Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tgeorgescu (talk | contribs) at 17:23, 12 May 2021 (→Yahweh: WP:ANI#I would have expected an apology). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to the no original research noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis. Include links to the relevant article(s). Make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the no original research policy before reporting issues here. You can also post here if you are unsure whether the content is considered original research. Sections older than 28 days archived by MiszaBot II. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) Shortcuts WP:NORN WP:NOR/N WP:ORN WP:OR/N If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Misplaced Pages. For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

User-performed currency conversions

There is a discussion at Talk:List of highest-grossing R-rated films#Demon Slayer The Movie Mugen Train about whether user-performed currency conversions are WP:Routine calculations or not. This has implications for what box office gross we can report for a particular movie, since it affects which sources we can use and in what way.

My viewpoint is that they are not routine calculations, because currency conversion is not an exact science. It has furthermore been demonstrated (see the linked talk page discussion) that the method employed in this instance produces different figures than those that WP:Reliable sources (such as, in this case, Deadline Hollywood) report. Hence, I would argue, we should defer to WP:Reliable sources that directly support a given currency conversion.

Another editor disagrees, arguing that so long as we have a reliably sourced quantity in the original currency and a reliably sourced exchange rate corresponding to that point in time, we can multiply one by the other and report the result in the new currency.

For further details about the discussion so far, please see the indicated talk page section. TompaDompa (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

There is a Template:To USD (US$ is the standard on here, right?).Selfstudier (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed there is, but that's not what's being used here. Nor could it be (yet), since (part of) the gross is from this year and the template does not work for 2021 figures yet. Rather, the method that has been used here is multiplying the weekly gross in the original currency with a snapshot exchange rate sourced to a currency conversion site once a week, and then adding the results up for each week to get the total gross. Which to my eye is rather too advanced to be a WP:Routine calculation, and which is also not the method WP:Reliable sources use. It's not necessarily the "correct" way to do it (I go into more detail about other possible ways of doing it in the linked discussion), so I don't think it counts as a routine calculation (unlike, say, converting miles into kilometers where there is an inarguable correct way of doing it). TompaDompa (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I see. I don't really want to get into all the gory detail but that method you are describing is OR and susceptible to error (I doubt that sort of "accuracy" is required for the exercise anyway).Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, that it is WP:OR is the point I have been making. The reason I brought it here is that the discussion at the talk page reached what was pretty much a deadlock position where I was saying "this is WP:Original research" and the other editor was saying "no, it isn't". I suppose this settles the matter, so I'll go ahead and replace the WP:OR figures with something that is properly sourced. TompaDompa (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I am the person who also added weekly conversions from local currencies into US$ to the Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train article. First of all, I agree that the comparisons should be done not using independent wikipedia sources but rather using more general sources. But at the same time, there has been no agreement in the method of currency conversions. Indeed, many articles on films have currency conversions based on not unified methods, most of which are not claimed to be orginal researches. Actually, Crunchyroll article (US$414,385,913, 45,833,982,679 yen) as of April 5th overestimated worldwide gross in JPY. (If conversions into JPY have been calculated weekly, it is still around 43.5 billion JPY for 414 million US$, and now is still around 45 billion yen for 430 million $). I will later revert the article of Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train to the one I made, but I will not add the calculated data to this article. Anyway, if a unified agreement for the conversions of local currencies into US$ has been made, I will agree to use it. Orichalcum (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Orichalcum (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand your line of reasoning. The currency conversion is just as much WP:OR on that page as on all the other pages it has been used on. You yourself point out that there's no consensus for your method of currency conversion. Even if there were, it's not like WP:LOCALCONSENSUS overrides WP:NOR. If other pages use different methods that are also WP:OR, we should fix those pages rather than accept WP:OR on this one—see WP:OSE. The solution to widespread WP:OR is not more WP:OR. Sometimes we just have to accept that the information we would like sources to contain (in this case, currency conversions) simply can't be found—at least not yet. TompaDompa (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Orichalcum: Care to respond? TompaDompa (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

First of all, conversions of local currencies into others are not at all WP:OR if specific dates for the calculations of conversions with the appropriate website to convert are given properly. At the same time, there is no consensus for the method of currency conversions to compare in total gross revenues.

For the cumulative methods of conversions, MOJO originally provided total gross revenues in US$ by applying such conversions as I have done for Demon Slayer. Indeed, you can find them by comparing revenues in JPY and USD, for example, original releases of Spirited away in 2001 and Frozen in 2014, where total gross revenues to date never decreased. But in 2016, MOJO stopped such conversions, so decrease in total gross revenues can happen for those converted into US$ since 2016. In case of Demon Slayer, total gross revenues in US$ decreased since February, 2021 according to MOJO, although roughly 3 billion yen (roughly 25 million US$) has been actually earned in Japan. To prevent this, cumulative conversions as MOJO previously did or conversions at release dates (as used in Chinese article of Demon Slayer the Movie) can be introduced.

Anyway, I also feel that too much currency conversions are included to the article of Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train. For example, total gross revenue in each country or each continent is summarized in the article, but I think the summarized Tables are enough to get such information.

In addition, comparing gross revenues in different films by using such calculated gross revenues can be . According to the 2020 ranking in MOJO, Demon Slayer ranked 4th, without counting additional $25 million in Japan (because of change in currency rates) and $30 million (mainly for Taiwan), but both "The Eight Hundred" and "My People, my Homeland" did not count Taiwanese revenues, which are counted for "Tenet" and "Sonic the Hedgehog". This can happen because MOJO provides data provided by the distributors in USA and some western countries, while MOJO does not pay attention for others, although Taiwanese revenues and admissions are freely available. Thus, the revenue of "My People, my Homeland" can be still higher than Demon Slayer, if such data are added to the revenues. Anyway, comparisons can be reliable only when comared in the same conditions, so I think it's better to use more generalized information for the comparison in such ranking articles rather than using data in each Misplaced Pages article.Orichalcum (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Orichalcum (talk) 02:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, comaring revenues of MOJO or The NUMBERS by revising data from outside can be WP:OR, but I will not care of this.Orichalcum (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

conversions of local currencies into others are not at all WP:OR if specific dates for the calculations of conversions with the appropriate website to convert are given properly – Orichalcum, the reason we are here at WP:NORN is that this assertion is incorrect. In order for a calculation to be able to be considered to be a WP:Routine calculation, the result of the calculation has to be obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. That is very clearly not the case here. If this were a routine calculation, we would not see other sources arriving at different figures when converting the same quantities of the original currency, as indeed we do (I give a few examples of this over at Talk:List of highest-grossing R-rated films#Demon Slayer The Movie Mugen Train, relating to Deadline Hollywood and a couple of other sources). You have combined two different sources—one that gives the gross in the original currency and one that provides an exchange rate—to reach a novel conclusion which is not explicitly stated by either source, namely the gross in USD. That's textbook WP:SYNTH. Not only that, you have done this repeatedly (with various sources for various local currencies) and then combined the results to reach an even more novel conclusion. This is rather egregious.You have not presented any argument whatsoever as to why this would not be WP:Original research, you've merely asserted that it isn't with nothing backing that up. TompaDompa (talk) 08:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I did not notice the argument taken in Talk:List of highest-grossing R-rated films#Demon Slayer The Movie Mugen Train. Actually, I added such calculations (weekly conversions) to stop the edits of intentionally overestimated figures. OK, I agree to use the worldwide total gross of Demon Slayer in US$ presented by the Crunchyroll, (although the amount in JPY is apparently overestimated by converting the cumulative data in US$ back to JPY in the latest simple currency conversion). I also agree not to use weekly cumulative conversion method that I introduced for the conversions in the article of Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train, but I will keep simple conversions based on the release date for countries where cumulative data are not available, because such calculations can help people to understand the situation of the total gross. At the same time, I will keep the calculated result only limited in the Table. I will edit the article later.Orichalcum (talk) 08:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

TompaDompa (talk · contribs) and Orichalcum (talk · contribs), the gross of the film is underestimated. As per my calculation, it should be $432.67 million but the number $414 million placed here are overestimated for 45.83 billion yen. Also, Misplaced Pages is the only site maintaining the data of the film. No website has updated its number since March 16. Could you all please reconsider your decision of Original Research for some times. Till any website updates its number. Catropst Benzt (talk) 09:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

There are many articles that use OR, it's better to check them out first rather than disturbing this article. Because the gross in Japan is highly underestimated making an estimated loss of $15 million due to money fluctuations. Due to this problem, weekly revenue and its system of the exchange rate are more suitable as fluctuations isn't high in the weekly exchange rate, maintaining the gross well. 223.231.122.198 (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

If different editors can calculate different amounts then it is OR. It requires judgment on which source to use for conversion and whether to apply the rates in real times, daily, weekly, etc. There's also the issue of completeness of the takings. Also, we are using these calculations to determine rankings, which may differ from what reliable sources report. This doesn't help readers. Suppose for example that movie A was the top-grossing film according to reliable sources, while our calculation says it was movie B. The correct answer for a film studies examination is movie A. If the student wants to say B, he or she has to prove it. TFD (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand that but the gross of the film is underestimate too much. The problem is not only about the ranking but how actual is the gross on conversion. And verification of the source so that the film gross is underestimate and at this moment of time no one have the same data as per Daryl Harding. Catropst Benzt (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

However frustrating it might be, best is to await reliable sources (and/or the conversion template).Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

It just make no sense to use 360M for DS when it just wrong, Boxoffice Mojo and other sources convert the whole number every week into dollars so some week the number somehow decrease even, with the Japanese distributor reporting the numbers every week in yen, the only way is to convert the the numbers to dollars every week as soon as they are reported and the source currently being used for DS is CR which literally take the reported gross in Japanese and just convert it to USD as there is no official source in USD. Just for example CR reported that the movie in January grossed 35.70 billion yen (US$342.5 million) and in April it grossed 39.40 billion yen (US$362.14 million) so the movie increased 3.7 billion yen and US$19.64 million for that to happen it would require the yen to equal USD$0.005 which hasn't happened in the last twenty year. https://www.crunchyroll.com/en-gb/anime-news/2021/01/12-1/demon-slayer-mugen-train-anime-film-steamrolls-past-35-billion-yen-at-japan-box-office https://www.crunchyroll.com/en-gb/anime-news/2021/04/05-1/demon-slayer-mugen-train-anime-film-up-39-at-japanese-box-office-in-25th-week Adab1za (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• If it's impossible to maintain the List of highest-grossing R-rated films page without performing complicated and arbitrary calculations to come up with a disputed USD value for each film, then perhaps the organization of the page needs to be rethought. Articles which require constant updating and debatable calculations aren't compatible with Misplaced Pages's policies and might be better suited to a different website. Not everything that exists needs to be on Misplaced Pages (see WP:NOTDATABASE). pburka (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for your explanation and violation as per WP:OR and WP:RS. But, I would like to say that I didn't look problem for ranking. Ever since the film was released on October 16, 2020, many articles were published and gross as per USD was updated as adjusted to the current exchange of JPY which was slightly (~0.0001-0.0023) lower as compared to weekly exchange rate. Making no difference between the weekly conversion of revenue as per weekly exchange rate and conversion of whole revenue as per daily exchange rate. This conversion was so stable that JPY was maintaining a fixed value against USD almost three months. (neglecting the point difference) But, after the arrival of New Year, the exchange rate of JPY reached a high level of unstablity against USD making increasing difference between daily and weekly exchange rate. (These differences were directly observed by the table, maintained by Orinhalcum, before it's removal by TompaDompa). At present, the conversion of the gross of film stands at $358-$365 million as per current exchange rate and fixed and stable conversion of weekly revenue, stand at $380.1 million as per weekly exchange rate. (A huge difference of about $15-$22 million, a objection placed by TompaDompa, if Orinchlam was correct regarding the data placed on the table.)

  Regardless the objection, I have a doubt in my mind that I like to share to you all.

  If JPY>>> then likewise USD>>>, but I see that the opposite is taking place, (for reference, you all can visit the weekly revenue collection report by BOX OFFICE MOJO) USD value of the film is falling against the increasing JPY value. I would also like to asked if both Anime News Network and Crunchyroll are considered reliable source as per WP: Reliable Sources, then why are the articles of both website are not reporting the same value of USD, sometimes Crunchyroll overtake ANN data, later ANN report higher gross than the former one. To make everything clear, I have myself gone through the source, upon some minute calculation, one thing came to the conclusion that these differences are due to current exchange rate of JPY against USD definitely Money Fluctuations.

  Some important points that I observed:

  • Daryl Harding has accepted that no one can have the same data as per his tweet.
  • Although, there is a huge difference between conversion of weekly revenue as per weekly exchange rate and conversion of whole revenue as per daily exchange rate in the field of USD. But, a point of interest was observed that JPY remain unchanged in either method of conversion backed from USD. The conclusion I establish through this is that neither $414.3 million nor $433 million are wrong. Difference is only the method of conversion.
  • As per @meJat32's tweet, he placed a argument to a User that neither daily exchange rate nor weekly exchange rate differ much. But, if anyone follows current exchange rate then, it would provide an inaccurate data. (This is the reason why Crunchyroll and Anime News Network articles are not collaborating each i.e, not supporting each other statement.)

  Directly to the point, I would like to ask you all

  • Whether it is better to switch the worldwide gross of the film to JPY like the article Your Name and Weathering with You.

  • Or restore the page and maintain the gross of the film as done earlier by a experience User.

  I do understand the policy that says Misplaced Pages is not a Database. But, since early March, no articles are publishing the gross of film. Many new websites are maintaining the gross of the film as per verification from Misplaced Pages. The gross of the film is highly determine by the value of JPY against USD. If JPY keeps falling against USD, then the gross of the film can fall below $300 million if we all follow daily exchange rate. But If the opposite take place then, the gross of the film can reach as high as $526 million (for ¥40 billion), which can be overlooked as major editing problem. For some interval of time I would like to ask keep aside the policies and restore the earlier version of the article till a relevant source noticed the method of conversion and published a article regarding the gross. So, that any one of us can cite it as reference and remove the User performed conversion as per policy of Misplaced Pages on Original Research.

  Why can't a Box Office Analyst tweet be placed as reference? I don't know any policy which abstract the edit. As per mentioned talk page, TompaDompa has stated that Sources should convert the regional currencies for users to edit. But @meJat32 is a Box Office Analyst, who has already convert the currencies to USD. Could someone clarify this doubt of mine? Catropst Benzt (talk) 06:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  According to my calculations, it should be near about $380.1 million for Japan. I would like to see how high it could once USD fall against JPY. The problem is only in the gross of Japan. I would think of switch to JPY but wants to know what are the other possible ways of solving this problem. Catropst Benzt (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  This is now something of a moot point, since Deadline Hollywood has published an article with a figure for the worldwide gross that more-or-less matches the figure that the user-performed currency conversions resulted in, so we now simply cite that instead of relying on WP:OR. TompaDompa (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

List_of_highest-grossing_films#cite_note-Frozen-41.--寒吉 (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: I believe the issue of the Frozen gross is something you are very familiar with and thus in a good position to address. TompaDompa (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see currency conversions as an OR issue, but I think they can come under WP:SYNTHESIS. WP:CALC permits simple calculations, and currency conversions are for the most part simple: if you have the base figure and the conversion rate it is easy to work out. I doubt anybody would dispute that. Box Office Mojo has changed since the Frozen incident, but what used to happen was that they would report the weekend grosses in dollars along with the exchange rate they used for the conversions. We needed the weekly figure to increment the total, so we just used the same conversion rate as Box Office Mojo i.e. the base figure and the conversion rate both came from BOM. The problems with conversions occur when editors get a figure and feed it through some random conversion calculator. In the case of Frozen we ended up with a figure that BOM would have produced if they had just done it themselves. The only conversion that was a problem was the German reissue because the figure jumped over a period of several months, so we didn't know which conversion rate to use. What we did though in this single case was provide a lower-bound estimate (what we knew from BOM though was that the euro never fell below parity so we knew the absolute minimum it could have earned). So to recap: we did perform some conversions in the case of Frozen, but the conversion rate in all but one case was given to use by BOM itself. I would say these calculations would qualify under CALC. The one questionable calculation was for Germany where we didn't know what the conversion rate was, but we did know the minimum it could have been, so we just produced a lower-bound figure for in that one particular case. Betty Logan (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@TompaDompa:, The problem is solved and I am happy that Deadline Hollywood has published the correct figure. The figure is similar to Box Office Analyst @ichika_kasuga and @meJat32's tweets. Hope that in future, this type of problem doesn't arise again.Catropst Benzt (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

References

1. https://twitter.com/DoctorDazza/status/1382214268943097859?s=19
2. https://twitter.com/meJat32/status/1383433425542017031?s=19
3. https://twitter.com/meJat32/status/1383417882952945673?s=19
4. "https://twitter.com/mejat32/status/1385093088226414593". Twitter. Retrieved 2021-04-23. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
5. "https://twitter.com/ichika_kasuga/status/1383760431399858184". Twitter. Retrieved 2021-04-23. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)

Given the likely widespread impact of this decision, should an RfC be initiated on this matter? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

MRA and Mackinac College

On June 25th 2018, I requested an edit of a statement that precedes the Mackinac College article: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Mackinac_College#Request_edit_on_25_June_2018 In this link, see text that begins ‘REPLACE’ and is then followed by ‘RATIONALE.’

The thrust of my request is that the following statement is incorrect: “This article is about the college created by founders of the Moral Re-Armament.” This statement, created for the Mackinac College article in Misplaced Pages, is Original Research posted on 0:32, 20 June 2014 without source or support, and is contradicted by numerous references including those listed in the RATIONALE. My edit was denied on the grounds that my sources are connected and I have a conflict of interest. I would like to appeal this decision, and if unchanged, would like to understand why an unsupported statement overrules a challenge from high-quality connected sources.

--The references are well published books. I can provide PDFs or e-text of relevant portions at your request. --The Mackinac College article is an important part of the biographies of still-living students, faculty, and staff from Mackinac College, Michigan. Our continuing involvement with the College is seen in our active Facebook Page (134 members), 3 recent Zoom calls (35, 36, and 39 people approximately), reunions (70 attended in 2017), and scheduled attendance at our 2020 reunion, now rolled over to 2021 (51st Reunion). Our list of 331 active addresses, emails, and phone numbers spans 38 American states and 18 other countries. Karin D. E. Everett (talk)

@Karin D. E. Everett: I'll take a look at it. jp×g 08:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Update/shameless plug of WP:UPSD, a script to detect unreliable sources

It's been about 14 months since this script was created, and since its inception it became one of the most imported scripts (currently #54, with 286+ adopters).

Since last year, it's been significantly expanded to cover more bad sources, and is more useful than ever, so I figured it would be a good time to bring up the script up again. This way others who might not know about it can take a look and try it for themselves. I would highly recommend that anyone doing citation work, who writes/expands articles, or does bad-sourcing/BLP cleanup work installs the script.

The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I endorse this product or service. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Yahweh

What do you think about ? Namely:

After the 9th century BCE the tribes and chiefdoms of Iron Age I were replaced by ethnic nation states, Israel, Judah, Moab, Ammon and others, each with its national god, and all more or less equal.

has been changed to:

After the 10th century BCE the tribes and chiefdoms of Iron Age I were replaced by ethnic nation states, Israel, Moab, Ammon and others, each with its national god, and all more or less equal.

although none of the WP:RS has changed in the whole paragraph.

Something fishy also noticed at . Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• I want to second this. There's some editing that's raising my hackles going on there, but I'm not familiar enough with the history to enumerate all the problems with it. Not all of the changes are bad (some are neutral and some okay), but they included at least one example where the edit straight up failed verification (link 2 in Tgeorgescu's comments, above). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Their third and fourth attempt at introducing stuff which does not pass WP:V: , . And I'm only counting events I am aware of. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Karma1998 has received a formal warning at to desist forever from fabricating unverifiable sentences. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Wrong diff above (first). It should be . So, it wasn't just WP:OR, Karma1998 has edit warred to include WP:OR in the voice of Misplaced Pages. Doubly offensive.
  • So, they have 8 diffs with WP:OR: , , , , , , , . Karma1998 is not a newbie, so they are supposed to already know these aren't good faith edits. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  • You have repeatedly violated copyright since being blocked in 2016, including this year. That alone should be more than enough to leave you blocked indefinitely. Add on top of that, your personal attacks (which continued after you were blocked) and your long-term tendentious editing. And to top it off, fabricating sources? I've never seen anyone come back from that. You've gone out of your way to destroy the community's trust in you. You are correct, what you did was inexcusable. Yamla (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I don't know if they were fabricating sources, but definitely they were fabricating unverifiable sentences, and they were attributing them to already cited sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• @Tgeorgescu: Not trying to sound dismissive (I largely agree with you, though with some caveats), but I think this thread would be better suited to WP:ANI. If you file a thread, I will relate my experience checking one of Karma's edits there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @MPants at work: WP:ANI#I would have expected an apology. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Mike Parson

On the Mike Parson page, I noticed that it wrongly attributed a quote that was actually from Missouri Revised Statutes 105.030 about gubernatorial appointments as being from the Missouri Constitution. I corrected the attribution (and added a source because as it was previously unsourced) and I also quoted what the Missouri Constitution actually says about gubernatorial appointments. I added a reliable source for that as well. I did not add my own opinion or analysis, and the two sources together do not really lead to any kind of conclusion or synthesis. Snooganssnoogans reverted my edit citing WP:OR. I don't think that it was WP:OR and explained why I thought that in the talk page given that it does not outright prevent the use of primary sources and I literally offered no analysis, opinion, or conclusion. After I explained that, Snooganssnoogans merely told me to see WP:SYNTH which I had already explained why I don't think it falls under. It doesn't look like we're going to be agreeing any time soon. I came here to get some opinions from uninvolved parties. I'm not all that experienced with Misplaced Pages policies, but at least the way I read it, I don't think that my edit falls under it.JMM12345 (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

Ifat/Adal

This statement on the Ifat Sultanate which reads "The majority of scholars agree the population of the leading principality of Ifat Sultanate were no doubt the Somalis who were headquartered in Zeila" is not found in the book which is self published. The second statement which reads "In the predominately Somali capital of the Ifat Sultanate, Zeila, and local Somali territories, the Arabic and Somali languages were most commonly present." is also not found. User:Ayaltimo seems to think otherwise per this edit . Same issue on the Adal Sultanate article, the statement which reads "The sultanate and state were established by the local inhabitants of Zeila." is not supported by the source. Magherbin (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The book by Yohannes Mekonnen clearly identifies its source as being Misplaced Pages. It cannot be accepted as a source per WP:CIRCULAR. Ayaltimo, please discuss this source on the article talk page before attempting to restore it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Eggishorn. I was planning to remove it anyway but I wanted to continue the discussion and make a deal with the user Magherbin which is why I didn't want to make any changes yet so that we can come to a conclusion. The Cambridge source I added states Zeila was predominantly Somali and you can look it up yourself. Ayaltimo (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Nowhere does it mention it was a Somali capital nor does it discuss languages arabic and Somali being most commonly used. Magherbin (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The capital source is here History of Ethiopian Towns from the Middle Ages to the Early Nineteenth Century, Volum 1 page 65 by Richard Pankhurst states:

"Zayla ', in all probability the principal abode of the sultan of Ifāt, was as such a place of some pomp and ceremony. The chief on formal occasions sat on a throne of iron four cubits high encrusted with precious stones and was surrounded by..."

If Zeila was predominantly Somali how can you say it wasn't spoken by Somalis? If you go to page 137 it clarifies the lowland was predominantly spoken by eastern Cushitic speakers and Somalis are eastern Cushitic and Zeila is located in the lowland. Ayaltimo (talk) 21:59 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thats your own conclusion and you're using WP:SYNTH, there are many cushitic languages in the region. I dont think you're attuned on how to cite references. I suggest going through policies. Magherbin (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, I would agree to this. However, according to the source, Zeila was predominantly Somali so the confusion ends here. Ayaltimo (talk) 22:13 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Publisher website links and WP:PRIMARY

There was recently a discussion at Talk:New Game! about use of links to a publisher's website to verify release dates (in this case, Houbunsha and Seven Seas Entertainment, who publish the Japanese and English-language versions of this manga).

• User:Drmies removed the links, calling them "spam links", and quoted the part of this policy that says "it is easy to misuse them". He pointed out that they have links to sellers on the pages. Drmies also says "in my opinion, PRIMARY doesn't apply if half the references in an article are spam links".
• I quoted other parts, which say a primary source is fine to use so long as it "makes straightforward, descriptive statements of facts", an editor does not "analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material", and that the article is not "base on primary sources".
• User:Izno cites WP:EL, saying " is clear on the matter: if it's being used for a citation, the rules regarding its removal or use fall under WP:V and WP:RS." Quote from that page: Besides those kinds of links listed in § Restrictions on linking, these external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article.

Drmies also argued that "if information cannot be properly sourced with secondary sources, then maybe it shouldn't be in an article". I produced some reliable secondary sources on the talk page that also reported on the individual volume releases, but this line of argumentation gets away from the point about the publisher's websites also being admissible. I would like to solicit opinions on this concept of publisher's websites being inadmissible. — Goszei (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Goszei, that's a pretty accurate representation. I never took issue with the "straightforward etc." matter--and what that means, IMO, is that this talk page is not the best venue for this. It's not about OR; it's about when primary sources are better characterized as spam links. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Could you elaborate further on what separates an admissible primary source from a "spam link"? WP:REFSPAM says "Often are added not to verify article content but rather to populate numerous articles with a particular citation." It also says, "Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia." I think we all agree that these links do verify a specific and narrow piece of information in the article, and that they help build the encyclopedia, so I would like to hear more about your specific definition of "spam link" in this context. — Goszei (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Also: consider if all of the release dates were contained on a single page on the publisher's website, which was then used as a primary source under this guideline. Would that also be a "spam link"? If not, it does not seem logical to draw a distinction here based on how many pages the usable and WP:PRIMARY–admissible information is spread out on. — Goszei (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Another point that was not raised on that talk page is this passage in WP:PRIMARY: an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label. I would also like to solicit opinions on this point: would a track listing on a record's label website become inadmissible, if there were seller links on the same page? What about a banner linking to a seller page on the side? What about a link to subscribe to a publication, like the New York Times? When does an otherwise admissible and usable source become spam? — Goszei (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• I will also highlight a quotation from WP:AFFILIATE: Although the content guidelines for external links prohibit linking to "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services," inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page in order to verify such things as titles and running times. — Goszei (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment from the editor who started the discussion at Talk:New Game!: I think the use of primary sources in the manner the article is using them falls well within the bounds of WP:PRIMARY and related standards for the reasons outlined on that talk page. If it's ok to use a track listing from a record label, I don't see how release dates from a publisher is any worse. Link20XX (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• Primary affiliated sources are normally given a pass, but if they are challenged then a secondary source must be provided. Otherwise it's WP:UNDUE and potentially promotional. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• Generally I would agree above with Guy, the only real dissent is that things like release/publication dates are a piece of information regarding any creative media you would expect to both see in an encyclopedia, and have sourced appropriately. I have zero issue with a primary source being used to reference a release date unless there is actually some reasonable suspicion to doubt it. That the page used as a reference also contains links to where you can get it is process wonkery for the sake of it. Unless its blatantly illegal/copyright etc, we dont refuse to use something as an online reference because its got other stuff we wouldnt put in the article on the same page. If its that much of an issue, convert it to an archive link and then going forward it will be historical. Its not like we are putting up to date pricing information like certain members of the medical article cabal wanted to... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution