Talk:Weight Watchers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] More information?
Would it be possible to add some more information about how Weight Watchers is viewed by professional nutritionists and the like? As it is, the article seems to not really include anything about the success or efficacy of the program when compared with other dieting methods, and I think that such things would be both interesting and relevant. - Rikoshi 22:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I lost five stone!! just saying... well done me Skinny
We need to add how they hound peop;e for publishing there points data on the web because they want to make money out of fat people.
Formula for Kilojoules - Where I live (New Zealand) the programme bases points on Kilojoules and Saturated Fat only, Fibre is not taken into account, nor is total fat. The Formula here is therefore fairly useless for finding points values. However based on a UK Patent (number 2302606) I have determined a formula that seems to work... p = (KJ/300)+(SatFat/4.15) p is rounded to the nearest half, values from 0.25 to 0.74999 become 0.5. This formula seems to generate results that are consistant with those produced by my WeightWatchers brand points calculator. I don't know whether this would be of use to include in the article however.
The Becky Hamilton remark seems odd -- makes no sense whatsoever. It either needs a citation or needs to be deleted. Could it possibly be vandalism?
[edit] Sources
Although you have mentioned in the text where you have got your information from, is it passable to add references to the materials that you have used? (at the end of the document)
--Perskyro 01:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] External links
Today I removed a lot of links. There is some controversy on these two links Weight Watchers tips and Analysis of the Weight Watchers points formula . I don't care if the links was included last week or two years ago, but only WP:EL should be the source of what include and what not. Anyway:
- The second link as fewer information that this article. It doesn't give the reader anything news, so it should be removed.
- The first one: The information are not in the article, anyway I don't see how it is acceptable per WP:EL. Cate | Talk 16:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Firstly, the "link as fewer information than this article" is because my link was the ORIGINAL SOURCE for the information in the article! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alight (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
- If it is the source, put it as reference (WP:V) and not as external sources (WP:EL)! But I'm not sure it is a valid reference, what do the other contributors think about this? Cate | Talk 20:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- ...and why is it not a "valid reference"? The information in the main article was lifted right out of the page in question.Alight 21:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- per WP:V. I didn't write the wikipedia policy, but because of last scandals about reliability of wikipedia, it seems that rules about references should be stricter. Anyway I think it is a long term project. Check WP:V and eventually discuss in that page. I'm not an expert. (BTW, I expect that shortly someone will put a lot of request fact template in article (as it happens now in a lot of article). Anyway, if it is a reference, put it as reference. Cate | Talk 08:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- ...and why is it not a "valid reference"? The information in the main article was lifted right out of the page in question.Alight 21:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- If it is the source, put it as reference (WP:V) and not as external sources (WP:EL)! But I'm not sure it is a valid reference, what do the other contributors think about this? Cate | Talk 20:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- As to your 2nd point about ("the first one"). I honestly don't understand what you mean by "the information are not in the article." Is that not the point of an external link? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alight (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
- I don't understand why the link is usefull for the article (we are an enciclopedia, not an how-to, blog, opinions,...). The main concern I have: the links seems to personal page. No references, no assertion on why the pages are so important and nothing about correctness. So what do the links add to a wiki user more that a normal google search?. Cate | Talk 20:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- They relate directly, explicitly and add to the information found in the article in question. Much in the same way that the web sites listed (for example) under "Other Links" in the Jeep article do. Also, it's not a personal page, it's not about me, it's not a blog, etc. It's a page about the Weight Watchers Program, which is what the Wikipedia article is about. Alight 21:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know. I deleted it because I cleaned the external link section, and this link seemed as the other: spam or non relevant to article. Anyway you don't give valid reason. wikipedia is NOT a collection of links about the subject. Again: check WP:EL and give us a valid reason for the link. I'm not again links per se, but you don't give us why the links are relevant to the wikipedia project. Cate | Talk 08:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but please read my point above. The links provided relate directly, explicitly and exclusively to the subject of the Wikipedia article, and in one case even constitute the source of information found in the article. I do think it's kind of rude to lift content from my link (without attribution) and then delete the link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alight (talk • contribs) 12:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
- I don't know. I deleted it because I cleaned the external link section, and this link seemed as the other: spam or non relevant to article. Anyway you don't give valid reason. wikipedia is NOT a collection of links about the subject. Again: check WP:EL and give us a valid reason for the link. I'm not again links per se, but you don't give us why the links are relevant to the wikipedia project. Cate | Talk 08:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- They relate directly, explicitly and add to the information found in the article in question. Much in the same way that the web sites listed (for example) under "Other Links" in the Jeep article do. Also, it's not a personal page, it's not about me, it's not a blog, etc. It's a page about the Weight Watchers Program, which is what the Wikipedia article is about. Alight 21:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand why the link is usefull for the article (we are an enciclopedia, not an how-to, blog, opinions,...). The main concern I have: the links seems to personal page. No references, no assertion on why the pages are so important and nothing about correctness. So what do the links add to a wiki user more that a normal google search?. Cate | Talk 20:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Firstly, the "link as fewer information than this article" is because my link was the ORIGINAL SOURCE for the information in the article! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alight (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
- I read your comment. If your site is a reference, add in the references list. External links is not a list of references. (personally I didn't edit the article, so I could not add the references, but if you are sure that the pages was the references, please add it). Yes it was rude, but the previous external links section was horrible, and I followe the rule be bold on edits. Anyway you don't read the policy links I wrote. The links provided relate directly, explicitly and exclusively to the subject is absolutely not a valid reason for a link. If it is a reference, put it as reference, if it is useful per over WP:EL rules, add again the link. Cate | Talk 14:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] open office formula, calling formula complex edit[1]
I removed the open office formula, because I feel that if you include one properity formula, you should include all forms of other formula types. I also removed the statement that formula is complex, because I don't think that we should assume what the math level of the reader is. To me the formula looks about grade 5 level (Its adding/subtracting fractions for crying out loud). I also removed the word US, as, although suprising as this is, other countries (At the very least canada) in the world label their foods with how many calories, how much fibre etc. Bawolff 03:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
