The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. The emerging consensus is that this phone number is prominently associated with the business, which is the target of this redirect and discussed at the target article.
Deryck C.16:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Wil540 art makes a good point. I think we should Keep the redirect. Wil540 art, is "(917)692-2706" the best name for this?
https://callme917.com/ has some merchandise that uses "(917)692-2706" and some that uses "917-692-2706". Which variant does Alex Olson use the most? --
Guy Macon (
talk)
17:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Thank you
Guy Macon. Good point, there are two versions of the number. I believe (917)692-2706 is the better entry if there is to be only one. I think the parenthesis version is more common. --
Wil540 art (
talk)
17:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)reply
I respectfully disagree. In professional skateboarding, a sponsor is closer to what a team is in MLB, NFL, NBA, etc. Not all skaters compete in contests. Please read the last paragraph on page 139 continued onto 140, this from a men's fashion and lifestyle biannual from the United Kingdom, talking about the "(917)692-2706" project.
http://www.clappingworld.com/editorial/olson.pdf --
Wil540 art (
talk)
23:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Redirect (917)692-2706 and 917-692-2706 to Alex Olson#Call Me 917 I think that there is a good chance that some readers will see the number on T-shirts or skateboards and come here looking for information on it. I don't see it as being any more promotional than most things about skateboarding culture. Context matters. --
Guy Macon (
talk)
18:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
First, I don't think anybody objects to the idea that all of these should direct to the same target. So the question is: should these redirect to
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC or
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Mail? To me it's clearly the latter, because it contains a summary of and a link to the RfC. I don't think people expect to see an archived discussion when clicking on a shortcut (cf.
WP:ASTONISH). A shortcut to an archived RfC is also disadvantageous because there's no way to know if the result of the RfC is still effective. I just don't see how a shortcut to an archived discussion can be beneficial, unless the name of the shortcut clearly indicates that.
Nardog (
talk)
04:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Redirect all to the RfC The editors who have used this redirect (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/?search=%22per+WP%3ADAILYMAIL%22 and try playing around with a few alternate ways of saying the same thing) have mostly pointed readers at the RfC, not to our identifying reliable sources/perennial sources page (they tend to use WP:RSP when referring to that page). This is a contentious topic, with The Daily Mail working hard to accuse Wikipedia of wrongdoing. Redirecting to a page that says "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community" just gives TDM one more thing to misinterpret. Many editors have written things like "per WP:DAILYMAIL, we don't consider that a reliable source." or "Daily Mail is not a RS as per WP:DAILYMAIL" -- clearly wishing the reader to go to the page where it was decided, not to an explanatory page. If the RfC is ever overturned, we can edit the redirects to point to the new RfC, and we can add a note to the old RfC (which is allowed, even on archived pages) pointing to the new RfC. --
Guy Macon (
talk)
06:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Redirect all to the RfC as per the above comment. The RfC is the place people will be looking for, as it gives proper information and consensus on the subject.
Joseph2302 (
talk)09:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Redirect all to the RfC. I would welcome a page that contains the clarifications that the closers made later, but not an essay containing irrelevant matters and changeable opinions.
Peter Gulutzan (
talk)
16:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)reply
How about creating a dedicated page that just contains links to the "34 previous discussions and two RfCs" (and a link the the Daily mail section at
WP:RSP) but doesn't contain the information about dozens of other sites or the editorializing? --
Guy Macon (
talk)
16:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The actual policy (which has been extensively vetted by many editors) says:
"The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article."
the explanatory page (which has far fewer eyes on it) says:
"
Context matters tremendously when determining the reliability of sources, and their appropriate use on Wikipedia. Sources which are generally unreliable may still be useful in some situations. For example, even extremely low quality sources such as social media, may sometimes
be used as self-published sources for routine information about the subject themselves. Conversely, some otherwise high quality sources may not be reliable for highly technical subjects that fall well outside their normal
circle of competence, and even very high quality sources may occasionally make errors, or retract pieces they have published in their entirety. Even considering content published by a single source, some may represent high quality professional journalism, while others may be merely opinion pieces, that represent mainly the personal views of the author, and depend on their personal reliability as a source. Be especially careful with
native advertising, also known as sponsored content, because while these are usually unreliable as sources, they are designed to appear otherwise."
That last bit about native advertising/sponsored content is true and is useful, but it isn't in the policy that the page is supposed to be "an
explanatory supplement to". Adding policies in explanatory supplements that are not found in the policy pages they purportedly explain -- no matter how useful or how true -- is editorializing. One easy way to identify such additions to policy is that they link to Wikipedia pages such as
native advertising instead of to a specific section of a specific policy. What we don't want is editors using language like "per WP:DAILYMAIL" when WP:DAILYMAIL links to an explanatory page that contains an added pseudopolicy (or possibly a real policy that the page doesn't bother linking to.) --
Guy Macon (
talk)
17:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)reply
OK, perhaps the native advertising advice and anything else which is not rooted in policy or guidelines should be removed until it can undergo a discussion at WP:RS.
GreenMeansGo wrote most of it, so perhaps he has some thoughts on the matter.-
MrX 🖋
17:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Probably the only substantive part of that I didn't write is the native advertising part; I just tweaked the wording a bit, and I don't have any strong opinion about whether that bit stays or goes. I'd like to think that most everything else is a fair summary of PGs, or otherwise covered by COMMONSENSE. I do however feel fairly strongly that we need some sort of broad explanation in RSPS, to inform readers how the list is made and its intended use, most importantly, that it's not a tool that's intended to be a substitute for, or employed in the absence of thought.
GMGtalk17:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Redirect all to the RfC - If we were starting from scratch, we would redirect everything to "Perennial sources". However, in this case WP:DAILYMAIL has already been used extensively to link to the RfC, and we shouldn't be changing the meaning of these existing links. "WP:DAILY MAIL" and "WP:Daily Mail" are only used a handful of times and can be switched without affecting the intended meaning. –
dlthewave☎16:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Redirect all to the RfC When I created, for example, the redirect
DAILY MAIL to the RfC, I didn't realize that some other editors had changed the same to the perennial proposal. As said by other editors, this should be pointed to the RfC and so should other redirects; that is, until The Daily Mail becomes essential reading at schools, post which I shall chew my shoes on Insta live.
Lourdes02:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.