Wikipedia talk:The answer to life, the universe, and everything/Archive 2

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

Incorrect information in this personal essay

The guideline of Wikipedia:Notability is what we go by. Notice at the top it says A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. The subject specific guidelines wouldn't exist if you had to meet the general notability guidelines anyway. So this essay is misleading, and also pointless since it just repeats some of the information from a guideline page that is quite clear already. Dream Focus 13:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not think this is pointless. There are times when the public demands an explanation of the entirety of Wikipedia in a single short sentence. This page is the culmination of the community's best effort to meet this demand. I do not think this is any less arbitrary than a one-page explanation or a ten-page explanation; there really is no explanation of Wikipedia except to read the entirety of the community guidelines. This page is a good starting point for the audience who would not read more than a single sentence. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
The top of the guideline page is quite clear and it says something this misleading page is neglecting to do. You don't need to pass the general notability guidelines, if you are able to pass any of the subject specific guidelines. Wikipedia:Notability explains every detail quite clear, this page totally unnecessary, and misleading as well. Dream Focus 16:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
If you feel that the page is unnecessary and misleading then feel free to propose it for deletion. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Focus, I think you mistaken when you say "You don't need to pass the general notability guidelines, if you are able to pass any of the subject specific guidelines". This is contradicted by the subject-specific guideline pages which say meeting those guidelines does not automatically make one notable. If you see a contradiction somewhere in the rules, suggest bringing it up at on the Talk page of Notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Which SSG are you referring to that says that? They all have different things on them. Dream Focus 02:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is this an information page or is it an essay?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to change anything. And does it really matter? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this an information page or is it an essay? This has been discussed before, and in a recent edit it was claimed that there is was consensus two years ago, but looking at the history it is not at all clear to me that there was a consensus at that time. A recently created essay Wikipedia:Don't cite WP42 at AfD argues that this is not an information page and does not "describes communal consensus on some aspect of Wikipedia norms and practices", claiming that it has consistently failed to be an accurate description of the notability guidelines, representing then as being stricter and more unequivocal than they really are. In my opinion, that is a correct assessment, and this page should be tagged as the essay that it is.

Survey: Information Page

  1. Weak Support- its explanations of the verifiability and notability requirements are completely correct. But the page would need to be edited to be less like a klaxon screaming in your face. Reyk YO! 01:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support While imperfect (where does one find perfection these days?), I think WP:42 offers a pretty fair reflection of the spirit of our guidelines as I understand them, and can be quite useful. I concur that one should be hesitant to quote it in AfD because it is NOT the law per se. On the other hand, if one is dealing with a new editor who is clueless about N GNG and RS, this is a good primer. I have no qualms about dropping the link on a newbie's talk page with a polite "check this out" or appending "See also WP:42" to the end of a PROD notice, AS LONG AS I HAVE ALSO PUT IN ACCURATE REFERENCES TO THE APPLICABLE GUIDELINES. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support. It's as concise a summary of the overall criteria for inclusion as one could hope for. As an introduction to newbies it serves an excellent purpose without getting into all the numerous ambiguities, gray areas, exceptions, and unanswered questions that constantly come up with existing policiesand guidelines. The fact that people may refer to it in AFD discussions is a red herring; essays get cited in AFD all the time (and I agree with the essay that we shouldn't reference WP:42 in AFD when actual policies and guidelines are available to quote). As an information page, it still does not rise to the authority of a policy or guideline. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support It's not the most well-spoken or flowery page on the wiki, that's for sure, but it does serve an important purpose: it answers that age-old question of "But why can't I have a page for my [dog/garage band/school club/Youtube channel]?" and answers it concisely enough that people can actually read and understand it. At this moment it's 125 words. Its closest cousin, the essay Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted?, is nearly 2000 words, or sixteen times as long. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support. The intention of this page is very clearly to give summarised information to new users. It is not intended to be the merely the opinion of a group of editors. It may well have faults but these can be addressed. SpinningSpark 09:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support I regularly give Wikipedia training to new users. When they ask me how long it will take them to learn Wikipedia, among other things, I tell them after 40 hours of experimenting they will have learned enough to be able to know how to find the correct forums in which to ask particular questions. This amount of time constitutes a major barrier of entry as compared to the time it takes for new users to meaningfully engage competitive pastimes. I am always considering new ways to reduce the amount of time that it takes for new users to be able to contribute usefully to Wikipedia, and although this page is not entirely accurate, it is accurate enough as well as short, comprehensible, and not burdened by evidence demonstrating that it is causing harm. Wikipedia has tried for many years to explain its guidelines to new users and is currently failing to provide what they need to get started. The dangers of trading a small bit of accuracy to get a large amount of accessibility are not measured and still only supposed. This page needs to be developed. If over time it is soon to produce good results and not cause too many bad ones, then it needs to be used more broadly. This page should not be deprecated without evidence of harm. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  7. Strong Support: I consider it informational because its purpose has always been 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 PROD, SPEEDY, and AFD. (please notem this is the survey section, not the extended discussion section.) --Lexein (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  8. Support It's a good indicator on whether or not something is notable. Though it isn't perfect, it's really close to it for being so short, and if it doesn't apply, there's no requirement that it be cited. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  9. Support. Works well enough for me. It's a short read and a fair representation of WP:N. Can be helpful when used in policy discussions to educate newer users. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  10. Support - There is an element of essay in the page but it looks essentially like a nutshell of nutshells. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk)
  11. Weak Support - Actually I disagree but I'm too polite to say so. groupuscule (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  12. Support The authoritative voice and brevity are helpful in explaining the threshold of notability to new single purpose editors. It really shouldn't be linked in AfD debates, though. wctaiwan (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  13. Support This is an information page—it informs new editors about the core requirements without a bunch of distracting mumbo-jumbo. A box at the top might satisfy a purist (but see WP:BURO), however there should be no box because less is more when it comes to the contributors for whom this page is intended. Experienced editors understand this page is an over-simplification—there are 3500 words at WP:N, and 4000 at WP:V so of course it's an over-simplification! Johnuniq (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  14. Support The information cited here is true and brilliantly succinct. While no one paragraph can encompass every nook of WP:N policy, its usefulness as a place to refer failing WP:AfC writers is unparalleled. It would be problematic if it were tagged in such as way as to cast doubt on its veracity. --LukeSurl t c 22:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey: Essay

  1. Support as nominator. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support  To repeat what I said above, "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)"  Unscintillating (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support  Taken in isolation, it lacks necessary nuance. For instance, it says, "We need references that discuss the subject – directly, in detail. Not just passing mentions, directory listings, or any old thing that happens to have the name in it. And we need multiple references - not just one. These sources show that the subject is notable." But subjects may be notable without this if they meet subject-specific guidelines - for instance, WP:NACADEMICS lists a number of criteria that may establish notability outside of that general standard, and it also notes that "for the routine uncontroversial details of a career, official institutional and professional sources are accepted as sourcing for those details." It is entirely possible for an academician to have passing mentions in reliable sources (or even a single reliable source) of having received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level and to have an article otherwise sourced from her university official bio. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
    • In response to some of the concerns voiced above, I think those who believe newcomers will lose the value of this page if it's labeled an essay are mistaken. I've been pointing people to Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing for years, and the only people I ever recall bringing up the essay/guideline distinction are experienced editors. (And with those, it's easy enough to point to the policy lines that support it.) Whether it's labeled an essay or an information page, it should be corrected, of course. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Where does it say it's supposed to represent WP:N? So far as somebody unfamiliar with this page (for isntance, me) can tell, it's meant to be the total distillation of core content policies. :/ Notability is mentioned in one section only, and only at the end. (And the third section, I've just noticed, doesn't even link to a policy, but to an essay.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support As I stated before, WP:NOTABILITY is quite clear, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below" ... "A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." This only repeats the requirements for the general notability guidelines, without mentioning an article can exist if it only meets a subject specific guideline. A scientist wins notable awards and has their work in textbooks, they are notable, even if they never did interviews anywhere, or were interesting enough for anyone to write books about. So by people linking here during AFDs instead of to WP:NOTABILITY, you have problems. Dream Focus 02:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support. I think that the words "describes communal consensus" in the present template are misleading. At the moment, this page is more like a misinformation page. Nor can I see how this page can be said to clarify or supplement our policies and guidelines. James500 (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support {{essay}}. It is not an information page because it is redundant to WP:N. I quite agree with it, in most cases, there are exceptions, and the blunt tone is only appropriate for ramming home the point to an editor resisting the particular message. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support Would a rose by any other name not be a rose? The Duck test suggest that it's an essay.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  8. Eh. Darn useful page, but I've never been fond of the information page as a thing and this feels more like an essay in any case (per SmokeyJone). Don't care much though. Hobit (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  9. Support Darkness Shines (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  10. Support This page has never been very successful at remaining stable, constant bickering. The reason is because the Guidelines are nuanced and not one size fits all as this page tries to make it out. It is obviously an essay, an opinion interpretation of the Guidelines, not an objective mirror of the Guidelines. -- GreenC 04:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey: No tag

  1. I don't think that this page really needs an ambox-based tag. It is an notability essay. It is a page that is informative. But it doesn't need a rectangle at the top that proclaims either of these things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Correct, per my comment at 23:11, 10 March 2014 above. Johnuniq (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Labels are bad. --Jayron32 13:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. I would say we should not have a label simply because there is no clear consensus on which one we should have and any label is now going to be controversial to one side or the other. SpinningSpark 14:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. It should be deleted per WP:CREEP so we don't have to worry about what we call it. Its title is silly and misleading as it seems to be suggesting that it's all you need to know when WP:5 is the traditional summary of our core policies. Warden (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey: Policy

  1. Promote it to policy, and be done with it. It has the decent charm of BOLD and IAR, or KISS and POLA, beating a NN MOS debate, where folks seriously managed to overrule ISO, IETF, and W3C with a consensus of some editors. –Be..anyone (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Wow, that's a whole lot of naked acronyms. Military level, perhaps beyond. Please re-factor in a way more readily parsed by 'civilians'. If plain English seems overly burdensome, perhaps Wikilinks would serve to keep things compact while better allowing folks less versed in Wiki arcana to more readily catch up. --Kevjonesin (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
BOLD+IAR belong to the 5th of the Wikipedia:Five pillars, KISS+POLA are categorized as Programming principles, and IETF+ISO+W3C are working redirects. :tongue: –Be..anyone (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

  • The first problem with this page is that it quotes a guideline, a policy and an essay as if they were equally authoritative. How can we justify labeling the page with "While it is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement or clarify other Wikipedia practices and policies" when one of the three things it highlights in yellow is an essay?
The second problem is that it ham-handedly oversimplifies all three.
This page says:
"We need multiple references - not just one."
...but the guideline it supposedly clarifies says:
"There is no fixed number of sources required."
This page says:
"Not: forums, fansites, MySpace, Facebook."
...but the policy it supposedly clarifies says:
"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications... This policy also applies to pages on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook."
This page says:
"Nothing written by the subject or paid for by the subject. Not their website. Not a press release. Primary sources aren't enough: we require something independent."
...but the essay it supposedly clarifies says:
"Material available from sources that are self-published, or primary sources, or biased because of a conflict of interest can play a role in writing an article, but it must be possible to source the majority of information to independent, third-party sources."
Again and again this page paints with a broad brush, missing nuances and ignoring important exceptions. Instead of supplementing, it misrepresents. Instead of clarifying, it obfuscates, It is clumsy and it is inept. It should be labeled as an essay to avoid the ongoing problems that labeling it as an information page has caused. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I think you're too hung up on WP:The difference between policies, guidelines, and essays, but you're kind of missing the point: the types of sources useful for supporting material in the article is not identical to the types of sources useful for deciding whether we ought to have an article on the subject in the first place. You can cite the teenage heartthrob-o-the-week's Twitter feed for information about himself, but the fact that said Twitter feed exists does not support a notability claim.
That said, the idea that "primary" = "non-independent" is just nonsense, so I've removed that statement. WP:Secondary does not mean independent.
As for WP:INDY's official status, it's widely accepted, even in its current, somewhat imperfect form. Cleaning it up and merging it with WP:Third-party sources has been on my task list for several years. With some improvements, I think it would easily pass a WP:PROPOSAL as a guideline to explain a concept that runs through WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NPOV . WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I have a real problem with the concept "it's official status is widely accepted". There are few if any non-policy/guideline pages that are more widely cited or more generally accepted as official than Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and yet again and again the community has rejected marking that page as anything other than an essay. How is this page more "official" than WP:BRD? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Guy, I've never seen you so worked up about, really, nothing. You know full well that at, say, Comedy Traffic School, they don't recite chapter, verse and lawyerly detail of every furshlugginer law on the books. They give broad strokes, so that the students even if they don't know every detail, chapter and verse, will stay broadly within bounds of the law by practicing common sense, based on and summarised from the law. Nothing you've written here persuades me that an editor who writes and cites sources following the broad strokes made here, will be in any trouble with CSD, PROD, or AfD processes. We want several high quality independent sources cited inline in Wikipedia articles: that's what this info "gist" page is all about. It adds no new information, omits nothing critical, and steers new editors toward the right path, and correct policies and guidelines. It is fine as is, and does not need to be developed or expanded at all. That was done in the past, and it destroyed its utility to noobs. Doing so again would make it again too large, again verbose and again TMI. It's a bad teacher who can't summarize concisely what a student needs to know to get going on a project. We're all bad teachers if this info page can't be kept short.--Lexein (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Lexein, that is manifest nonsense. James500 (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
And that's a bare assertion, not an argument. Lexein makes a good point that following the gist of this page will head off CSD, PROD, and AFD, and nobody has yet made a single counter-argument to that, let alone made a single argument how this page might possibly be damaging as a basic information source. If there are problems with how things are stated, then restate them without bloating it. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
None of which has the slightest bearing on whether this page should be labeled an essay or an information page. Remember that question? It's sort of THE QUESTION THAT THIS RFC WAS POSTED TO ANSWER. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The page might well miss all the nuances, but it needs to be remembered who its target audience is. The purpose of the page is to explain to inexperienced users why their article has been rejected and what they need to do to make it acceptable. Talking about the possible notability of a professor who is never in the news is simply irrelevant and confusing to those trying to push a POV article for a band/product/company/software/career. It needs to be kept very short and to the point, otherwise you might as well just link to the policies in the first place. Besides which, it is commonly argued at AFD that meeting the notability requirements for things like WP:PROF and WP:ATHLETE give a presumption that sources will exist, but if the article is challenged then it is still necessary for the sources to be produced. SpinningSpark 09:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I seem to have gotten myself off-track, talking about the quality/usefulness of this page. For that I apologize. What I should be focusing on is whether there is any reason to believe that calling this an information page instead of an essay will make any difference to the two target audiences you mention (inexperienced users and POV pushers). My guess would be that it makes no difference to the inexperienced user -- someone at Wikipedia sent him to a page and he does what the page says -- nor would it make any difference to the POV pusher, who will look for any loophole and will have to have actual policy quoted to him whether this page is called an information page or an essay.

Also, please note that we don't have to use the standard essay template. The template on WP:BRD says:

While this essay is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement the Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Be bold pages, which should be deferred to in case of inconsistency between that page and this one.

Which is partway between the standard essay banner

This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines.

and the current information page banner:

This is an information page that describes communal consensus on some aspect of Wikipedia norms and practices. While it is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement or clarify other Wikipedia practices and policies. Please defer to the relevant policy or guideline in case of inconsistency between that page and this one.

And, of course, we could choose some other variation on the wording. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that could be a sensible compromise, especially as the !voting seems to be heading for no concensus. SpinningSpark 19:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Problems caused by this page are theoretical

This page has existed since 2010. Since its creation, established Wikipedia contributors have warned and complained that it could it be misinterpreted. No one on this page has yet brought examples here of how it is being misused, with the possible exception of it being invoked without further explanation. Everyone is in agreement that some information is lost when these few sentences attempt to express several pages of guidelines, but when people see that this page is actually causing confusion and problems, can those cases be posted here so that problems can be considered? I am especially interested to see cases in which new Wikipedians come to odd conclusions by reading this page. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I do not recall ever having seen this page before yesterday, and I have not been part of the discussions, but it seems to me that the problem here is not theoretical - it's obvious. This page is inaccurate; it actually contradicts the guidelines and policies it is intended to support. "Nothing written by the subject or paid for by the subject. Not their website. Not a press release. We require something independent." What? What happened to WP:SELFPUB? This is not "information is lost" - this is just wrong. :/ I'm all for trying to boil our complex rules into easily digestible form, but giving our newcomers inaccurate information about them is not a theoretical problem. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl This page has been discussed for years and whatever else it is, the net effect of its merits and drawbacks are not obvious. This page is horrible, almost as horrible as the official guidelines, and it is also the best summary that anyone has ever proposed after many years of thinking about it. If you see it causing problems or come up with something better then please share. The longer official guidelines cause huge amounts of problems. Accuracy at the expense of accessibility is not working and neither will this accessible version at the expense of accuracy. Where is the balance? Please share actual problems caused by this policy here - the theoretical problems are stated already. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Bluerasberry, you don't think that giving wrong information to editors is an actual problem? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl It is a huge problem. Do you not think that the official inaccessible guidelines are a problem? A body of evidence says that Wikipedia restricts newcomers from joining. Where is the compromise? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I do think that official inaccessible guidelines a problem, but that doesn't have any bearing on whether or not there is an actual problem here. You ask, "Please share actual problems caused by this policy here". I hold that giving wrong information to editors is an actual problem, prima facie. It's not theoretical. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl I just sent you an email requesting a phone or Skype meeting. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
WP:SELFPUB does not say that self-published sources can be used to establish notability. That's because they can't and notability is the issue this page is addressing for new users. However, it a good point that this page does not actually say that is what it is addressing. A lot of the criticism might disappear if the page were to say something like "For an article to exist on Wikipedia there must be <blah blah blah>" SpinningSpark 19:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The criticism will not disappear because it is obviously impossible to "describe communal consensus" in 125 words, no matter what those words are. Even if I was wrong about that, WP:42 should be made accurate before Template:Information page is added, not after. James500 (talk)
I think that Spinningspark has a good idea. The page is a reasonably accurate summary of wikinotability, not wikiverifiability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Quote without comment:
From WP:V:
From WP:N:
Unscintillating (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Flawed conversation I keep seeing it said above this being called both a policy and a guideline. Then I look at the page and it clearly says this is not a policy or guideline. You can't really call it policy or guideleine when it says when it says specifically it isn't. Besides that it doesn't matter if the issues are only theorhetical. I don't recall the guideline that says you can't improve wikipedia if the issues you find are only theorhetical.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

History of harm caused by this article page being misnamed

From 27 March 2010 to 14 July 2010 this article was not tagged. This caused no harm.

From 15 July 2010 to 5 June 2012 this article was tagged as an essay. This caused no harm.

From 6 June 2012 to 11 July 2012 this article was not tagged. This caused no harm.

From 12 July 2012 to the present (February 2014) this article has been was tagged as an information page. This has caused no harm.

This article had no tag for 5 months without it doing any harm.

This article was tagged as an essay for 1 year and 11 months without it doing any harm.

This article was tagged as an information page for 1 year and 8 months without it doing any harm.

My conclusion: we should name it what it is, not assign a name because we think some other name might be harmful. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hear here! ...172.162.77.52 (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The one thing this page certainly isn't, is an article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Point well taken. I corrected it above. Of course it really isn't a "page" either, but people look at me funny when I call them glowing rectangles... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
A masterful summary. Conclusion: Allow people to tag it as they please, but impose a limit of one change per month. Guy (Help!) 01:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
(Smile') We could set up a bot to automatically switch it between Essay and Information page on the first of every month. After all, it is in both categories. :) It was even a policy for half a day before someone noticed and reverted the edit. Or we could compromize and tag is as an iEnSfSoArYmEaStSiAoYnEpSaSgAeY... --Guy Macon (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I motion for deletion of this page once and for all. It is causing confusion, misleading people, enraging many people and more. In addition, the page does not serve a notable purpose and is not to be trusted. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deletion

Prods are not applicable in the Wikipedia namespace, so I have nominated for MfD. Safiel (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Would more links help?

I think that much of the magic of hypertext is it's ability to offer the opportunity to explore more depth to those so inclined and able without forcing it upon those not yet prepared for or inspired to be interested in such. Recall that not every initiate aspires to grand mastery.

Perhaps the concerns of those who feel that the page leaves out too much specific detail and nuanced exceptions might be appeased to some degree by adding some more cross links following the basic message.

Or perhaps, if they are feeling particularly proactive, those with such concerns could collaborate on creating another page (or associated set thereof) with a sort of intermediary or graduate reference which links to—and/or otherwise elucidates—the areas they feel are lacking on the present page. And then place a link(s) in some sort of "For those who wish to explore in more depth" section after the main body of the WP:42 page.

i.e. Rather than excising the page for it's short comings, build something which addresses them while respecting it's traditional use as pablum for novices.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

p.s.— I recently came across an article which seems to speak to the importance of accommodating novices. Something to reflect on perhaps. --Kevjonesin (talk) 06:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

KISS

Tags at top of page removed without consensus

Despite an ongoing and open RFC involving dozens of editors over the use of tags at the top of this essay, one SPA User:Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi has decided to unilaterally remove those tags on his own judgement, regardless of the RfC's outcome or consensus. -- GreenC 23:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:PILLAR, WP:IAR Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Your attempt to hide the RfC and stunt the process of consensus building is highly disruptive. -- GreenC 00:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Your opinion has been duly noted. Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Your account has been duly blocked. -- GreenC 01:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
And your sockpuppet account has been duly blocked as well.
       [SOCK  DETECTED] [TARGET AIMING] [TARGET LOCKED] [   FIRE!!!   ]
       .--------------. .-------------. .-------------. .-------------.
       |       o      | |      |      | |    \ o /    | |  \`. | .'/  |
       |     /( )\    | |   -- + --   | |   --(+)--   | |-- *BLOCK* --|
       |______/_\_____| |      |      | |_____/|\_____| |__/_'_|_'_\__|
       '--------------' '-------------' '-------------' '-------------'
:) --Guy Macon (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Me, huh? I don't have any socks. Unless you meant something else. Nice movie. -- GreenC 05:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Ack! Of course I didn't mean you. You are an established editor who does a really good job. I had two windows open and got the wrong user, and then I put it at the wrong indent level. Please accept my apology; sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok whew. Hey friendly fire accidents happen in sock hunting. You do good work yourself. Regards. -- GreenC 15:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

What is factually disputed here

More constructive than either edit warring or biting each other would be a reboot of what exactly is still factually disputed here. There have been various changes since this discussion opened and some of the objections have been addressed. Perhaps we can now also address whatever remains then the disputed tag can be removed by consensus. I would also comment that should this page end up being marked as an essay then it can no longer be factually disputed in any case since it will then have been reduced to the status of an opinion. SpinningSpark 01:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

  • So to reboot, this page is an inaccurate mishmash of WP:V and WP:GNG.  There is consensus that WP:42 should not be cited at AfD.  The people who are defending the dumbed-down text would not accept upgrading it to be WP:verifiable to our policies and guidelines.  Thus the disputed tag is the proper way to mediate the dispute.  The "feed'em milk cuz they can't eat meat" crowd gets the milk-eater's version of WP:V/WP:GNG, they get to call it an "informational page with community consensus", but meanwhile, no one is deceived.  I would still hope that the text could be replaced with the two nutshells I posted above.  This IMO was a bad edit, I hope you will reconsider.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Unscintillating "There is consensus that WP:42 should not be cited at AfD" Could you please link to the discussion which established this consensus? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • If you look at the 13 "Support" votes at the RfC, three explicitly said such, a fourth, stated, "Experienced editors understand this page is an over-simplification..."  Your own !vote acknowledges at least a "small" amount of inaccuracy.  Also, there is a consensus to retain on the Project page the essay entitled, Wikipedia:Don't cite WP42 at AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Using an RfC the way you just used it flies in the face of everything we know about opinion polling. Consider a hypothetical RfC "Should Wikipedia be red letters on a purple background or the current black letters on a white background"? If I were to say that X percent of the respondents explicitly mentioned a preference for the font being comic sans, that would only mean that X percent of the respondents who commented about the color of the page explicitly mention a preference for the font being comic sans. Some people who prefer the current font might not bother responding to such an RfC because they figure it has no chance. Some people who prefer comic sans might prefer it if and only if the page was red and purple. It might be that only those who want a font change would mention that fact in an RfC unrelated to fonts No, you cannot conclude that there is or is not a consensus on whether WP:42 should not be cited at AfD based on the responses to an RfC on whether it should be tagged as a policy or as an essay. Opinion polling doesn't work that way. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Your point seems to be that the RfC was not about AfD.  The point you are not acknowledging is that reading consensus on Wikipedia is more than the specific literal reading of the question asked.  I've stated a hypothesis, I've given three examples of where people who support calling this an "information page" specify that it is not information that is suitable for AfD, I've studied the other opinions that want to call this an "information page" in that RfC, and I've also cited the undisputed point that the current consensus is to leave the essay on the project page.  There is no opposition to the proposition, unless asking questions is now opposition.  This is a strong consensus.  Are you claiming that this is not a strong consensus?  Unscintillating (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I am saying that there is no compelling evidence for or against the claimed strong consensus. The evidence that you have presented is not compelling because of the likelihood of selection bias. If you think there is a strong consensus, post an RfC and prove it. I predict that the result of such an RfC will be "no consensus", but that is just my guess -- I have seen no compelling evidence either way. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Ok, it's an inacurate mismash. You've said that before. Repeating it is not helping to improve the page. What explicitly do you consider to be inaccurate? SpinningSpark 09:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • And you have spelled neither inaccurate nor mishmash correctly.  I suggested that you look at the two nutshells.  Did you?  What is wrong with replacing everything on the Project Page with the two nutshells?  One thing you will notice with the nutshells is that the notability nutshell is from WP:N, not WP:GNG.  WP:GNG is such a small part of WP:N that it doesn't have a nutshell.  Yet on this factually inaccurate information page, the word "notable" is wikilinked to WP:GNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oooooh, a spelling flame! --Guy Macon (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I think I explained it well in a section above. Wikipedia_talk:The_answer_to_life,_the_universe,_and_everything/Archive_2#Incorrect_information_in_this_personal_essay Dream Focus 02:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
    Unscintillating, it was not particularly clear when you posted the nutshells that you were proposing them as alternative text. Now that you have proposed it, I don't think it such a bad idea to base the page on the policy nutshells. However, I don't think we can quite use them as is. The target audience for this page need the meaning of reliable and independent spelled out a little. The current structure of significant/reliable/independent helps in that. Do you think the nutshells could be massaged into that structure?
    DreamFocus, I gather your objection is that topic specific guidelines have not been allowed for. The vast majority of people we refer to this page have written unsourced, or poorly sourced, articles that are probably not notable. We don't want to sidetrack the page too much with stuff that is not relevant to the target audience. Nevertheless, I agree that someone who has written an article on a professor who has dozens of published papers with hundreds of citations to them and who has changed the face of education should not be told by this page that their article is unacceptable.
    Reyk, you edit conflicted me while I was trying to post this - kudos to you for that great piece of work. SpinningSpark 03:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I have gone through this entire information page and have found that everything in it is drawn directly from WP:N or WP:V. Below is a detailed analysis, sentence by sentence, with WP:42 on the left and the relevant statement(s) in WP:N and WP:V on the right, linked for convenience.

WP:42 WP:V, WP:N
Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources
...that are independent of the subject. We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources"
We need references that discuss the subject – directly, in detail. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail
Not just passing mentions, directory listings, or any old thing that happens to have the name in it.
And we generally need multiple references - not just one.
These sources show that the subject is notable. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
We need sources generally trusted to tell the truth. Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
Major newspapers. Factual, widely-published books, or other high-quality mainstream publications which are careful about fact-checking and accuracy. university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, mainstream newspapers.
Not: forums, fansites, MySpace, Facebook, or most blogs.
Good sources make the text verifiable. In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.
Nothing written by the subject or paid for by the subject.
Not their website. Not a press release.
We require something independent. The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.

I believe this settles the question of whether or not WP:42 is accurate. It demonstrably does summarize WP:N and WP:V accurately. Reyk YO! 03:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Its not accurate if it misleads people by leaving out that articles can be notable by meeting the GNG or a subject specific guideline. Why not mention you are summarizing the GNG, and that the requirements for certain specific things may be different, then link to where the SSG are at? Dream Focus 18:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
If someone cannot work out for themselves that a 127-word statement is just a summary of the linked policies with some nuances omitted for clarity, adding more verbosity to tell them that would not be helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The subject specific guidelines are there to help interpret the WP:N in subject specific ways, not to supersede or contradict it. They are supposed to be there to guide editors in deciding, for a specific subject matter, what kinds of sources confer notability and which are just run-of-the-mill. Or which sources are likely to be independent enough to be useful. The SSGs are not there to "trump" WP:N and no SSG should ever say that, in such-and-such a case, we can do without proper sourcing altogether. SNGs always defer to WP:N, not the other way round. Reyk YO! 05:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Who are you responding to Reyk? It currently says "Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This isn't always true. You do NOT need significant coverage of a scientist to prove they are notable enough to have an article. They are notable based on their achievements, not coverage they have gotten. The SSG for them is at Wikipedia:Academics showing that if their work has won notable scientific awards, is found in textbooks everywhere, etc. then they are notable by Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia:Notability_(books) states a book can be notable just by winning a major literary award, or by other means. No significant coverage required there either. A musician who has received no significant coverage anywhere, can still be notable if they win a significant awards or have a hit song on the charts. WP:BAND So we don't need someone linking to this essay and thinking its just that simple to determine if something is notable or not. Need to mention what it is. An attempt to make things shorter and easier to understand, but it doesn't include everything. Need to include a sentence saying things can be notable even if they receive no coverage at all, if they meet a requirement in the subject specific guidelines, otherwise you are misleading people. Dream Focus 05:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I think we're probably closer to being on the same page as you realize. First of all, you can't have an article with no sources because WP:V applies regardless of all other considerations and because, if you want to to argue that something meets notability guidelines, you need to verify that it does. I'm happy to say that all the subject specific guidelines that I've looked at do require substantial coverage, and the one that I think sets the bar unworkably low also says meeting it does not guarantee a stand-alone article. So the question becomes, are the available sources enough for the subject to meet WP:N? The subject specific guidelines help us to answer that. In my opinion, the SNGs do not override WP:N; they provide guidance on how it should be applied to the various subject matters. Thus it is not correct to say "This article fails WP:N but passes WP:Notability_(derps)" because that subject specific guideline is WP:N applied to the subject. Reyk YO! 09:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

But the SNGs sometimes do override WP:N, explicitly: "A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." In those cases, it is correct to say "This article failes WP:N but passes WP:Notability (derps)." So, for example, what I wrote above still applies - "for instance, WP:NACADEMICS lists a number of criteria that may establish notability outside of that general standard, and it also notes that 'for the routine uncontroversial details of a career, official institutional and professional sources are accepted as sourcing for those details.' It is entirely possible for an academician to have passing mentions in reliable sources (or even a single reliable source) of having received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level and to have an article otherwise sourced from her university official bio." Note that WP:NACADEMICS says, "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." So, a Fields Medal winner is, according to that guideline, notable. A single reference to John Smith winning the Fields Medal is enough to establish that John Smith is notable. If all of the other information in John Smith's article is gleaned from his university bios, it has no bearing on his notability.

I've largely stayed away from this debate after seeing that is (to me) inexplicably and bizarrely controversial, but I can see no reason that we need to be inaccurate just to keep things simple. For example, "Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is misleading as written - but would not be if it were simply modified to say, "Articles generally..." or "In almost all cases...." Similar acknowledgement of nuance is easily accomplished throughout - if people want to know if theirs is an edge case, so what? Give them the link to figure it out and a pointer to the help desk or Teahouse. That's what was done with Wikipedia:Copy-paste, which is trying to distill some policies that are no less complex than these. We could eliminate a lot of copyright problems if we simply forbade copying content altogether, but we don't actually want to discourage people from using quotations or even from copying from compatible sources. So those nuances need reference.

Some of my other concerns would be addressed if the purpose of the page were made clear, because the third section taken in itself is simply wrong. Maybe this is why it links a relatively lengthy essay instead of the concise WP:SELFPUB, which policy makes clear that, yes, sometimes we do accept content that is "written by the subject or paid for by the subject." :) This could also be addressed by simply modifying "We require something independent" to read something like "While these sources are sometimes okay for expanding articles, we require something independent to establish notability." Or anything that would avoid a reasonable reader of this page (who does not know that you mean it to indicate notability only) from walking away thinking, "I can't get the details of his academic career from the UPenn website." Yes, you can. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right.

And then it list the general notability guidelines in the section below, as indicated. If that section was on a different page, perhaps people who just skim through instead of reading the top of the article, wouldn't assume you had to meet them. The eleven subject-specific guidelines exists because the GNG is not the only way to determine if something is notable for certain things. Dream Focus 17:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I have edited the page in an attempt to address some of the criticisms. I am hoping that editors will be ok with me removing the disputed tag. I know some don't like this page and would like to see the tag remain there permanently, but the page has been to XfD and was snow closed as keep so we have to live with it. Permanently tagging it is not a solution, we need instead to fix the problems. SpinningSpark 15:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
"You do NOT need significant coverage of a scientist to prove they are notable enough to have an article. They are notable based on their achievements, not coverage they have gotten"
This isn't actually true. If there's no "significant coverage" in independent sources, then it is actually impossible (by definition) to write a WP:NPOV article about the scientist.
This comes up every couple of years over at WT:N, and the conclusion is always the same: You can meet GNG, and you can meet any SNG, but all of them are supposed to result in the same overall outcome, which is showing that the world at large (not the scientist's own university) has paid attention to the subject (not the things that the subject did or made). If you're aware of an SNG that actually contradicts the GNG (e.g., says that significant independent coverage is not required, because you can write the bio from the scientist's own webpage and research publications), then you need to read WP:POLCON and start the process for resolving the conflict between two guidelines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

So WP:PROF conflicts with WP:42, the hard line version of WP:N

I see a rediscovery that one well respected SNG, WP:PROF, is more permissive of stand alone topics than the WP:GNG. I read WP:42 as a hard line version of WP:N. Stripped of fluff, it becomes obvious that WP:N and WP:PROF conflict.

WP:PROF is the only surviving pre-WP:N notability guideline that is more permissive than WP:N. (the other older guideline, WP:CORP, is less permissive). It may be best to resolve this conflict by simply stating that WP:PROF is an exception.

What is special about articles on academics is that they are not really about their title-subjects, but about the professional, published product of the academic. Prof. Blogs reliably survives AfD, and so it is a suitable. However, Prof. Blogs himself doesn't pass the GNG. No serious publisher writes his life story, except in extreme cases, and even then only when he is at least almost dead. But if you look again at the article as if titled The research of Prof. Blogs, this topic fits the GNG.

There is a bias here. Academic topics are allowed permissively. Commercial topic are allowed restrictively. This feels OK. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

PROF does not conflict with N. It allows articles on persons who might in theory fail GNG, but GNG is only part of N. James500 (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
PROF supports articles, successfully at AfD, articles that clearly fail the GNG. The GNG is NOT "only part of N", the GNG is the heart of Wikipedia-Notability. Everything else at WP:N, not speaking to the GNC, is explanation relating to other matters. WP:PROF must be considered either and exception, or a conflict, with a hard reading of WP:N. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. N does not say that SNG are an exception to GNG. All it says is that both GNG and SNG create presumptions of notability. They clearly have equal status (except where SNG expressly provide that GNG does not apply). Moreover, N does not say that topics which fail both GNG and SNG are not notable or even that they are presumed non-notable. I have no doubt that a topic which fails both GNG and SNG is notable if there is a sufficient local consensus that it is "worthy of notice". That seems obvious from the wording of N. The citation of NJOURNALS, as though it was an SNG, at AfD is an example of this happening in practice. I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "hard reading". James500 (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

"Disputed" notice

Another editor made significant changes to the page and boldly removed the "Disputed" notice from the top of the page.

I restored it pending discussion.

Question: Are there still outstanding disputes that warrant keeping the "Disputed" notice at the top of the page? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you disputing anything? SpinningSpark 21:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I certainly am not disputing anything that justifies a disputed tag. Those are to tell the reader that at least one editor thinks that the page is wrong. I just think it should have an essay tag instead of an information page tag. This article had no tag for 5 months, then it was tagged as an essay for 1 year and 11 months, then it was tagged as an information page for 1 year and 8 months. Clearly none of those three choices are actually bad. I say delete the disputed tag.
I also say change the information page tag to an essay tag, but alas, the RfC was 14 for info tag, 10 for essay tag, 6 for no tag, and 1 for a policy tag, so it's WP:NOPONY for me. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I showed earlier on that everything in this page is drawn directly from WP:V and WP:N, and I think Spinningspark's latest change should satisfy the SSNG-trumps-GNG advocates. I'm really not sure what possible disagreement there can still be. Reyk YO! 08:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
The stupid "disputed" tag should be removed, and the excessively ugly intro should be put into a nice {{nutshell}}. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The rewrite works for me. :) As long as it's not misleading, I have no dispute with the page (and don't care what it's called). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I restored the disputed tag to give people time to agree if should be kept or removed. Unless someone speaks up in the next couple of days I will have no objections for removing it ... in a couple of days. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
So let me get this right. You want to mark a page as factually disputed, not because you are actually factually disputing anything, but just in case someone might dispute it? SpinningSpark 19:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
It's the parliamentarian in me wanting to make sure decisions (like removing a legitimately-applied, several-week-old template) aren't summarily taken without giving editors who were involved in that dispute and who who might be going 2-3 days between logging into Wikipedia a few days to object first. Having said that, if there had been a several-month gap and the "disputed" tag was unquestionably stale, then I would totally endorse immediate removal. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, someone else BOLDly removed the "disputed" tag: davidwr thought that was a bit too BOLD and restored it pending this discussion to see whether there is a consensus. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and may prevent an edit-war with the tag being replaced and removed again. JohnCD (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
David, I'm going to cheerfully suggest that the parliamentarian in you go read WP:PPP. As a general rule, unless you personally believe that a page should be tagged in some way (for cause, not for process or on the off chance that someone else might want it tagged), then you personally should not be (re-)tagging it. You can start a discussion, contact people whom you believe to have a different viewpoint, etc., but you shouldn't tag pages as having problems unless you, personally and in good faith, believe that the problem really does exist. It really won't do any harm for a tag to be removed (or present) for however a few hours (or days), or however long it takes for someone with an actual opinion on the issue to take action. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree the "disputed" tag should be removed. This addition is a good solution, making the point without unduly complicating the page with caveats and qualifications. I also don't care what the page is called. JohnCD (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The RfC was closed for 15 hours, and someone takes down the disputed tag like the RfC no longer existed.  Yet Meanwhile, it is puzzling to me why editors at the RfC would call for having an "information page" tag, and yet while the RfC is still underway, the information page tag is taken down and there is no objection.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
    I hadn't even noticed that the RFC had been closed. It is irrelevant. This thread is about whether there is any dispute of the factual accuracy of the page, which is what the tag actually says. This discussion has become utterly surreal. Some people here seem determined to permanently tag the page with "I don't like it" in some form and have no interest in working to fix the perceived problems, suggest a solution, or even stating their problem in a form it can be actioned. Since the page has been made unusable I have decided to create my own personal version with which to deliver the message on appropriate occassions. Anyone who feels so inclined is welcome to cite it also. SpinningSpark 01:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Of course I don't intend to deceive anyone. I intend to give a clear message to those to which it applies without confusing them with information which does not apply to them. How can explaining the limitations in a note be an intention to deceive? It is a ridiculous and unwarranted accusation. You have no evidence that I have ever misused WP:42 in that way. Please desist. SpinningSpark 06:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The key word in my previous comment to you was "but".  Unscintillating (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: "Yet it is puzzling to me why editors at the RfC would call for having an 'information page' tag, and yet while the RfC is still underway, the [disputed] tag is taken down and there is no objection", there is no contradiction. The disputed tag is to tell the reader to take care because there is something about the page that is disputed and thus possibly untrustworthy. It isn't there to count coup in a dispute over which tag to use. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Above comment struck out because, despite the title of this section being about removing the disputed notice, Unscintillating was talking about something else.[1] At least I think that this is the case; his comment on my talk page[2] could mean pretty much anything. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It is puzzling to me that people that showed up at the RfC and expressed an opinion, had no issues when the information page tag that they said that they wanted, was removed.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • What do people think about the solution proposed by the userpage draft, which removes the disputed tag and the essay, and replaces them with two sentences in a note at the bottom?  Unscintillating (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Unscintillating, you have restored the "factually disputed" tag yet again without posting here what it is you are disputing. I get it that you do not approve of this page, but you cannot use the "factual dispute" tag as a permanent banner of your disapproval unless you have a specific, actionable, factual inaccuracy to bring to our attention. Your edit summary talks about "GNG centric" and "disorientating newbies". Neither of those things are issues of fact. Surely you are not going to force another RfC to settle this? SpinningSpark 09:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Using the word "you" eight times does not make you "we".  Unscintillating (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I used the term "disorienting newbies" in the edit comment to tone down what I really meant, which was "deceive newbies".  The disputed tag protects the pedia from editors from being deceived, as is specifically stated above as a rationale for the tag.  The general rule is that tags improve articles, so why you are so revved up to remove a functional tag has not been clear, and has led to the appearance that you are unconcerned about deceiving newbies.  BUT, your own userpage draft has two sentences in a note at the bottom that seem to send the same message as is now done by the disputed tag.  I am returning this conversation to the topic at hand, which is a proposal to use those two sentences.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • What do people think about the solution proposed by the userpage draft, which removes the disputed tag and the essay, and replaces them with two sentences in a note at the bottom?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I cannot see a factual difference between User:Spinningspark/42 and WP:The answer to life, the universe, and everything (diff). However, Spinningspark's page looks good, and I would support using it to replace this page (presumably, with the two categories). Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I see a factual difference - "Significant coverage is required to show that the subject is notable" is not always true; "In most cases significant coverage is required to show that the subject is notable" is. I see the disclaimers at the bottom, but I'm not sure the issue with being factual in the first place? Mind you, I'd even support "In almost all cases...." :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    • The purpose of maintenance tags is to encourage the improvement of pages, they are not an improvement in and of themselves and should thus be considered temporary until the problem can be resolved. Are you indicating that you would accept my userspace version (which, by the way, I never intended as a proposed replacement) as addressing your concerns? If so, the problem is probably solved. SpinningSpark 10:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • In this instance, I have no current reason to think that this dispute will be, can be, or should be "resolved".  People indicate that they want this page as simplified information, not as the real deal.  I hadn't intended to suggest the entire replacement of the page, rather the specific changes as listed.  I don't doubt that the problem is "probably solved", but so far we are not on the same page as to what the proposal is.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Bold rewrite

OK, since Unscintillating and I don't seem to making any progress here, I figure it's time to finally bring this up on the talk page. Do people like his idiosyncratic style? Specifically, I'm referring to the "We need WP:N notability" thing. I do not. I have never before seen anyone talk like that on Wikipedia. I think it's ugly, needlessly verbose, and incredibly confusing. We should speak in complete, grammatically-correct sentences. I can't even comprehend how his style makes any sense, and I think it will only confuse anyone who reads this. Since it's mostly newer users who will be sent here, I think it is critically important that it remain easy to understand and read. I don't usually get involved in these kinds of dramatic edit wars, but I really do like to use this page in AfD discussions, and when it looks like this, I can't really use it any more. And, yes, I've read WP:NOT42, and I don't really care. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the question is: Do we want to use this page as a way to introduce new editors to "Wiki-shorthand" or not? Personally, I would like this page to be a simple explanation of the 3 "yellow" items at the top of the page. By the way, I sometimes talk in Wiki-shorthand. If I didn't expect the person I was talking to to know what the shorthand was, I might "define" it the first time I used it, as in "Per WP:N (Wikipedia's notability guidelines), ... To recap, when writing in Wikipedia, it's critical to keep WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS in mind." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit erratic; though I try to avoid speaking overmuch in jargon, I use it often when I know my audience will understand me. However, randomly sprinkling boldface jargon throughout the article is a crime against readability. If people really and truly feel an overwhelming necessity to use this document to introduce readers to Wikipedia jargon, they should do it in footnotes (or the Notes section). Preferably, they'd just do it in a different place entirely. It's beyond the scope of this document to define Wikipedia jargon. This is a primer on concepts, not Wikipedia shorthand. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • [post moved below] 00:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • [post moved below] 00:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • [post moved below] 00:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • [post moved below] 00:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • There is an issue that a sentence was removed that doesn't mention "essay" with the edit comment, "No consensus to state whether it's an essay or not."  Unscintillating (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
If "idiosyncratic" bothers you, I won't use it any more. I'm idiosyncratic, too, sometimes. At any rate, the issue is not whether you're allowed to do anything. You're free to what you will, as long as it doesn't impact on readability or violate consensus. The reason why I removed your "it's not policy" line was because we just had an RfC on that issue, and it ended with no consensus. I don't see any need to revisit that issue; let's just let it go. As far as the WP:N thing, this page links to the relevant guideline/policy, which clearly defines it. There are plenty of other pages that go into excruciating detail, and I'd like to have at least one minimalist page that I can link to. Cluttering it with unnecessary jargon defeats the purpose, in my opinion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
This is not a [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|Wikipedia policy or guideline]]; please defer to such in a case of inconsistency with this page.
The exact sentence from User:Unscintillating/42 is:
*This document is not a [[WP:Policies and guidelines|[WP:Policies and guidelines]]] '''policy or guideline'''.
The exact sentence most recently removed from the Project Page is:
*This document is not a policy or guideline, see [[WP:Policies and guidelines]].
I don't prefer the version in the template for various minor reasons, but it has the benefit of being what the RfC supported.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, if we're going to have any kind of notice, I'd prefer the official template; it gives solid advice. It also avoids unnecessary boldface and speaks in plain English. If you want to re-add that to the top, I don't have any problem with that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I asked twice about why Template:Information page was removed during the RfC and I didn't get a reply.  It seems that the !votes for the template weren't all that committed to keeping the template on the page.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • One of the issues here is how (or if) to bring out the Wikilinks for new editors.  One of my experiences as a newbie, was that of hovering my mouse along the lines of text in WP:N looking for the Wikilinks.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • There is an issue with using the English term "notability" without modification, when what is meant is a concept defined by WP:N.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • There is an issue with the use of "WP:GNG", "WP:N", and "WP:V", as if these are terms reserved for the use of insiders.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • There is an issue in that "WP:" is proposed as forbidden in all forms.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Are these unresolved to your satisfaction? I'm not sure what to say; I feel that I've addressed them. I like a clean and concise style; it's got a link to the definition; I don't care what you do; and I don't care what you do. If you prod me, you might get a more verbose answer, but it all comes down to minimalism and readability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Shortcuts

A recent edit added a bunch of redirects:

There is no benefit from a long list like that. Which should be shown on the page? Johnuniq (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it's just more clutter on the one Wikipedia-space page that needs to be kept free of clutter. Personally, I like WP:42, it's easy to remember, but failing that WP:ANS. Also, it's another candidate to go in the notes, this is the last thing the target audience needs to read. SpinningSpark 00:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I feel quite apathetic about this. But it should at least be modified to remove the "policy" language, which incorrectly insinuates that this page is a policy or guideline. Nevermind. I fixed it myself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:The_answer_to_life,_the_universe,_and_everything/Archive_2&oldid=1084182769"