Talk:Encyclopedia Titanica

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 April 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 October 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep (non admin closure).

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Reference works (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reference works, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Reference worksWikipedia:WikiProject Reference worksTemplate:WikiProject Reference worksReference works articles

Deletion[edit]

Created to serve the incoming links, it doesn't meet any speedy criteria. Please do some due diligence before speedy deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't nominated for speedy deletion: I had proposed it for deletion instead, so I would kindly request you withdraw your suggestion I wasn't diligent. I don't believe that purely serving incoming links is a reason for this article to exist, so I will list it at Articles for deletion shortly. --RFBailey 22:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion discussion has now concluded with a "keep" result. Obviously, I will abide by this consensus. However, I stand by the original prod nomination. When I found this article it looked like this, so quite frankly it seemed to be promoting the site. That is not what Wikipedia is for. After some research, I found no reason to believe that the subject was notable, or that it would ever be. --RFBailey 01:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes in citations[edit]

I am restoring them, I think people should judge the value of the citation based on its in situ quote. I have noticed that some citations in other articles don't actually support reference. Here people can judge for themselves. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you would like to do, but for editors, that is the purpose of checking references and providing the appropriate and accurate citation, to establish the veracity of the particular information contained in the article. This article is in dire need of the body being expanded, not its references. If you will check the reference sections of featured articles, they are not rife with quotes from the reference site.

Also, the first two references aren't to the sources from which these quotes are taken. They are wiki links to the articles on Sunday Life and the Telegram & Gazette. The references need to be to the actual article, not another unrelated wiki page. This is an issue for the removal of the citations completely. It's important to have sources outside of the ET to verify its notability, but the sources themselves have to be there, what is there cannot be judged for reliability. I've tried finding the original source of these two references and cannot find them online. Even searching the website of Sunday Life does not give me an article on the site, and the Telegram & Gazette reference is about the death of the last American survivor of the sinking. It doesn't discuss the Encyclopedia Titanica at all. These do not reference what they are supposed to.

I am honestly on your side here, but I've had enough experience on WP now to know what are probably reference problems. Wildhartlivie 05:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the quote function is there to use, and to be able to see the text in situ. Perhaps it should be argued at the Wikipedia:References section. Without the full quote there is no context. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the NY Times reference is just silly, It must be, along with Time magazine, in the top 10 in citations in Wikipedia. The archive is free with registration. By your logic, we can't use books unless they are full text in Google Books. You also seem to be confused between the link to the newspaper title in Wikipedia, and any link to the article on the web, if it exists. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Richard, I did not remove the New York Times reference. It's the one I left. However, there is nothing to be gained by putting a quote in a reference when you've already put the quote in the body of the article. It's a waste of time and space. I am not confused by what you have there, however I am saying that the casual reader will be. The quote included in a reference doesn't allow the reader to see it in situ, that would require the reader go to the reference. In this case, it's already in the article.

Yes, I see that, my apologies. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to see that you didn't keep the reference to the Telegram & Gazette, as it was erroneous. That only leaves the Sunday Life reference. Please look at what you've got there. I am telling you that the quote you have put in for the Sunday Life reference cannot be verified. Sunday Life actually has an archive online, going back to 1995, and the article isn't there. Check it for yourself: http://www.sundaylife.co.uk/search/. There is no article. So, in the end, the reference is circular. It only takes the reader to the Wikipedia article about the newspaper. It is not a reference. The quote that is there cannot be verified through the information that is provided. Where did this reference come from? I am removing it again, and will request outside opinion if it is put back in without verification. Simply restoring does not verify it.

Thank you for proving my point!! I found it in a nanosecond in the Google News Archive, and didn't find it once the quote was removed. Thats why the quote function is important. You removed it and couldn't find the article. With the article lede in place as a quote, I found it in a nanosecond. Once that information is gone, no one can reconnect it to the article, once the url changes for the website or when things move to the archive. Most web content is not permanent. Both the New York Times and Time magazine do not archive sidebar information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What this article needs is the time that is being spent on this be devoted actually be put into expanding the article itself, and finding references that are verifiable for the information provided. Wildhartlivie 01:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Description of site[edit]

Disclosure: I am a moderator of the message board and a frequent contributor of contemporary news stories to the main ET site. I've added a brief description of the contents of the main site to the original version, which just focused on the message board, and I've changed the opening to remove the "all extant information" language. None of us involved with ET think we know all there is to know; we just attempt to keep the site a reflection of the most up-to-date research. Mark Baber Mab819c 05:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]