Talk:The Heroes' Code

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

It's not a spelling error; that's the album's name in Gracenote. It checks out.--John Nagle 06:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Gracenote stinks. Plus, it says "The Heroes' Code" right on the CD cover. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.100.50.141 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Disputed text discussion

On the popular website, YTMND, a portion of the song "Answers" was used in a YTMND, "Tenacious D, Demon Exterminator", and sparked the fad "Mystery Song". Eventually, the "Mystery Song" was uncovered by YTMND user Pocoloco, and supposedly won twenty dollars from orion44, a user who created a site offering twenty dollars to anyone who could discover who made the Mystery Song, entitled "$20 for mystery song name". More information on the Mystery Song can be found on the YTMND wiki site for the Mystery Song here.

This text is not appropriate without reliable sourcing to meet our policies for attribution. The YTMND Wiki pages are not reliable sources because they are self-published materials. Without a better source, this information should not be included on this article. ju66l3r 20:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Other wiki's are NOT considered to be reliable sources because they have no fact checking process and are self-published. Further, links to open wikis are to be avoided per Wikipedia's external links guidelines. If this tidbit were picked up and reported by a reliable source, the wiki could be used to provide further, in-depth info about the facts from the reliable source. Otherwise, it's a no-go. -- Pastordavid 20:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm....wait a second, wikipedia is ALSO a self-published wiki, but just happens to be the original. There is no discrepancy between this wikipedia and other wikis. Wikipedia is just as guilty as any other as being unreliable and uncheckable, this one just happens to have robots. Meddling 23:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Meddling

Actually, you are exactly right ... you'll notice that I did not make an exception for this wiki, as you also may not use THIS wiki as a WP:reliable source. Further if you click "Cite this article" in the left hand column of any article, it produces the following warning:
"IMPORTANT NOTE: Most educators and professionals do not consider it appropriate to use tertiary sources such as encyclopedias as a sole source for any information ... As with any community-built reference, there is a possibility for error in Wikipedia's content — please check your facts against multiple sources and read our disclaimers for more information."

-- Pastordavid 00:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

well, my only observation with your arguement is that it IS in fact verifiable, seeing as how you can just go to YTMND and view the YTMND's, therefore making it verified, so why dont you just go do that, k. Meddling 01:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Meddling

Forcing the reader/site user to "go...and view the YTMND" or examin other proof/evidence of something you want to include is called "original research". This is also not allowed by Wikipedia guidelines because Wikipedia is a tertiary source that can only report what others have said on the matter and not what we want to say on the subject. If the information is not covered by a reliable secondary source, then it's not permissible within Wikipedia articles. This includes not using Wiki sources (because they are not reliable) or making users examine the data first-hand (not a secondary source). ju66l3r 03:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I gotcha, so youre afraid im right, and some rules are gonna stop you...chicken Meddling 04:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Meddling

Calling people names is not a persuasive argument or foundation for consensus. Please discuss this in a mature manner if you have a reasonable case for including this content, such as reliable attribution for the statements in dispute. Otherwise, I think we're done here with consensus for keeping this text out of the article and adding this text to the article again could be construed as intentional disruption, ergo vandalism. Thanks. ju66l3r 04:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)