an easy task to know what an editor places to be correct, or what editor even placed the tag for the readers of wikipedia...then anyone or their mother that knows nothing about the article can place the tag. For editors the timestamp means nothing in relationship to your doctors office example. Only that this is when it was tagged. There is no queue or order for tags to be resolved, and there is no timeframe in which things must be done to satisfy yourself or anyone else. This has been explained to you multiple times in the past Gavin. So when a timestamp exists, it does not mean that this thing must be done first, it just means that that is when it was tagged. The order any editor sees fit to resolve a tagged issue in an article depends on their ability as an editor to correct the issue in the tag. shadzar-talk 17:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

-removed indent-I understand that they are subject to notability and agree that the vast majority of them need work, but as I said above we cannot update the articles as fast as you tag them. I have a plan that will get them improved in time, but I could have fixed two or three articles in the time that I have spent discussing the problem here. In other words, you are slowing down the articles fixing, not speeding it up. Also, there are tons of Wikipedia articles that need work like that. Why don't you do something more immediately productive, like RC patrolling, new page patrolling, random page patrolling, etc., instead of attacking a single group? Also, I think that there has been a consensus regarding the D&D articles. You are the only person who has been arguing for your point of view; there are, at least, four people who completely disagree with you (and that's just the number I can think of off the top of my head). You shouldn't consider your own opinions to be any more important than those of every single other person there is, which it looks like you are. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry to jump in here with an unsolicited fourth opinion on what seems to be a bit of a long-standing dispute, but I don't think the inclusion of reliable sources in an article is not actually a criteria for notability. This is per the first paragraph of WP:N that states (pretty clearly) that "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable." Therefore, the criteria for tagging an article with a {{Notability}} tag should never be "because these articles do not cite reliable secondary sources." As I understand it, the actual Wikipedia articles should not be used to establish notability, right? If the goal is cleanup, not deletion, the appropriate cleanup tags would be {{Importance}} or {{Primarysources}}. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• I am glad that shadzar has understood my analogy, but I hope he gets better treatment next time he visits his doctor than he is suggesting. In answer to your suggestion that there is "no queue or order for tags to be resolved", then why on earth are you making them top priority to removing them?
  The problem I have with this behviour is that I have not seen one of you actually address the problem of notability itself. If only you could add reliable secondary sources to the articles tagged for cleanup, then I would be more amenable to your suggestions. However, what I am reading are empty words such as "the goal is cleanup" when none of you are actually doing any cleanup at all. It seems to me removing the cleanup templates is actually an attempt to sabotage cleanup, rather than encourge it.
  In my view, removing the cleanup tags is analogous to throwing deckchairs from the Titanic; you are failing to take the action that is required to change the current course that you are on. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Here's the thing: We will clean them up. We will add reliable sources. The problem is that with so few active members of WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons, articles would start being deleted because of the long-standing notability tag before we could get to them; there's a lot of articles, and only a few of us. So, by removing the time-bomb notability tag and replacing it with something that just mentions the notability concern, it becomes much easier for us to get things done without worrying about AfDs, PRODs, etc. And as ColorOfSuffering said, a lack of sources is not an automatic lack of notability. If the article about Barack Obama or George W. Bush had no sources, or at least no reliable secondary sources, would that make the person discussed not notable? I didn't think so. But according to your views, it would; a simple Google search can turn up tons of reliable secondary sources for most D&D articles, so simply knowing that the sources exist even if they aren't in the article should be enough to use {{importance}} ("The article does not indicate why its subject is notable") and {{primarysources}} ("All of the article's sources are primary") instead of {{notability}} ("The subject of this article is not notable, and can never be made notable with the current available sources, so it should be deleted as soon as possible."). -Drilnoth (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Until you do effect some cleanup, please leave the tags where they are. Thanks. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No offence Gavin, but just putting tags on an article and not actually attempting to do any of the work yourself is not helpful, it is tantamount to vandalism and frankly just lazy. I still have yet in the year plus I have had to deal with your crusade see you do a single bit of research beyond the odd Google search OR effectively add text to an article in an attempt to improve. Get down from your soap box, roll up your sleaves and work like the rest of us have been doing for years. Web Warlock (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have earned my stripes on Kender, so that old arguement does not pull any weight anymore. Regardless, any editor can add a cleanup template to unsourced articles at any time. D&D articles do not form part of an editorial walled garden; they are subject to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, just like any other subject matter. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• You have already said that Gavin. I must admit that Kender is an excellent article right now, but that is the only D&D article that you have significantly contributed to, and you wouldn't have even done that if there hadn't been the mediation. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Hardly Gavin. You were dragged into that one. And just because an editor "can" do something it does not follow that they "should" do something. Unless of course you are willing to concede that other editors "can" remove tags they feel are not needed? Web Warlock (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Stripe. One article = one stripe. And agreed with WW and Drilnoth that it was more forced than anything. BOZ (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Lets say two, as I found the only reliable secondary source :p --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• It looks like the kender RFM went from the 25th of April to the 7th of November. That's almost seven months to transform a single article from start-class to what could easily be good article status, if not at least a solid B-class. There are not enough members to fix these articles quickly enough to what seems to be the standard you would hold them to before deletion. Finally, may I point out some text on the {{notability}} template: "Use {{Importance}} instead when the subject probably is notable enough, but the article fails to establish notability (as is often the case with short stub articles, and sometimes those with a lot of minutiae but an underdeveloped "big picture")." You speak of articles failing to establish notability, but you're tagging them with the notability template anyway? Maybe I'm crazy, but that seems like a misuse of the template. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Good idea, I think I'll mention the GA idea to the project. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you indeed, CoS; I think you explained the whole situation about as well as can be explained. BOZ (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Your attempts to avoid this hard work by removing the cleanup templates won't improve matters. --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Your attempts to have all articles deleted unless they meet with your time schedule won't improve matters either. Adding the notability template with its "warning of deletion" is beginning more and more to sound like a threat from you where the importance tag has been pointed out to be just as good to getting things done and less threatening to other users so that things CAN get done to make better articles. So Kermit the Frog is a non-fictional character and Jim Hensen is not a male. shadzar-talk

• Now the Kender RFM is finished, you can't assume bad faith anymore. The mud won't stick. Let us see you improve an article - now that would be a novelty. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• How about we see YOU improve an article or do the "hard-work". So you worked on 1 article. BFD, most of us have researched and written for hundreds of articles, including some GA class ones. Web Warlock (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• I don't assume bad faith. I think that you mean to do good; I just don't think you are. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Original Research tags

Remember that when you add {{OR}} to a page, you need to put a reason on the talk page. From the template's documentation: "Note: This template should not be applied without explanation on the talk page, and should be removed if the original research is not readily apparent when no explanation is given." -Drilnoth (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Original research is readily apparent to those articles to which I have added it to. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You still have to explain why on the talk page. Web Warlock (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Would an explaination such that left on Talk:Tome of Battle be sufficient? --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. That reads more like a review of the book text (which I am familar with and own) and less like original claims of the editor of the article. Nothing new said and no opinion is offered. Web Warlock (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• I can't accept hearsay: please provide quotations to support your assertion. Perhaps if you add the citations to the article, then the issue of original research will be addressed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You are being unnecessarily obtuse. Especially for what is supposed to be a collaborative environment. Given your admitted lack of knowledge on the subject matter, your previous admitted contempt of the subject matter and your inability to compromise unless it involves an RfD or threat of sanctions I am left to conclude that you have no intention of actually improving any articles. Indeed in the year or so I have had to deal with you, you have still not actually added any text to any article save for tagging them. Well we can get a SPAM-bot to do that for us. So given all the above I am removing tags that you have improperly placed and have no clear understanding of. If you wish to return them, please provide a well thought out rational complete with context, citations and supporting documentation. Anything less I will consider a bad faith effort. Web Warlock (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Not true. The Kender mediation demonstrated that (a) I can collaborate productively, (b) I have knowledge about the subject matter, (c) I can compromise, and (d) I understand the cleanup templates and the policies and guidelines that stand behind them. The evidence is against you I am pleased to say.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You can stop using that reference. I am 100% positive that you would not have done anything to help with Kender if you hadn't been forced into it. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Gavin didn't do anything for it besides tag it before the mediation, and I haven't seen him do anything other than tag D&D articles before or since the mediation, so maybe he thinks he's done enough? BOZ (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• In an earlier version of article Kender, the cleanup templates, such as original research, were disputed. This issues was addressed during the process of mediation (which is voluntary, by the way, not forced), and now the article is improved and very little OR, if any, is not present in the article. In retrospect, my choice of cleanup templates was vindicated. (ducks for cover) --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• "(ducks for cover)". Rightfully so. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

AIV

This is not what WP:AIV is meant for. A dispute of whether or not certain tags should be on an article is a content dispute, and the IP you reported was not the only person who thought those tags ought to be removed. Whether or not you are right about the tags is beside the point; an issue like that should be resolved by normal dispute resolution, not by trying to get them blocked as vandals. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Gavin. That was a really, really bad idea. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• In answer to Sjakkalle, I would tend to disagree, if only because the removing cleanup templates without reason or effecting any cleanup does not address the issue which the cleanup templates are meant to address in the first place. An analogy would the removal of safety notices; whether or not you agree with them, it is vandalism to remove them without discussion first[4] as any benefit that is imparted from them is lost. Other instances of vandalism of this nature have been dealt with promptly, and I feel justified in asking that it is done again soon, rather than encourge this practise to continue. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Gavin, if you accuse him of vandalism because of what he's been doing again, you have to nominate me, too. I've been doing more or less the same thing, so you'd have to put me on that list per WP:DBN. Just because that person's using an IP address doesn't mean that he is inherently more likely to be a vandal than anyone else. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Could this page be unprotected? It's been protected since June and it is the only protected Talk page I've seen. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There are others, but I've unprotected it as there is no reason to have it protected. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh. I guess that was a bad idea of mine. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

A deal

In case you haven't seen it, I've proposed a possible deal here. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, you are just insisting that I refrain from adding cleanup tags to articles, but I don't see why I should if they need cleanup. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• What I was referring to is kind of buried, I think, but it is now a moot point because of further discussion. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

New proposition regarding D&D article notability

Hi! I know that you have recently been active in some Dungeons & Dragons articles, so I thought that I'd point out a new proposition that I made regarding their notability at WT:D&D#A new proposition. Any input on the idea would be much appreciated. Thank you. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• I still don't understand why you are substiuting the notability cleanup template with the importance cleanup template. The latter is about sourcing, whilst I undersand the latter addresses content. The address different issues, so substitution is not appropriate in my view. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• The built-in timer is the reason. A combination of {{importance}} and {{primarysources}} means exactly the same thing as {{notability}}, but without the timer. Putting things on the timer will get them deleted, because the project can't cleanup or merge articles at the same rate that you tag them. It would be much appreciated if you used the two templates together instead of just {{notability}}, because it would give us more of a chance to work on the articles. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Built-in timer? Putting things on the timer will get them deleted? I have never heard such a load of old nonsense!--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Have you read the {{notability}} tag's documentation? It clearly puts the articles on a timer when it says that the articles are more likely to be deleted, redirected, or merged. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Everthing in Wikipedia is date stamped as you can see from the page history, so your argument is spurious. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Everything IS date stamped, but {{notability}} is the only tag where that date stamp could conceivably be used as an excuse for deletion if it sits on the article for too long. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Not true, in fact there is an often quoted essay that says There is no deadline. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Butting in from the sidelines.... if you look at Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability, you will see that a) there's a Wikiproject dealing with working on the oldest such taggged articles, and b) the "timer" (if you can call it that - it's by no means certain that deletion follows) is approx. 1.5 years at this time. --Alvestrand (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, its not certain that the process ends in deletion, and in my experience, most AfD debates end with a keep or merge decision. However, if substituting tags just to frustrate the process of cleanup is the impetus behind this template substitution, then substitution is self-defeating. You can't treat the patient if you are not allowed to diagnose the problem, and moreover, you can't treat the patient if you keep sending him to the back of the queue. I have heard no arguement in support of removing the notability template that makes any sense at all. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Gotcha; Alvestrand, you explained it perfectly. I hadn't known that there was a project dedicated to that work. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Tags

Hello Gavin. I've reverted the tags on the following articles: The Dark Elf Trilogy, The Hunter's Blades Trilogy, Paths of Darkness. These are all New York Times bestsellers, and they have fully established notability in the article per WP:BK, where they all pass the first criteria. Please don't add these tags back in when you're making your rounds -- we've worked hard to establish the notability of these specific works, with references in the article. I don't understand your justification for re-adding these tags. Thanks. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Being in the weekly NY Times Bestseller list is not evidence of notability on its own, as notability is not the same being popular or bestselling (although usually the two correlate). Whilst it is impressive that these books have sold well, this information is inusufficient to write an encyclopedic artice about them. As WP:BK explains,

"Notability" as used herein is not a reflection of a book's worth. A book may be brilliantly written, fascinating and topical, while still not being notable enough to ensure sufficient verifiable source material exists to create an article in an encyclopedia.

What is needed are reliable secondary sources that contain more than just the name of the book, or flap copy. To establish notability for these books (or groups of books for the Trilogies), the articles need to cite reliable secondary sources that contain context, analysis or criticism of these titles. A mere mention in a best-selling list is not sufficient. Please restore the notability templates as soon as you can. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Gavin, those articles almost all have reliable secondary sources other than the bestselling list. Additionally, they are all by a very popular author (R.A. Salvatore), which (per WP:BK) establishes them as notable automatically, and, quite frankly, most everyone who has every played D&D has heard of, if not read, some of them. -Drilnoth (talk) 12:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• I note sources have been added after I put the cleanup templates on these articles[5][6], so it seems that they were appropriate after all. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• There were such sources before you added the tags, too. -Drilnoth (talk) 12:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Give me an example, I saw none. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• References 3, 5, and 6 in this version of The Hunter's Blades Trilogy, the version right before you tagged it. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• The only source there before I placed the template was this review by Tom Gafkjen who is a staff review at d20zine.com (now defunct), but WK:BK excludes excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable as evidence of notability. I would admit that the review is better than nothing, but this source is, in my view, too trivial to demonstrate evidence of notability, as you can read by the citation.
  The other two references were put there after I place the template, which again demonstrates how effective they are. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• If you look at the edit history, no; those two other sources were there before you added the tag. Other sources have been added since then. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Looking at the edit history[7], I see that source 5 is a press release from the publisher, and source 6 is a blog. Neither can be classed as a reliable secondary source that provide evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Please understand that I'm not trying to nitpick here, I'm just honestly curious how you can tell that this is from the publisher. I don't see anything on it. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• The quotation from Peter Archer, Associate Publisher for Wizards of the Coast Book Department gives the game away, in the sense that a quote from a marketing exectuive identifies this article as a public relations type press release (an advert pretending to be a magazine article). I can't find the original, but this example is similar. It is part of WoC ongoing marketing & promotional efforts to stimulate sales of their products with the public and retailers [8], and although well crafted, it is not a source that should be cited in the article because it was "manufactured" to get publicity. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• The article you linked to and the one referenced are about two different books; additionally, how does a simple quotation from a company's associate publisher make it a press release? It might be from an interview or something. I'm sorry if I am just being dense here, but I'd like to try and better understand your point of view so that we can come to a better consensus regarding all of the D&D articles. Anyways, it really doesn't matter whether it's a press release or not, because now there are sufficient sources in the article. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• I work in finance, and press releases of this type are issued all the time for marketing purposes, or to get people to buy shares in such or such a company. The content of 99% of such press releases is really dull, so to make them "interesting" (I use the term ironically here) the marketing department will dress it up with a phoney interview (usually taken from marketing employee, only with a job title that sounds really grand) to make it look like a journalist actually bothered to conduct an interview. Since no one did an interview, you won't find any credits for the press release; the person who was quoted (Archer) also wrote the press release, and then faxed it to the offices of who ever he thinks might be desperate enough to circulate it. You and I only get to read a fraction of these "interveiws", as most of them are so dull not even desperate publishers will use them, and the faxes get put in the trash. The people who write the phoney intereviews and the guys that take out the trash make up what is called the Public Relations "industry" (more irony). --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

-removed indent-Okay; thanks for the clarification. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, the "findarticles.com" link you mention above is a reprint of a story from Business Wire, which is "a company that disseminates full-text news releases from thousands of companies and organizations worldwide" according to Wikipedia. Still, the resources quoted in the press release—The Wall Street Jouranl, The New York Times, Publishers Weekly—if properly cited are all reliable sources on their own. I infer that bestseller lists would count as "trivial coverage" under WP:BK, although this is not spelled out in the guideline. However, while bestseller lists may not establish notability on their own, that's not to say that this information can't be included. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the thing that gets me, Gavin. You tagged this article for notability issues [9]. But the problem isn't that the books are non-notable, the problem is that they weren't fully sourced (as you stated in your edit summary: "there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability"). That's a total misuse of the template, as I've stated several times. R.A. Salvatore is one of the most popular fantasy writers of all-time. He's had 18 NYT bestsellers. Add that to the few reviews available online (most of his books' reviews require subscriptions, or hard-copy references...which are much harder to locate than online sources), and I'd say that the series passes criteria #1 and #5 of WP:BK. I'll say it again, in case I'm being unclear, the tag that you applied: {{notability}} is not, I repeat, not to be used in the case that "there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability." It is only to be used if the subject of the article is not notable (they seem like the same thing, but they are not). I'm sorry to pop off like this, because you have applied this template correctly on a large number of articles, but when you do it indiscriminately like this -- especially considering how much work was put into adding references for the above-mentioned articles -- it does not help in the way (I believe) you intend. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 08:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• In answer to GentlemanGhost, notability is not the same as being a bestseller (although the two often correlate). The cleanup template was placed on the article to alert editors that notability needed to be evidenced by the addition of non-trivial real-world content from reliable secondary sources. If they have been added, then the notability template has done its job. As regards the reliablity of the article reproduced in findarticles.com and Business Wire, neither source state who the author is. As I have explained above, a source that does not disclose its origins can't be relied on. My view is that the original source of this article is the marketing department of Wizards of the Coast. I admit I can't prove this, but the similiarity to this press release is strong. You should always check the ultimate source of sources which you cite; often publishers manufacture them to generate interest for their publications.
  In answer to ColorOfSuffering is not possible to prove that a topic is non-notable, so the template is to be used where there is no evidence of notability, so I can't be accused of using it indiscriminately. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• While being an NYT best seller might not indicate notability on its own, it should at least indicate that the subject is notable. Best sellers will have plenty of reviews and critiques, so that should be an obvious instance where {{importance}} should be used (per the {{notability}} template's documentation, not my own personal view). -Drilnoth (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC update

I know it's been a long and tedious process. But the analysis of the RFC discussion is underway, so that an objective party can give an honest assessment of the common ground. One of the analysts requested some context on the dispute. So I'm trying to help him out. You'd be helping things along if you could check in quickly at the talk page, if only to offer a quick comment. I'm asking you because I know you've been involved pretty heavily throughout the dispute, and have seen all kinds of opposition to WP:N. Randomran (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have added my comment about the context of debate without a heavy partisan viewpoint. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)