Wikipedia talk:The answer to life, the universe, and everything: Difference between revisions

Archives (Index)

1 2 3

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Changes 6 Jan 2015

The changes today have been reverted. No doubt the changes should have been discussed here beforehand, but I thought they improved the page. In particular: (1) just have 3 sections to correspond with the 3 highlighted phrases, (2) no need to restrict it to topics not covered by a subject-specific guideline (how's a newbie going to know about that?) if we refer to the more general notability page: Noyster (talk), 12:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You need to check the archives of this page for previous discussions. A lot of the current form is the result of long debates here. In particular, the page has, in the past, been heavily criticised for making it seem the GNG is the only notability guideline. The verifiability section is there because otherwise users will be given the impression that non-independent sources cannot be used at all. The one thing I would agree with in your edit is that GNG is jargon and should be replaced. I also think that the tangential stuff (from "See also" downwards) should be small-printed, but that would need discussing first also. SpinningSpark 13:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Spinningspark

1. It wasn't my edit (and I wouldn't have advised repeating it just yet)
2. The text about verifiability was retained
3. The change dropped the link to WP:GNG and linked to the more general WP:N, from where you can get to both GNG and the subject-specific ones (in the prominently placed navbox): Noyster (talk), 16:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, it wasn't you. I'm not so concerned with the substance of the change, but more concerned with preventing another outbreak of edit warring on a policy page (albeit an unofficial one) and having the page plastered with dispute templates. SpinningSpark 19:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Be...anyone, I agree with the general thrust of your edit. 4 sections for 3 highlighted terms is bizarre, and it struck me as horribly wrong when I saw it here. The level-2 header for Notability simply must go. That being said, please follow WP:BRD. You're a good editor, I'm surprised you reinstated your change. At least you didn't do it a third time. I agree with striking any reference to GNG or its horridly capitalized complete spelling, General Notability Guideline — that phrase should die in a fire. You should leave the Notes and See Also as two separate sections, the way they were. That wasn't broken, don't fix it. And rather than just critiquing and being unclear while doing so, I'm going to take my life into my hands here and try to boldly implement the change I want to see. I'll probably be reverted, but that way the fix I suggest will be clearly visible for anyone who wishes to see it. Jsharpminor (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

My proposed change is, unless it has been reverted, live on the page now. Jsharpminor (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems like an improvement. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, especially the removal of the bit about subject-specific guidelines. Reyk _YO! 06:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The big problem with your edit is that you have taken out the statement that non-independent sources can be used for verification. This was an important part of the compromise with those wanting this page gone, or, if they can't have it gone, leave it permanently tagged as disputed. Removing it runs the risk of opening up old wounds and starting an unnecessary dispute all over again. This was the whole reason for the additional section and it needs to be put back in. However, this might do it without introducing a fourth section;

We need independent sources. Not: articles written by the topic, paid for by the topic, their website, or press releases. Non-independent sources may be used to verify that Wikipedia articles are not just made up, but there must still be some independent sources.

I have here dropped the link to referencing for beginners. It is not so important that newbies correctly format their references. The essential thing we want to get across is that they must have references of the correct nature. SpinningSpark 08:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I like your suggestion, but I suggest wording similar to

We need independent sources. Not: articles written by the topic, paid for by the topic, their website, or press releases. Non-independent sources may be used to verify that Wikipedia articles are not just made up, but only independent sources can show that the topic has attracted enough notice to be covered here.

I would also suggest removing the link to "Don't cite 42 at AfD", because IMO that essay is vague, unhelpful, and inaccurate. Reyk _YO! 08:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess that reads better. I honestly don't care if WP:NOT42 is linked here or not. However, it would be somewhat amusing to create an essay called WP:NOTNOT42 that says not to cite NOT42 at AfD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we do need to make it clear that the independent sources are not only there for verification, but as an essential condition of notability. Can we crisp up Reyk's text a bit? We need independent sources. Not: articles written by the topic, paid for by the topic, their website, or press releases. Coverage in independent sources shows that the topic has attracted wider attention. Non-independent sources may added as well, to help verify facts: Noyster (talk), 10:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we need to beat them over the head like that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Ninja, how is that beating anyone over the head, any more than the version just above where you said "I guess that reads better"? I was merely expressing the same thing in fewer words: Noyster (talk), 11:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the page already bludgeons them with yellow highlighting and gratuitous boldface. I prefer a concise, three sentence version. Reyk's version was a bit wordy, but I think it was closer to my preference. How about this: We need independent sources. Not: articles written by the topic, paid for by the topic, their website, or press releases. Non-independent sources may be used to verify facts, but only independent sources can demonstrate wider attention. It combines both his version and yours in fewer words than either. Maybe it's too concise, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

SpinningSpark 21:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the new wording conveys exactly what I wanted to say but more concisely. Reyk _YO! 06:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Wait, some people want this page deleted? Are you kidding? This essay is the number one thing I point to when I'm trying to talk about notability. The reason this essay doesn't need a section called "notability" is because the entire thing is the answer to how to determine notability, in 20 words or less. It's the number one page I point people to when discussing the topic. If this page is gonna be nuked, let me know before it happens so I can userfy it and point people to it in my userspace. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not in any real danger. The nomination ended in "snow keep". I don't think I even bothered to vote. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not the page that many people have wanted to "nuke" it's the title. It's an embarrassment. Like Jsharp I often want to link this page for new editors, and I want them to take one look and react "Ah, I get it now" and not "WTF?" It's meant for newbies, and why should they know or care about ancient WP traditions? I won't revive my move proposal at this stage, as it did not achieve consensus, but if anyone wants to propose a different sensible title they'll have my full support. Oh, by the way, I'm happy with the latest proposed rewording, my thanks to Reyk and Ninja: Noyster (talk), 09:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You could use WP:42 for this page, it works only for older folks who get connection. Redirect WP:ANS to Wikipedia:Everything_you_need_to_know#Notability for others, and blank WP:Golden rule for a spare. Three shortcuts for one page buried in an extraneous #Notes section instead of {{shortcut|WP:42}} are suspicious. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@SpinningSpark: please check WP:OWN. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If you have something to say, please say it. Many watchers such as myself are grateful that SpinningSpark is fixing changes that do not improve this page. Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

One line above + edit history, three shortcuts are too much, and WP:42 not in the normal position is also wrong. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

When this was last discussed it was agreed to move the shortcuts to the notes. Regarding the silly WP:OWN accusation, although I originally made this suggestion, it was not me who changed the page. The whole purpose of this page is to give a very short message in the simplest possible language to new editors who have written an article that does not comply with our criteria for inclusion. We really don't want anything else that could be a distraction. Knowledge of shortcuts is a benefit to established editors who might want to refer to the page, they are of no use at all to the target audience of the page. Hence, it makes sense to have an exception in this case, if indeed this non-policy, non-guideline, non-essay page is actually an exception: it is more along the lines of nutshell summary of several policy/guideline pages and we don't put shortcuts inside nutshells. SpinningSpark 09:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a legitimate point. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

So far four contributors tried to fix the ridiculous shortcut issue on the project page, but I certainly support to have no links to talk page archives…<shudder /> –Be..anyone (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with showing only one "official" shortcut, but let's agree on what that should be first. I'm also happy with that shortcut being WP:42, as the recent edit tried to make it, but other's have objected to that in the past so it is best to leave a choice for now until there is consensus on an acceptable single shortcut. SpinningSpark 16:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Noyster:, please re-target ANS to Everything_you_need_to_know#Notability for your non-humorous purposes. The edit history of Golden rule might be bad enough for a deletion RFD. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Golden rule listed at Redirects for discussion. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Now archived, JFTR. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Golden rule?

I don't understand. Why does WP:GoldenRule redirect to here? I thought there was a page about how to treat others (and I'm not talking about WP:Civil). --Musdan77 (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Notes

I hadn't noticed this essay previously until it was just recently cited in an AfD discussion. I like it a lot because I feel our deletion rationale is too complex and filled with favoratism for subjects our editor demographics prefer to cover. A few random comments/suggestions from giving it a first look:

• "Articles generally require significant coverage... that are independent of the topicevent" (to be consistent with the language used in policy)
• we need several multiple (even WP:CORP only requires two if they are in-depth) I think this would also be improved by saying that generally, the article subject should be the primary focus of multiple articles that are longer than 300-400 words (not blurbs).
• I think the independent sources section needs to be re-written/clarified, as it focuses excessively on material published by a person or company, whereas say a press release from the government or a corporate partner is equally as poor of a source. Also, if the subject of the article is say a rare breed of dog that has not attracted any attention, but say a personal blog is used, the whole concept of sources published by the article-subject doesn't make any sense (the dog didn't publish the sources). The current description seems to be giving a very narrow definition of primary sources.

Just my few thoughts at-a-glance. Full disclosure, I do have a COI with many orgs. CorporateM (Talk) 19:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:N talks about topics, not events (except when discussing articles explicitly about events). SpinningSpark 23:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Aw - I was looking at WP:PRIMARY, which uses the term "the event". From what I can tell, WP:N is referring to the article-subject as "the topic". This does not seem sufficiently broad, because many primary sources are not affiliated with the article-subject. CorporateM (Talk) 16:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Essay or information page?

This page is in the categories essay AND informational (a rare feat). People are being directed here from other spaces as if this is a policy when in reality it is a summary of guideline. I am not particularly attached to either essay or information template but new users, in particular, should not be reading this as policy. We specifically template policies, guidelines, information pages and essays so that editors are not confused. This page needs template that tells the editor very clearly what exactly this page is. Lacking a template leaves the impression of deception considering virtually every other page in these spaces has one including the WP:GNG page that is being summarized. --DHeyward (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The "information page" template got moved to the bottom of the page, moved to the top of the page, replaced by an essay tag, reverted back to an information tag, reverted back to essay, reverted back to information, tagged as "factually inaccurate", nominated for deletion, and speedily kept. The drama then migrated to WP:ANI, and the tag got lost in the ensuing edit wars after new editors discovered the drama. After that point, most of us got sick and tired of the drama, and we just revert whatever tags get put on it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)