Talk:Torchwood Magazine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doctor Who WikiProject
Doctor Who Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or 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.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on February 29, 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Is it Titan's house style not to indicate who has written an individual article?

[edit] Notability

Notability guidelines state: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It is a national magazine that receives significant coverage in various areas of the media (scifi.com and OutpostGallifrey spring to mind, but you can Google for it). Stephenb (Talk) 14:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The notability guidelines include Wikipedia:NOTABLE#Notability_requires_objective_evidence. It's part of WP:V. This article has no references. None. Let alone any that establish this magazine's notability. In fact, as far as I know, this alleged magazine doesn't actually exist, but I'm assuming it's not an elaborate ruse ;-)
See what I mean? As I said in the edit comment, that's not the point of the notability tag. As discussed in the AfD, this article is being kept so that editors can improve it. One of the improvements should be to state why it's notable ... richi (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't see what you mean. Not having any references is not the same as notability. No references in the article simply means that the article cannot reference its content, NOT that the object of the article itself is not notable. Of course the magazine exists - there's a website for it. There is no need that I can see to state (further) why it is notable - it is a UK national magazine about a well-known TV show, though I agree it needs citations and references. That is - it's notability is a given (to me), per the sentence I quote above, but the article content needs further work. Your tag suggests that the article should be deleted if that doesn't happen, which I think is bad faith. I really don't understand your problem with the article, after both PRODing it and nominating it for deletion! It seems to be some kind of vendetta... At least two editors (myself and UpDown) disagree with you, you seem to be in a minority so far, so unless you can muster more support here, I will remove the tag again in due course. Stephenb (Talk) 15:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
NB: I would replace it with {{Citations needed}} which I think is closer to what's required. Stephenb (Talk) 15:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Stephen, I'm going to risk sounding patronising here -- please accept my apologies if I do, it's not intended.
It's not enough for the subject of an article to be notable -- the article must also explain why. Simply stated:
  1. Wikipedia:NOTABLE#Notability_requires_objective_evidence states that an article must express why its topic is notable
  2. It also states that the article provide references to back up those assertions of notability.
  3. This article does not currently assert notability by linking to secondary sources (a link to the publisher's Web site is insufficient).
  4. It's not notable just because you say so -- that would be mere original research -- it must be verifiably notable.
  5. In the AfD, it was suggested that concerned editors of this article should add references that assert notability, yet I can't see that any have been added. I tagged the article to remind you that this is a necessary part of a Wikipedia article.
  6. For the record, I have no opinion one way or another about this particular topic, but I do care about verifiability -- it's the main weapon against those who pooh-pooh WP as a source.
Sorry for the long-winded reply, but I'd assumed before that you were familiar with WP:V and WP:NOTABLE ... richi (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(De-indent)Yes, you sound both patronising (especially the last bit) and, more crucially, wrong:

  1. There is already enough to establish notability, objectively, and Wikipedia:NOTABLE#Notability_requires_objective_evidence does not require the why. something is notable, just that there is "verifiable objective evidence" - and there is. Re-read it again.
  2. I cannot find any mention of "back up those assertions of notability" in the article you quote.
  3. If there is original research in the article, tag it as such, but that does NOT make the article non-notable
  4. It is not just I that claims it is notable, nor am I claiming it is notable just "because I say so". Where did I claim that? I do say it is notable because it satisfies the general guideline: ""A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Right at the top of WP:NOTABLE. Again, I make no claim that the article is perfect and doesn't need citations. Its the citations that are required, and that's why {{Citations needed}} would satisfy your problems with the article more succinctly.
  5. Again, notability has been established. What hasn't is parts of the content of the article.
  6. Yes, caring about verifiability is fine, but that is different to notability. This is the difference I am trying to impress upon you. I have no doubt that the article contains information that needs citations, though most of it is verifiable simply by buying the magazine, which ought to be enough (!).

So, whether or not I am familiar with WP:V is irrelevant to the notability of the article (or this discussion). And I argue that this easily meets WP:NOTABLE. Sorry, please find someone else to back up your argument; I still intend to replace that tag with something more appropriate, that doesn't suggest that it isn't notable and may eventually be deleted. Stephenb (Talk) 17:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, my numbering got a bit out of step there, but per your point 3 - I never said that the website does establish notability, I was just replying to your comment In fact, as far as I know, this alleged magazine doesn't actually exist, but I'm assuming it's not an elaborate ruse. Nice bit of sophistry, though. Stephenb (Talk) 18:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I really can't accept your reading of the guideline. However, thank you for fixing the article so that it follows the guideline.
For what it's worth:
  • Notability requires objective evidence: "the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability" -- in other words, reliable sources. The only external link in the article was to the publisher's Web site, which is only a primary source, not verifiable.
  • In effect, {{Notability}} is a superset of {{Citations needed}}.
  • Wikipedia:NOTABLE#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines suggests what to do in these situations. That's the widely-accepted guideline I followed in adding the tag, this is hardly a one-man crusade. I don't know much about Torchwood publications, so I'm not qualified to fix the article, hence the tag.
  • I didn't say the article has OR, simply that your assertion that this is an important publication constitutes OR.
    • Suggesting the reader Google it is asking for OR.
  • Naturally I'm too old and thick-skinned to rise to your suggestion that I'm being deceptive.
Truly, this isn't some weird interpretation of WP:N, it's the standard that has been used to speedily delete many articles. With a project as complex and wide-ranging as WP, you gotta have these sort of guidelines that express how the community wishes things to be ... richi (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the lecture, but I still believe you're interpreting that guideline too narrowly, and, in some cases, incorrectly. I won't expand on how I think elitism and over-emphasis on such such topics as notability are dissuading Wikipedia editors from contributing. But I'm glad you seem happy now... :) Stephenb (Talk) 19:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh be nice. I tend to agree with you about notability going too far, but the guideline sprang from Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. In other words, being discriminate ... richi (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I also think that is rather bad faith of an editor to nominate an article for deletion, and then when it survives it (as a keep not a no censensus I might add) adds backs a notablity tag straight away. That strikes me as someone who is unwilling to accept community decisions, which is very worrying. --UpDown (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Be careful not to conflate notability with evidence of notability. As the AfD itself pointed out, the article at that time did not reference such evidence. The tag was a reminder that the guideline still wasn't being followed -- that's what the tag's there for ... richi (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beer

Anyone fancy a beer? ... richi (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that some elitist in-joke, hmm? :) Stephenb (Talk) 19:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger with List of Torchwood comics

Merge agree this is a good idea. Helps not to dilute notability ... richi (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that article strikes me as not being particularly notable ;) Stephenb (Talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is something I had thought about. There is no reason to have two articles, one merged article will be a lot better.--UpDown (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Despite initially separating the two; in lieu of the recent scrapping over notability, I think this would be a great temporary solution until both articles are ready to spread their wings and become fully fledged articles.
Merge Clockwork Apricot (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge - it'd help flesh out this article (although FYI those tables need to go - see WP:WTUT). (Emperor (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC))