Talk:Super Twins/Archive 1

Please do NOT use blogs as references

Per Wikipedia:verifiability and Wikipedia: No original research, please do not use blogs and other similarly self-published materials as reference materials for this and any article on Wikipedia. --- Tito Pao 17:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Blog sources on the "negative reaction of the local blogosphere" transfered to External Links / Further Reading

Further readings / External Links to these blogs are important to verify the claim of "negative reactions of the local blogosphere" (Coolzone 18:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Still not allowed. Please read the guidelines about verifiability and no original research. --- Tito Pao 18:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Blogs can be at external links

I've seen countless wiki entries with blogs in external links. (Coolzone 18:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

'READ THE GUIDELINES. If you find blog links on other wiki entries, delete it. --- Tito Pao 18:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of said blog entries:

1) Violates NPOV (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)

2) Only mentions three blogs. Three blogs do not make a sizale sample that would illustrate "negative reactions of the local blogosphere".

3) The blogs would have been acceptable had they been written by people who are knowledgeable about GMA network, television programming and/or anime/manga. But Mike Abundo is a "Vice-President for Emerging Technologies of the Philippine Internet Commerce Society, identifying and analyzing nascent IT trends of potential benefit to the Filipino people. He also writes for PC Magazine Philippines and Pinoy Tech Blog." Jepoyeng is a "Former president of AMA microsystems. President and CEO of BengerOrozco Enterprises Inc. Mobile phone technology enthusiast. Video Gamer since birth. WWE Fan. Nintendo Fanatic. Star Trek Addict. Agnostic." Hence, neither blogs are qualified as references for this article. The third blog is a fan site.

The only reliable reference in this artcile is the Journal page. This is the kind of reference that Wikipedia needs. You're better off looking for articles in reputable websites like Philippine Daily Inquirer, Manila Bulletin etc.

Anon user, whoever you are, thanks a bunch. That explains everything better =) --- Tito Pao 14:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Blogs as references should be eliminated on sight, except if it's official. However, if a newspaper picks up the "blogosphere ramblings," then it can be added here, but as of now, no way. --Howard the Duck 16:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Blogs should not be used as secondary or tertiary sources. However, they can be used as primary sources, per WP:V: "Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author" section. "Material from self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material". So blogs can be used as long as whatever is referencing that blog limits its description to that blog alone. i.e. "a few commentors in blog x did not like y", but not a statement like "the community does not like y" as the blog representing the community is OR. Of course, if info from an unaffiliated, unofficial blog is being used as a source for facts (as they were in this case), cull away. Shrumster 21:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

Since the controversy section is OR and NPOV, we might as well remove it, we can readd it if someone comes up with refs. --Howard the Duck 17:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Pics

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Twins&action=edit&section=4 Image:Sailor Twins Altered.jpg and Image:Super Twins and Sailor Moon.jpg clearly came from copyrighted sources, thus can't be licensed freely. They can be used a fair use either since they're collages, ergo, the pics must be deleted. I've added those images here. --Howard the Duck 17:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I own the image caps. So use it freely okay? :) If you're unsure if the images were copyrighted, they're being distributed by GMA-7 on newsletters and emails (Jepoy)

It's not just the screencaps that Howard is referring to, but also to the clearly unlicensed image of the anime characters in sailor outfits. If you are using a screencap only, you'll need to add a different licensing tag, which was not what happened in this case. Per WP:COPY, choosing the wrong licensing tag will put your images under risk of deletion.

Even if GMA7 included these photographs, be aware that you do not own the copyrights to the photograph. GMA7 does, and surely there will be a standard sentence on the newsletter saying that GMA7 still owns the copyrights to the newsletter and all related trademark and copyrightable material. By openly claiming that you own the copyright to their images not only violates Wikipedia policies, it also violates GMA's copyrights.

In addition, if a watermark or a caption is clearly displayed within the image, that is also not allowed, so consider looking for another version of the image that doesn't have your blog's URL on it---even if the image came from your own blog.

Speaking of which...do I have to remind everyone again, for the nth time, that blogs and any other self-published materials that are not notable are NOT allowed to be used as references on the Wikipedia? --- Tito Pao 15:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This is one good example why children these days shouldn't rely on wikipedia for research ;) (Jepoy 15:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

Take note of this page ;) By the way, even "reputable" encyclopedias (such as the venerable Encyclopedia Brittanica) also has this kind of disclaimer. In the end, what is needed is everyone's sense of good, judicious judgement. --- Tito Pao 16:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is an example why children these days shouldn't rely on wikipedia for research since it has absolutely no references. --Howard the Duck 17:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The "Controversy" and "Altered Costume" sections should go. They're OR with no corroboration from a reputable source and should be removed immediately. 202.128.36.37 00:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If no one else objects I'll be removing them shortly. --Howard the Duck 11:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I just don't get it, ordinary individuals like us can minorly edit some contents at wiki without anyone questioning who we are yet, we question the obvious and still look for sources. The fact that all of us here discussing are pinoys, and the one we're discussing is way too obvious just by merely looking at it. sensya naha, nawiwierduhan lang ako (202.8.234.212 03:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia is built on three rules: No original research, Veriafiabilty and Neutral Point of View. Wikipedia is not a web forum or a message board. If you want to add information to Wikipedia you have to back it up with reliable sources no matter how obvious that information is. Those are the rules here at Wikipedia. It's not like we editors made them up or anything. 202.128.36.37 04:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, when you wrote, "...ordinary individuals like us can minorly edit some contents at wiki without anyone questioning who we are yet, we question the obvious and still look for sources", you just explained the Wikipedia rules yourself. The fact that most editors here are anonymous makes reliable sources important. For example, if you want information about dinosaurs, who would you cite...Bob Bakker or Bob Balderdash? 202.128.36.37 04:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Some things may be pretty obvious for you and for me that it's too ridiculous a point to ask for references (some examples: you can see stars with your naked eyes on a clear night; fresh grass is usually green; the Philippines is in Asia, the United Kingdom is in Europe, and the United States of America is in America). However, there are some things that may be obvious for us but not for everyone else. See WP:POPE for a tongue-in-cheek discussion of why we should be careful in assuming that something should be obvious to everyone.

Going further, please remember that what may be obvious for most Filipinos may not be obvious to an American, to a Briton, to a Japanese or maybe to a reader who lives somewhere in near the Amazon forest. They don't watch the same TV shows that we see everyday in the Philippines (at least, for you guys, since I work on a graveyard shift and I don't get to watch TV these days). These are people who may have no idea about who Jennylyn or Nadine are, much more about GMA7. Hell, I could go on and say that some of them may not even know where the Philippines is in the map! Insisting on reliable and verifiable references will tell these people that we didn't make up everything, that what we are presenting here are cold facts, not works of our minds' fiction. --- Tito Pao 13:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)