Talk:Metrosexy

Self-published sources
Please be sure to follow WP:SPS for any self-published material used in this article as outlined by policy. The Section removed violated several of these tenants: unduly self-serving, involved claims about third parties, authenticity, etc. A self published blog article containing screen shots of comments is not a reliable source according to standard wikipedia policy:
 * Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Additionally,
 * Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it unless it is verifiable

Bavb (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi - I have not been on wikipedia long, and yes it is references to my work I have included. But I set up this page in the first place, for Mark Simpson. And this is all true what I am saying. I will find some more references to other places where my work regarding Metrosexy has been published. But please give me a moment. Because Metrosexy itself is 'self-published' and so verifying all the details is different from a book by a proper publisher. Thanks Notorious_QRG — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotoriousQRG (talk • contribs) 18:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

P.s. most of the references I have included are external sources. Is there one in particular that is not adequate? Because I think most of them are. NotoriousQRG — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotoriousQRG (talk • contribs) 18:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC) P.p.s. before deleting what I have added, please consider talking to me about this. I am very reasonable but I have already had one experience of the 'add-delete-add-delete' 'wars' and it seems pointless. I just want to help provide good information about books that are in the public realm. Best wishes NotoriousQRG — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotoriousQRG (talk • contribs) 19:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Hi I have added some refs to journalists who praised Metrosexy so it is more wide-ranging the press and publishing section. Thanks for your comments, NotoriousQRG — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotoriousQRG (talk • contribs) 10:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC) I am trying to learn to sign my comments with a proper signature! Bear with me! NotoriousQRG NotoriousQRGNotoriousQRG (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi NotoriousQRG

the problem is with:
 * Metrosexy was self-published on Amazon Kindle in part due to support and encouragement from Quiet Riot Girl. [1] [2]QRG, a former-academic, now author and blogger, is the main advocate and promoter of Simpson's ideas and work. [3] [4]

Sources 1,2,3 and 4 aren't "reliable sources" in as outlined by wikipedia policy unless the article is about you.. Your claims may in fact be true but the standard is "reliable source" not truth. i think the article would be better without these "unreliable source" claims. Bavb (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Nearly all books are explicitly dedicated to someone right there on the page, but unless there's something exceptional about that dedication (something which third-party sources have written about), an encyclopaedia wouldn't mention it. And Wikipedia should only ever use reliable sources - a self-published blog, or a review published on somebody else's blog, isn't appropriate here. I've cut the material. --McGeddon (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok I set this page up in the first place if my refs aren't good enough I have removed them. I suggest we leave it like this now or there won't be a page left, and I don't want that to happen. It is an important book. NotoriousQRG —Preceding undated comment added 16:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC).
 * Thanks. For the page to stay it'll need some references, so if there have been any print reviews (were the ones you cut just from journalists giving their thoughts on Simpson's work in general?), or interviews Simpson has given that mention the book, then the article should include them. --McGeddon (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Notability/sources
Hi all - I have found some external sources, inc. The Guardian newspaper and Time Out London, and have removed links to self-published blogs. I hope that helps! Any queries please try and use this talk page before more deletions! Thanks NotoriousQRG (talk) I have removed the note at the top saying it may not meet notability standards. I am confident it does now. March 12, 2012 NotoriousQRG (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC).
 * I've cut one more self-published blog (which didn't appear to mention the book directly). The Guardian and Time Out links don't appear to mention the book directly either? A "Mark Simpson's new book is out now" tagline at the bottom of an article (even if that article covers some of the same ground as the book) doesn't tell us anything about the book. We need sources that either review the book, or where Simpson talks about it directly. --McGeddon (talk) 11:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine. But you are editing wikipedia for a world that no longer exists. When will wikipedia catch up with the internet age and reference online sources correctly as everyone else does?? NotoriousQRG(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC).
 * Wikipedia uses online sources just as readily as offline ones. The issue here is simply that Wikipedia doesn't use a source if it is self-published by someone who isn't already a "published expert in the field". We'd quote a newspaper column and we'd quote the blog or the Twitter feed of an expert (it's mostly fine to use Simpson's own blog as a source when writing about him), but we wouldn't quote from a paper fanzine, a self-published print-on-demand book or a fan page. Wikipedia tells its readers what reliable sources have said about a subject, not what all possible sources have said. (I'm sure you can imagine how unreadable that would end up.) --McGeddon (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok well the screengrabs I took were from Simpson's blog so I just need to go to his blog for the urls. You deleted stuff from his blog and he is THE expert in this field. I have removed the press reviews section. I made that section. If my work is not valid then someone else can make the page not me! NotoriousQRG (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC).
 * We can probably live without the press reviews section, as they appear to be general reviews of Simpson's writing rather than the book itself. We shouldn't imply that Moore and Price have reviewed the book if we aren't sure they've read it.
 * Simpson's blog can be used a source to some extent, but be sure to read WP:BLPSPS before quoting anything in the article - there are a few exceptions to what we can and can't use. --McGeddon (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't judge the foreign sources, but it looks as if all the sources used in this article are simply the book being mentioned in a "Mark Simpson's latest book is available on Kindle for £4.77" byline at the bottom of an article which Simpson happened to write on the subject of Metrosexuality around the time of launch. The claims that the book was "serialised" in the Independent and Out seem unfounded, as far as I can tell, as they both appear to be one-off articles with a "book is available now" byline - they might be extracts from the ebook, but if the ebook is a collection of pre-existing articles, this doesn't attach any significance to the book itself. Does the book really meet WP:NBOOK? --McGeddon (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Categories
I'm not sure if it's an accident that the article's categories have been cut repeatedly, but "2011 books / Gender studies books / LGBT literature in the United Kingdom" are more useful to the reader and the project than "Books / Sexuality / Popular Culture / Gender". Wikipedia uses a hierarchical taxonomy of categories (where it is better to file something as a "gender studies book" than simply a "book", rather than a folksonomy of simple tags. --McGeddon (talk) 11:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I hadn't touched the categories till I saw them flagged up recently. I have removed LGBT Books as a category as Metrosexy is not about LGBT issues but about all men, in popular culture! So I have put popular culture back. I will see if there are any other categories to do with sociology etc.

NotoriousQRG (talk)


 * Sounds good. You can click on any category at the bottom of an article to drill down to a more specific one - "Category:Pop Culture" can become "Category:Popular culture books", for instance. --McGeddon (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)