Talk:Planet of the Apes (novel)

Book story
I've noticed the storyline in the first section regarding the book cuts short with the last sentence reading "the ape". Was someone half way through writing this? Or is it a technical error? I haven't read the book and unfortunately can't finish it off --French line 05:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"being civilized chimps" Spoilers! Seriously, plot summaries should avoid them as much as possible.

Idea to Boulle's novel from 1925?
www.theonion.com displays on July 23, 2006 the front page of The Onion from July 20, 1925. One of the headlines is "Scopes Defended by Super-Intelligent Chimpanzee-Man from Future". The article tells about a chimpanzee couple Cornelius and Zira (like in Boulle's novel) who have time traveled from a future in which apes rule the world. This cannot be a coincident. Did Boulle read The Onion of 1925 in the 1960's and got the idea to the book and copied the names of the chimpanzee couple from The Onion? Sounds a bit silly. Or do Boulle and The Onion have some common source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.55.100 (talk • contribs)

In case you weren't joking, The Onion was founded in 1988. All their stories dated earlier than that (and some after) are historical satire. This article was a Planet of the Apes reference, not the other way around. Ace of Sevens 11:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Translation?
The text of th'article says that La Planète des Singes actually means "monkey planet." The "actually" is out of place, as a Romance language like French makes no difference between Planet of the Monkeys and Monkey Planet. French also uses the word singe to mean both (great) apes and monkeys. It is clear in the novel that Boulle meant the former, as he describes the society (as in the movies) as made up of Gorillas, Chimpanzees, and Orangoutans. Thus, the sentence about the two possible translations should stay, but the one about the "actual" meaning should go.--Signor Giuseppe 21:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disco?
While my scepticism alarm goes off at the mention of Disco at the Planet of the Apes, I'm not going to delete it. Most of 68.97.208.123's contributions, I noted, have been at anus and feces, about which he is very adament. This non-scatologically related edit should prolly be encouraged.--Signor Giuseppe 15:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

More on translation
In contrast with the translation that does not differentiate between monkey and ape, in the planet of the apes movies, "monkey" is an insult to apes and "apes" is what they prefer to be called. User:FCYTravis does not understand this and has reverted it. I suspect it will happen again so I'm putting it here for people to discuss. DyslexicEditor 09:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Graphic Novel / Comic
Ian Edginton has apparently written a PotA graphic novel that is published (globally?) by Titan Books. Thats about the limit of my information I'm afraid but both those entries just point here where there is no information on this. I have been chasing up some missing entries looking for someone who knows more about this to kickstart an entry. (Emperor 20:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC))
 * OK I started the entry: Planet of the Apes (comic) - hopefully someone can expand that at some point. I've editted the main entry to link through to this now (Emperor 01:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC))

Video Game?
The List of cancelled video games page says there was a cancelled Planet of the Apes game for Atari 2600 and links here, but no mention is made here. I'm certain there was a later video game for Playstation or something. Is anyone knowledgeable about this to put it in the article? Ace of Sevens 23:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Themes
There definitely needs to be a section on themes. Dirty Apes Talk 19:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

TMBG?
They Might Be Giants plays several songs that are named after the sequel movies. This should be mentioned, but I have no idea where or how. Stale Fries 00:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The unerlying theme
I remember the film from when I was a child, but just happened to see a repeat on TV the other day (Aug 2007) and I was surprised at how good it was. As a child I had not appreciated the parody with human history.

Although it now appears very dated I was impressed by the parody it made of religious fundamentalism during the dark ages. The main human character and the lead ape scientists were accused of heresy by the powerful Orang-utan “protector of the faith” (please note that the Royal Family in the UK have this same title!) One could imagine that Copernicus, Galileo and other forward thinkers may have suffered in a similar way from the inquisitions of the Catholic Church. I think further discussion of this side of the story line is required in the article.--ManInStone 08:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As long as you have references. &mdash; Val42 04:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The title that the British monarch holds is actually 'Defender of the Faith', not 'Protector'. I can't remember what the title used in the film is. TheAstonishingBadger (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PlanetApesBook.jpg
Image:PlanetApesBook.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Similarity to...
I thought I would mention that this novel seems to have a few similarities to the Isaac Asimov story No Connection from Astounding Science Fiction, June 1948. Although the people cross the ocean from Europe to the Americas, after a great nuclear war and find bears instead of apes. Anyone know of any other similar stories or books, besides the ones in the series? (Floppydog66 (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. As several people pointed out, we use the most commonly used name in English, and that appears to be the current title. Ucucha 09:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Planet of the Apes (novel) → — La Planète des singes is the original French title. As there is no exact translation of the title (singes can mean both monkeys or apes hence the two English titles, Planet of the Apes and Monkey Planet), I think it would be appropriate for the article to be known by the novel's original French title. Count de Ville (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose (pending evidence). I've never seen Monkey Planet as a title for this book so, without a reference, keep the title at its unambiguous English name.  —   AjaxSmack   00:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:Use English . There may be two English titles, but one of them is the more common one, the current one - WP:COMMONNAME 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose AjaxSmack may never have heard of Monkey Planet, but he isn't the font of all knowledge.  The book was published under that title in 1964 in the United Kingdom.  It remained so titled through various editions until 1985, when it was issued as Planet of the Apes.  It stayed under that title until 2001, when it became Planet of the Apes: Monkey Planet.  It reverted to Planet of the Apes in 2005.  On balance, I would say that it is better known, because of the films and television series, as Planet of the Apes, even in the United Kingdom.  In the United States it has never been known as anything else.  I doubt that it is widely known as La Planète des singes anywhere in the English speaking world.  On that basis, the article title should remain as it is.  A quick Google search in English for La Planète des singes excluding Planet of the Apes and Monkey Planet and Wikipedia produces 140,000 hits; for Monkey Planet excluding La Planète des singes and Planet of the Apes and Wikipedia gives 6,870 hits; for Planet of the Apes excluding Monkey Planet and La Planète des singes and Wikipedia produces 14,000,000 hits.  Skinsmoke (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I've rarely seen this book in English so I was only going by a cursory internet glance.  However, I'll continue to oppose a move per your arguments.  If anything, having the book article match the films' titles should amount to something even if it's not based in Wikipolicy.  —   AjaxSmack   13:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose where a book has become significantly known in English we should refer it by the title by which it is usually known in English. There is a legitimate problem, with the two titles, but I think "Planet of the Apes" could be the better known. PatGallacher (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Works which have been translated into English, whether in the past centuries (The Hunchback of Notre-Dame, not Notre-Dame de Paris) or recently, and published under an English-language title should have their Wikipedia main title header entered under that English-language title. Exceptions are made only for appellations which have become ingrained in their original form (Les Misérables, which, however, is at least as frequently rendered without the accent, Les Miserables).&mdash;Roman Spinner (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The original idea?
In an Atlas horror comic (they later became Marvel Comics) from about 1952, scientists experiment on pigs and make them smarter but from becoming almost human and being in human society, they start taking over and after a war, the pigs emerge triumphant with their own society where they behave like humans while human carcasses are hung up in butchers windows as meat.(Cyberia3 (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC))
 * I'd be surprised that French author Pierre Boulle would have been aware of some then-obscure American comic destined for teenagers. Someone else on this talk page noted a similarity with Isaac Asimov's No Connection (1948). If there is a connection to Planet of the Apes, surely some specialists have mentioned it, or Boulle cited his influences, so any comment about a possible connection should be sourced. I wasn't aware of this, but my guess is that that sort of subject is quite appealing and universal, and could easily have been thought of independently by modern authors. Even Animal Farm (1945) is similar in a way.--Munin75 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Publishing history
The standard here should always be accuracy, not what one person thinks is "too verbose". The previous wersion is just not the truth. That one person thinks the true version is "too verbose" is irrelevant. The novel 'La Planète des Singes' was never published in the United States under any other title than 'Planet of the Apes'. It was given the title 'Monkey Planet' but only in the UK. It was always 'Planet of the Apes' in the U.S. It was not changed to 'Planet of the Apes' to tie to the film in 1968 because it had always been published under that title since the first U.S. edition in 1963. The previous version is simply not the truth. And if the true version is "too verbose" for one persion, that should not be a consideration. The only standard should be the truth.

http://planetoftheapes.wikia.com/wiki/La_Plan%C3%A8te_des_singes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.35.159 (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The text clearly says

It was published in the United Kingdom as Monkey Planet, then re-issued as Planet of the Apes to tie it in to the film franchise it inspired.


 * so it is fully accurate. Stop claiming it isn't. By the way, the film rights were originally obtained in the UK, and the contemporaneous reviews of the film list it as being based on the novel Monkey Planet for that reason (though the film credits leave the novel unnamed). - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not accurate because the novel was never published in the United States under the title 'Monkey Planet'. It was always published in the US as 'Planet of the Apes' from 1963. Therefore it wasn't changed to tie in to the film bacause it always had the title 'Planet of the Apes'. Here is an Ebay auction of the 1st American edition: http://www.ebay.com/itm/PIERRE-BOULLE-Planet-of-the-Apes-1ST-AMERICAN-ED-/320496458733?pt=Antiquarian_Collectible&hash=item4a9f13dbed The title is clearly 'Planet of the Apes'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.35.159 (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What is your problem? The text never said it was "published in the United States under the title Monkey Planet". I'm tempted to say something like "Can you read what's actually on the page?" Stop wasting time with this. We don't need to spell out the novel's U.S. publication history in the lead. It could perhaps be added near the bottom, but I don't see the pressing need for that in this short an article, and there's an excellent link giving its publication history already there. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed that The Sacred Scrolls(Ref #3) is a wiki? Doesn't that mean it is not a reliable source for statements about the publication history? This bookseller's link indicates at least that the first title in the UK was the 1964 Secker & Warburg edition called Monkey Planet, first US title was 1963 Vanguard Press edition called Planet of the Apes but the subsequent UK publication history (re:title-change) does not seem as clearly-delineated. Shearonink (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

EL
Two editors are insisting on retaining a link that falls under WP:ELNO and likely WP:ELNEVER (but not WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE), and are tag-teaming to do so rather than discussing. I invite them to fulfill WP:ELBURDEN by justifying the violation of our policies and gaining consensus to do so instead of continuing to edit war. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You are the one WP:edit warring as anyone looking at this article's history since March 22 can see. You deleted an external link that had been there since June 4, 2010 without any discussion.  You then edit warred, deleting it again three more times in three hours despite being reverted by two editors, a clear violation of WP:3RR, as well as WP:Consensus and WP:DISENGAGE.  As I said in my edit summary WP:External links allows for excellent resources like The Sacred Scrolls. The book cover images are obviously accurate and very useful to people interested in the Planet of the Apes novel's history. When I first saw The Sacred Scrolls page it answered questions I had about the book's different title Monkey Planet in the UK, for example.  WP:ELNO says one should generally avoid a list of certain EL types. Even if this EL meets one of those types, "generally avoid" does not mean in every case, as I said in my edit summary. You had no business taking it out again after that instaed of going to this Talk page. WP:ELBURDEN says Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article. As I pointed out in my next edit summary I've been here many months - you for 4 hrs in which time you've done the same thing 4 times - WP:3RR violation. You then did the same thing again four more times two days later, repeating the same thing about WP:ELNO, WP:ELBURDEN  which had already been answered. That's what edit warriors do - the same thing repeatedly. Only now after all that have you come to this Talk page, and you accuse us of edit warring. One who violates WP:3RR repeatedly as you have here is a confirmed edit warrior. - Gothicfilm (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with Gothicfilm here. Not only has Nikkimaria been edit warring, but has deleted a long standing link without any justification as to why said link violates the guidelines that Nikkimaria has cited. SonOfThornhill (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like it does fall under WP:ELYES, which says:

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[3] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.


 * Obviously, we cannot put dozens of book cover images, as are seen at, in a WP article. But they are neutral and accurate material that is relevant, so this EL falls under other reasons. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest you calm down, as your distress appears to have impeded both your ability to count - no one has violated 3RR - and your ability to read WP:ELBURDEN, which states not only that external links must be justified, but also that disputed links (like the one in question) are excluded until a discussion has concluded with consensus'for their inclusion (and edit summaries don't count as discussion). Now, it's great that you found the link to be helpful, but your like for the site does not determine its value. You state above that the material on the site is "neutral and accurate" - what evidence do you have of that? Assuming you are correct, the site would need to be excluded per WP:ELNEVER, as it is hosting a number of non-free images far beyond the bounds of fair use, and is not the owner of said images (and indeed, as far as I can tell, does not even indicate that they are non-free). This link would then also fall under WP:LINKVIO and would be excluded by the footnote from your quotation above (also likely making deleting it an edit-warring exemption). So to recap: the site fails point 1 of ELNEVER, at least point 12 of ELNO (likely more), and is excluded from ELYES because of the footnote and because of lack of editorial oversight enforcing neutrality and accuracy (per your lack of evidence for same and per its open nature). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Four edits in less than four hours over the same thing is violating 3RR. Even if the violator believes they're right. Now you come back with I can't count? That's violating WP:Uncivil as well. The page had this link for nearly three years, and had been stable until you rolled in. The page's editors obviously agreed with including it. Book covers just like these are used on WP novel articles all the time as you should well know, and we're not trying to put them on this page.  That's the point of using the EL. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please re-read what I wrote. The three-revert rule was not violated (as was pointed out at AN3, unless you want to count your tag-teaming), and a long-standing policy violation is still a policy violation. Many novel articles use one or two fair-use images properly attributed to their copyright holders - that's not the issue. The problem is linking to an external source which hosts a large number of copyrighted images, without even indicating that they're copyrighted AFAICT, in violation of WP:LINKVIO and with no clear redeeming value beyond the fact that you find it useful. Again, your argument regarding ELYES is invalidated by the footnote that clearly describes copyright issues and by the impact of an open wiki, and you have presented no rebuttal to issues surrounding ELNO and ELNEVER, other than to say that "shouldn't" doesn't mean "musn't". To which I would respond that "never" does actually mean "musn't", and no strong "should" has been given to override "shouldn't" beyond WP:ILIKEIT and unsupported assertions. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What you call tag-teaming is proper procedure. Unless an editor can now try to overcome consensus by claiming tag-teaming. You should have come to the Talk page first, instead of just doing the same thing seven times. Your behavior here has been disruptive at best. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, "proper procedure" is that a) any disputed external link is left out until consensus for it has been demonstrated at talk, and b) potential copyright problems are left out until it has been demonstrated that they are in line with policy, which still hasn't happened. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not when it's been there for nearly three years and people found it useful. Then you take it to the Talk page. I find your interpretation of policies unconvincing in this case. The most important rule is WP:Consensus. You were overruled. That should be the end of it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, neither of those procedures includes exemptions based on the length of time a link has been present. Furthermore, as WP:CON indicates, when a dispute occurs consensus is reached by discussion on the talk page (not by simple reverting) and accounts for all concerns (which you haven't done), and policies can outweigh local consensus. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - It absolutely does not belong on the article as a reference, since the website is not a reliable source, although it looks as though it hasn't been readded as one. As a link it looks to fail WP:ELNO #1 and #12 completely.  How long it's been on the page is irrelevant, it could be there five minutes or five years, the link must be considered based on the merits as a link, not based on how long it took someone to notice it.  Useful is also not a convincing argument, since everything is useful to someone, but not everything belongs on Wikipedia, so the usefulness of something does not determine why it should be kept as a link without an explanation as to how it is useful. - SudoGhost 06:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I clearly did give an explanation as to how it is useful. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not in any way that would make it fall outside of WP:ELNO #1. It is not useful in the way a link should be. - SudoGhost 09:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - One issue that has not been addressed is whether the link contains accurate information. The short time that I've been here I've seen many editors on many different pages get hung up in Wikipedia rules and guidelines alone. The recent disputes regarding 'Star Trek Into Darkness' was all about the rules of the website and not about accurately reflecting the title of the films. I see this case as no different. The goal here should be to provide accurate information to readers, not to enforce a bunch of general rules for the sake of them. So the question should be, does the Sacred Scrolls page provide accruate information or not? Is the information there false or in some way biased? If not, then Gothicfilm's argument that it provides useful information to readers here, that goes beyond the scope of what is possible here is valid and should be the overriding factor. SonOfThornhill (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And the simple answer is no, it cannot be considered accurate. Why? Easy: even if you were to go through and verify all the information that is currently on the page using real sources, it's an open wiki - all that could have changed five minutes after you've finished. That's why we don't use external wikis. And no, "usefulness" is not the overriding factor, because that's a very subjective measure and because it ignores other issues (like copyright) that are equally or more important. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The link is not appropriate on Wikipedia, since it provides nothing that the article itself should not provide, and by nature of being an open wiki is not suitable as a external link; its mutable nature means it is not reliable. It would be different if that article's scope were different, and provided something that Wikipedia could not, but that's not the case here.  It is not "rules for the sake of them", there are reasons behind them, and those reasons make sense in this situation. - SudoGhost 13:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you both are making the argument not that the information is inaccruate now, but that it might be in accurate at some undetermined future date. That IS enforcing a rule just for the sake of enforcing a rule. I'll also add that SudoGhost's deletion of the link which has been on the page for years before reaching any consensus here is completely underhanded. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The argument is that the source is not a stable link. It's not useful as an external link if it is subject to change at anyone's whim.  That's why it is unacceptable as an external link and why I removed it, and again, "been on the page for years" means nothing; how long it took for someone to notice something has no bearing on its appropriateness. - SudoGhost 14:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're argument is that the source is not a stable link, than that argument fails. If you click on that page's history, you'll see that it has been edited a total of 8 times in the last 4 years. That is 2 edits per year. And all the edits were made by one person, the site's administrator. Compare that to the history page here, there are well over 200 edits in the same period, made by numerous editors including many unregistered IPs. So that page is far more stable than this one is. This is what happens when you blindly enforce a rule just for the sake of it instead of taking the actual situation into account. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is you focused on the first sentence I wrote, and completely ignored the second one which explained the rationale. Context is important, and your explanation is irrelevant in terms of what I said. The "blindly enforcing the rule" thing also isn't helping your position, since that's been refuted multiple times now with explanation as to why.  That's quite the opposite of "doing it for the sake of doing it".  When you have to take people's comments out of context in order to support your rationale it is less than convincing. - SudoGhost 13:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't ignore the second. The rationale fails because you claim the page is not stable. I showed that it is very stable, more stable than the page here. And since you did not review the page, you didn't know that it had only been edited 8 times in 4 years which shows that you are enforcing a rule just for the sake of enforcing it. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "More stable than the page here" is irrelevant, that's not how Wikipedia links are determined (and incidentally, Wikipedia articles would generally be inappropriate links on Wikipedia anyways). It's not useful as an external link if it is subject to change at anyone's whim.  That is why it is not stable and does not belong as an external link.  How many people edited it previously means nothing, that's not what is meant by "stable".  Also, don't assume that editors did or did not do things, I did view the history of the article and other contributions of that editor across Wikia.  You not liking the rationale does not mean that someone is "enforcing a rule just for the sake of enforcing it", and if that's the only protestation you can offer when presented with an explanation, then it seems we're done here.  Change the record, because WP:IDHT isn't effective in achieving what you're looking for. - SudoGhost 13:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So in other words you're saying that reality is irrelevant. That IS enforcing a rule just for the sake of enforcing it. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been explained numerous times now, yet you're still using that worn out argument. Unless you have anything useful to say, it's apparent that this link does not belong on the article and that you have no reason to include it. - SudoGhost 21:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not buying the explaination. The explaination does not reflect the truth of the situation. SonOfThornhill (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course you don't, it's the opposite of what you want so it's easier to pretend it was never said. You don't have to "buy" it, but when you repeatedly insist that "no explanation was given" just because you don't like the explanation, that completely erodes your argument. - SudoGhost 02:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No the explaination is bogus and you know it. It doesn't erode my argument at all because you've repeatedly proven my argument.SonOfThornhill (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Another vague and dismissive response that doesn't address a single thing. See my response below. - SudoGhost 14:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment I don't think it violates ELNO, although it may possibly violate ELNEVER. I think the wikia in general (i.e. http://planetoftheapes.wikia.com as opposed to a single page on it) meets #1 of ELNO: it hosts 1600 pages that surely offer more content than even a featured article on our Wikipedia offers. #12 prohibits "open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." To take the specific page that was linked on our article, this is how it looked in July 2012 and this is how it looked at the start of the year, so it seems to be stable; in regards to the number of its editors, I can't determine this but 1600 pages suggest to me the number is not insignificant, although if this is the work of just a handful of devoted fans then feel free to correct me. I don't consider the fact that "anyone can edit" to be a factor, since that holds true for the interlanguage wikis that we link to where we do not have direct jurisdiction over the hosted content. I see nothing in ELNO that actively prevents us from considering this link, and it does seem to be the "go to" source for POTA information. I do think ELNEVER holds some weight though, although it's worth bearing in mind that image use on another site doesn't have to meet our FUR criteria (which is set above the legal criteria), just the legally understood definition. In this case, FU usually applies if the images being used are of sufficiently low resolution, do not hurt the copyright owners commercial prospects nor are used to generate an income. I suggest raising the issue at our own copyright board, and if they clear us at a legal level to link to the site I don't see a problem with including a link to the main wikia site; I think it's a valid resource in that it may offer readers information they want but which we do not provide, but the copyright concerns can't be ignored. I agree that the link should remain out until the copyright situation is clarified. Betty Logan (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * SonOfThornhill has refuted this above: the page in question does not have a substantial number of editors. As we aren't discussing linking to the wiki in general, but the specific page, your points regarding ELNO fail. We have different standards for interwikis (other projects under the WMF umbrella) and external wikis - personally I agree that in some instances interwikis aren't appropriate, but as things stand they're mostly provided by Wikidata anyways, so there's not much we can do about that. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are adding a condition to ELNO which simply isn't there. It doesn't say anywhere that the specific page that is being linked to must have a "substantial number of editors". It simply states that for a link to an open wiki to be admissable there must be a substantial number of editors. It is entirely feasible that an open wiki can have a substantial number of editors, but only a few work on a particular page, and in such instances we wouldn't prohibit one page on the wiki but not others based solely on the number of editors each page has. Betty Logan (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's discussing the addition of an external link; the external link that editors here want to add is to a specific page, not the whole wiki. You also based your stability analysis on the specific page, not the wiki as a whole. Besides, can you show that the wiki in general has a substantial number of editors? Based on their recent changes feed, that seems unlikely. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The guideline stipulates nothing about the number of editors a particular page on the wiki must have, only the number of editors in regard to the wiki itself. The criteria apply to the open wiki, not a page on the wiki. Betty Logan (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In the ~7 years that particular wiki has been around, 28 editors have made more than 10 edits. That is most certainly not "a substantial number of editors" by any metric, so I wouldn't say the wiki as a whole meets WP:ELNO #12 either. - SudoGhost 15:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 28 editors sounds like a substantial enough number to me. And Betty has demonstrated it is stable. It does not have a history of being changed "at anyone's whim". - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 28 editors is anything but substantional, so it most certainly fails WP:ELNO #12 regardless of the stability of the wiki. However, "a history" does not matter; when I can go to the page right now and edit it to say whatever I want, that makes it inappropriate as an external link, since there aren't many editors there who would notice that kind of edit right away.  This is especially true when the page has only ever had 8 edits from a single editor.  Obscurity is not indicative of stability, quite the opposite. - SudoGhost 00:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't accept that an open wiki is inherently unstable because anyone can edit it, since this is surely taken into account by the guideline. The guideline acknowledges that anyone can alter the information by virtue of the fact it is an open wiki! The criteria is that it's stable by "open wiki" standards (otherwise we would just say that open wikis are inherently unstable and are prohibited), and I think it is, certainly no less stable than our own Wikipedia. As for whether 28 editors is "substantial", I have no opinion on this. It would be substantial in terms of a Wikiproject here on Wikipedia where we require a dozen or so participants, but obviously not substantial in terms of our entire workforce, and the guideline doesn't offer any advice on scale so none of us can argue this point with any conviction. However, I find this discussion academic because the link isn't going back in unless the copyright concerns are cleared. The editors who want to restore the link really need to take the link along to the copyright board and get it cleared (unless any of us are legally qualified to advise in this capacity); if it is cleared then we can take a closer look at how ELNO#12 should be interpreted. Betty Logan (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * An open wiki is not inherently unstable just becasue anyone can edit it, that's not the concern. The issue is the open nature combined with the small number of editors, especially given that the page in question has been edited only by a single editor, who edits that wiki only infrequently. Is there a demonstratable history of vandalism being quickly reverted on the page?  That would demonstrate stability, but that's not there.  Is there a demonstratable history of vandalism being reverted on the wiki at all?  That would be a weaker argument for stability, but again, that's not there either.  If this page were to have been linked from an article here on Wikipedia, someone going there would be very confused why they clicked a link just to see a page with no relevant content at all.  Aside from that single edit blanking that article, no editor has edited that wiki at all in six days, and even then the editing is extremely sporadic.  Merely being an open wiki does not make a wiki "inherently unstable", but being an open wiki that is edited by very few people only sporadically does, since vandalism will go unnoticed for apparently quite some time. - SudoGhost 00:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * First, on the issue of 28 editors, that is based on the criteria of at least 10 edits. However, WP:ELNO #12 has no such criteria for number of edits. If judged on the basis of at least 5 edits, the total number of editors is 50. If judged by at least on 1 edit, the total number of editors jumps to 166. So there are a substantial number of editors. Second, on the issue of stability. The page in question, and the wiki as a whole appears to be very stable. The question has been asked, "Is there a demonstratable history of vandalism being quickly reverted on the page?" But before asking that the question that should be asked is: Is there a demonstratable history of vandalism on the page at all? The answer to that is no. Also, there is no demonstratable history of vandalism on the entire wiki other than the vandalism of this page which strangely occured in the last 24 hours? Again, no. It has been said that it's ok to delete the original link on this page without discussion even though it has been on the page for years. How long it took someone to notice the link is irrelevant. So why is it that there is a higher standard for the Sacred Scrolls wiki for reverting something than there is here? Finally, as Gothicfilm has pointed out, the Sacred Scrolls page does meet the criteria for WP:ELNO #1 in that it provides a far more extensive history of the novel as well as a large gallery of covers. So the site is stable, does have a substantial number of editors and offers a a unique resource beyond what is available here. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone who makes less than 10 edits over the course of 7 years is not an editor in any way that reflects upon the wiki. So no, there are most certainly not, under any definition, a substantial number of editors, even when you take into account that a few people have made cursory edits.  It is also not stable in any way that matters for determining the appropriateness of linking it here.  Stagnation and obscurity are not the same as stability, there must be an assurance that when anyone can edit an external link, that vandalism will be dealt with quickly to assure that readers are going to arrive at relevant content, and "well nobody ever edits the wiki" isn't a convincing argument in that regard.  The link does not meet the criteria necessary to warrant linking it here.  It does not meet the criteria for WP:ELNO #1; a few images do not supersede this, nor does it meet the criteria for WP:ELNO #12. - SudoGhost 15:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, I have to point out that ELNO#1 is being misrepresented. The guideline does not apply to the page, it applies to the site. The site appears to meet the criteria, in that it offers more substantial coverage of the topic than what we have on Wikipedia. It seems reasonable to link to the analogous page, but ultimately what page we link to is a matter of discretion for the editors. Betty Logan (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Someone who makes less than 10 edits over the course of 7 years is not an editor". By who's definition? There is no definition for this in WP:ELNO. That is purely your definition, and yours alone, because you're against linking to the page. So unless you can point to a specific rule or guideline that makes that definition, you have no case. SonOfThornhill (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're grasping at straws now, and it's not going to get your link on the article by just disagreeing for the sake of doing so. A wiki must have a demonstrable group of editors that frequently edit.  The reason for this has been explained numerous times.  It doesn't help when you claim that someone is "enforcing a rule just for the sake of enforcing it" and then try to cite the exact wording of WP:ELNO without explanation when something is explained to you.  - SudoGhost 21:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're the one grasping at straws. There is no criteria in WP:ELNO for the number of edits an editor of an open wiki must make, just that the wiki have a siginificant number of editors which the Sacred Scrolls wiki does. Nor is 'significant' defined either. Is it 10, is it 20, is it 100? Unknown because it isn't defined. You just want everyone accept your definition without question. And you can restate your explainations a 100 times over and they still won't be good enough because they are not based on reality. As Betty and Gothicfilm have shown the site meets the criteria of WP:ELNO #1. It has been shown that the site is both stable and has a significant number of editors and thus meets the criteria of WP:ELNO #12. SonOfThornhill (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that's not the case, and repeatedly stating that no explanation just because the explanation refutes what your wanting is a very weak protestation, one that does not help your cause. There is no consensus for your edit and consensus seems to be suggesting that the link does not belong, especially when viewed in light of Wikipedia's guidelines on the matter.  If 28 editors is significant, then what could possibly be an insignificant number of editors?  Especially when most of those 28 editors themselves seldom edit the wiki at any time in the last 90 days, this wiki does not have a significant number of editors, and the reason why that's relevant has been explained.  Saying that explanations you don't like are "not based on reality" is an ineffective a tactic as pretending they didn't exist; now suddenly they exist, so you were wrong on that, so that discredits your "not based on reality" as just another way to dismiss that which you have no response to.  Try addressing the explanation, you're much more likely to convince others that way, but as it stands the link has no place on this article. - SudoGhost 02:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're the expert on weak arguments and BS explainations. It has been shown that the meets the criteria of both WP:ELNO #1 and #12. But they you try to change the goal posts by setting up criteria not stated in WP:ELNO. There is no definition of what a significant number of editors is or how many edits they have to make or in what timeframe. Those criteria were dishonestly invented by you. Just has you dishonestly vandalized this page of the Sacred Scrolls wiki. All if which discredits your credibility. And your BS arguments.SonOfThornhill (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * One would be advised to be careful with accusations of vandalism, even when it looks suspiciously coincidental with activity elsewhere. It could be anybody, including someone who never posted here but decided to see what he could do on the discussed site. Unless you have evidence it was a particular user, it's best to resist leveling charges of vandalism. They'll just use that against you. The fact we have people on here repeatedly claiming undefined policies must be interpreted their way is quite enough. I know it can be difficult, but people who remain WP:civil are more likely to advance their position. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Now you're accusing me of off-wiki vandalism without proof. I checked the geolocation of that IP address; it's in Texas, and I am in Georgia.  My contributions reflect that.  If this is the quality of the argument you're presenting, there's no point in continuing this discussion.  The reason why the link does not belong on the article has been explained to you multiple times, and you've responded with an entirely WP:IDHT attitude, and have now descended into personal attacks.  You're not going to get a consensus that way, which I thought was what you were trying to do.  You are, however, doing it in one of the worst possible ways.  I'm not interesting in discussing this with someone with nothing to say other than "nuh-uh" and personal attacks; so long as your responses continue in that manner, you'll find yourself arguing with yourself for all the good it will do.  Get a consensus for your edit before you make it again, because right now consensus is against your edit. - SudoGhost 14:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes it is just a big coincidence that an obscure page on that wiki is vandalized shortly before you post about it here to make a point. But I'll apologize for the accusation, nonetheless. The reason the link should be reinstated has been explained to YOU multiple times by me and others. You're the one with the WP:IDHT attitude who has been trying to impose your personal interpetation to WP:ELNO #1 and #12. As Betty stated above "The site appears to meet the criteria, in that it offers more substantial coverage of the topic than what we have on Wikipedia"; thus satisfying WP:ELNO #1. As also has been pointed out there is no definition of 'significant number of editors' in WP:ELNO #12, nor is there any criteria for the number of edits an editor has to make or the period of time they have to make those edits. Can you refute any of this honestly? And consensus in not against restoring the link. Gothicfilm is for it. Betty is for it depending on the resolution of the copyright issue. By my count that is 3 to 2 for it. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The "significant number" has been addressed above. If 28 editors, none of whom have edited the entire wiki in over a week is significant, then what could possibly be considered insignificant?  You're correct in saying that "significant" is not defined as a hard rule, but this wiki is nowhere close to any interpretation of a significant number of editors, especially when the reasoning behind that requirement is taken into consideration.  Cherry-picking the quotes of other editors doesn't help your cause because it makes your other claims questionable, just as you claiming that "no explanation has been given" despite multiple explanations being given made your claims questionable.  At this point it's just looking like you'll say whatever you need to in order to promote this link, because that's twice now that something you've repeatedly said has been shown to be demonstrably false in every regard.  You also forgot to include where Betty said "I agree that the link should remain out until the copyright situation is clarified."  I am baffled how that becomes support for including the link.  You also need to read WP:CONSENSUS, because it is not a vote. - SudoGhost 15:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's not 28 editors, it is 166 editors in total. You keep thinking that everyone has to accept your criteria and definitions. So the issue of "significant number" has not been resolved. And I'm not claiming no explaination has been given, but rather that I don't agree with the ones that have. Plus, I noted above, "Betty is for it depending on the resolution of the copyright issue." So I'm not the one making false statements here. You may disagree, but I've said nothing that was false. As far as who will say anything, I didn't invent definitions and criteria for WP:ELNO #12, that was you. You're right that WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote but it doesn't require unanimity either. SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You've moved on from personal attacks, to somehow knowing what I think and dismissing what I've said based on faulty thought-reading. I hate to break it to you, but mind-reading just isn't your thing, because that's an inaccurate assessment of my thoughts.  Thanks though.  Nobody has to accept any definition I've given, but disagreeing without giving an explanation as to why it's not right just seems like disagreeing for the sake of doing so to try to get your link pushed through without actually having to give merit to what you're saying, and believe me you're not the first person to try to use this tactic, but it's never been particularly effective on Wikipedia.  I've responded to the "significant number" issue below. - SudoGhost 13:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, most of your posts are nothing but personal attacks. But you're right, instead of thinking I've should have said acting. I've stated several times why this link should be restored and other that other than trying to push your definition of significant, you resort to condesending lecturing posts instead of discussing the issue at hand. And it is not my link as you've put it. It was an existing link on the page, that one editor decided to delete without discussion after it had been on the page for years. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is getting off-topic, but I have responded to this on your talk page. - SudoGhost 14:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The Sacred Scrolls site has been cleared as an external link concerning copyright issues. Removing it on the issue that the page enables copyright infringement is not appropriate, as can be seen at Media copyright questions. The other issues discussed here come down to how the editors of the page want to deal with them. WP:ELBURDEN says Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article. WP:ELNO says one should generally avoid a list of certain EL types. Even if this EL meets one of those types, which is debatable, "generally avoid" does not mean in every case. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finally taking the time to post over there. Although ELNO does not define "significant number" precisely, <200 by any measure would be unlikely to meet a reasonable definition. ELBURDEN also says that disputed links are excluded by default. No one seems to have been able to back up the ELYES arguments with evidence, either. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Once again, that's your interpretation of the policy. A "significant number" could simply be seen as >a few - especially when the term is as undefined as it is here. 28 is more than a few. And so is the 166 number above, which is probably why you want to draw a line at 200. But that's just your number. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * One could see things that way, if one did not look at the relevant policy discussion and note that "significant" is most often defined in the hundreds or thousands, of active (not registered) editors - see this archive for one of many examples. One could also realize that arguing one point semantically while neglecting others, and continuing to fail to provide evidence for one's points, both do not bode well for one's argument. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * None of that rules over what we're talking about here. It's open to interpretation. It now comes down to WP:Consensus, so we'll see what develops. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As of the past seven days, a grand total of 0 accounts have edited that wiki. The only two edits in the past seven days have been vandalism and someone else reverting that vandalism after it was brought to attention here.  You can say "that's your interpretation of the policy" but the reason for why a few intermittently active editors isn't significant has been given.  You can say you disagree, but that just appears to be disagreeing for the sake of doing so, because you haven't given a single reason why you believe this number is significant.  166 editors, 28 of whom have made more than 10 edits to the wiki is insignificant.  Compare that to a wiki that does have a significant number of editors, such as this one with 26,012 editors, 6,972 of which has made more than 10 edits, at least 30 (I had a hard time keeping track at that point, so it could be much, much more) of them have made edits in the past 24 hours and well over 500 total edits to the wiki itself in the past 24 hours, compared to your wiki not having a single edit from an account in over a week, and only two edits from IPs.  If 0 editors editing in a week is significant, then there's no possible reason to have that rule at WP:ELNO.  That is not the case, however, because without a damn good explanation to the contrary, the reason WP:ELNO #12 is there is because it takes into account active editors, since the reason for that rule is that the active community of editors overrides any concerns about the open nature of wikis.  Your wiki does not have an active community of editors.  I've love to hear how you believe that it does meet WP:ELNO #12. - SudoGhost 13:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * First, it is not his wiki. That is a condesending and arrogant remark. Second, the word significant is a relative term. Give someone who makes $100,000 a $1,000 raise, that is not a significant increase. Give the same $1,000 to someone who makes $10,000, it is a very signficant. WP:ELNO #12 does not define what is significant. Sure compared to the Star Wars wiki 166 total editors are not significant. But is it really fair to compare to one of the most popular wikis? SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:ELNO does not say a site has to be as popular as the Star Wars wiki. What it does say is one should generally avoid a list of certain EL types. Even if The Sacred Scrolls site meets one of those types, which is debatable, "generally avoid" does not mean in every case. - Gothicfilm (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I never said it has to be as popular as the Star Wars wiki, that's a red herring. But that's an example of what a significant number of editors looks like.  This is another one, which has well over 5000 editors and hundreds of edits in the past 24 hours alone by dozens of editors.  Those are significant numbers of editors.  Zero recent edits from editors, 27 editors with any actual edits and only 166 editors somehow significant in light of this?  If that's significant, then would could possibly be insignificant?  How can a RecentChanges log possibly be any less than 0?  You disagree that it doesn't fail WP:ELNO #12.  How?   How are 26 editors a significant number?  If it's "debatable", how is it so? - SudoGhost 16:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The guideline can be interpreted either way to suit whichever side of the fence you are one and it is clear no consensus is going to be reached here. The copyright has been cleared so there isn't a policy reason to keep the link out, we just need the intention behind ELNO#12 elaborated on. I suggest raising the issue at External links/Noticeboard, and standing by the outcome. Betty Logan (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair to me. I'm willing to stand by the outcome whatever that may be. SonOfThornhill (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

No further comment at External links/Noticeboard after two and a half days. Five support restoring the link to the site. Two are against it. I think this process is done. Following WP:Consensus, the link is to be restored. Thanks to those who contributed. - Gothicfilm (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not how consensus works. WP:ELNO cannot be ignored just because you find it too inconvenient, and "it's too vague" isn't a rationale against that; it's "vague" for a reason, that alone is not cause to ignore it.  Assuming that there was such a consensus, such a consensus that ignores a wider community consensus cannot decide that WP:ELNO #12 does not apply merely because they find it "too vague".  Unless consensus demonstrates that it meets WP:ELNO #12, it doesn't belong here; a small discussion there cannot determine that WP:ELNO can be ignored; if a group of editors believe that to be the case, bring it up at Wikipedia talk:External links and get a consensus to say that WP:ELNO #12 has an issue.  Short of that, consensus needs to determine that it actually meets WP:ELNO #12; a few editors saying that it's vague and therefore should be ignored doesn't override the wider community consensus that says it's there for a reason. - SudoGhost 03:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite the edit warrior, aren't you? It looks to me like WP:CONLIMITED is about trying to change policy. We're not doing that here. You have been overcome by WP:Consensus and WP:IAR. But you battle on, believing you can overcome all that because of your opinion of how an undefined policy should be interpreted. Five others have supported including this link. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Odd how you accuse me of being an "edit warrior", as you are just as guilty of edit warring. It only hurts you when you refer to other editors as "edit warrior" or other pointless names; I am an editor.  You are an editor.  How about we stick to that?  Otherwise you're just making unnecessary conflict for yourself, and doing everything except helping your case.  I've gone ahead and reverted the edit to the status quo version since it seems you're more interested in comments like that instead of actually discussing the content, so consensus stands on the matter until you can get a consensus that says otherwise (and no, consensus is not a vote, so the number of editors is irrelevant, especially when they fail to address the reason it was removed).  You've also misread WP:CONLIMITED, nor does WP:IAR apply, otherwise I could just as easily say I'm reverting the link per WP:IAR; see how pointless that becomes?  Consensus determines the content, and unless consensus can show that WP:ELNO is not being ignored but that the wiki meets that criteria, Wikipedia policy says that WP:ELNO #12 applies.  If you can get a consensus that says that yes, the wiki does have a substantial number of editors and a history of stability, then it belongs on the article, but until then it doesn't belong. - SudoGhost 06:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reverted my edit, not because it belongs but because the discussion is more important; it can stay another day or two until that is resolved. However, a little civility will go a long way.  Please do not refer to other editors that you are engaged in an edit war with as "edit warriors" just because they disagree with you.  If you can demonstrate how this wiki meets WP:ELNO #12 I would gladly agree that it should be on the article, but that doesn't appear to be the case, given the consensus on other wikis that have been proposed as external links. - SudoGhost 07:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Several other editors support including the link. The issues about about WP:ELNO #12 were fully addressed hereExternal links/Noticeboard. It is not up for one single editor to agree or disagree when 5 other editors have reached agreement on the matter. Nor do the interpetations of one editor trump those of 5 other editors. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed. WP:ELNO #12 was directly referred to 12 times at External links/Noticeboard. SudoGhost made his points about it repeatedly, and still five editors supported restoring the link. An editor who doesn't get the result he wants on two discussion pages shouldn't be able to repeat his same arguments and demand yet another discussion on yet another page. - Gothicfilm (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Close; several other editors have said that it is "unique", but that's not the only issue. Several other editors have also said that WP:ELNO #12 is too vague and therefore WP:IAR applies, and that's where it becomes an issue, because Wikipedia policy says otherwise.  If that's the argument you want to make, raise the discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links and get WP:ELNO changed, otherwise it needs to be shown that it meets WP:ELNO #12. - SudoGhost 14:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You made your points about WP:ELNO #12 repeatedly at that discussion, and still five editors supported restoring the link. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The argument at the noticeboard seems to have been that having a resource showing cover images would be helpful. Because no one was able to demonstrate that the link had a comprehensive or accurate gallery or history, I've added a published resource to address that suggestion. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That's fine as far as it goes, but can someone click on it? If not, it is not suitable as a replacement for the link. You have no consensus that an offline source is "better" than a website readily accessible. I'm happy to leave them both on the page, but an offline source is obviously not very useful for most online users. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's better because it's more complete and more accurate - you've given no evidence that the link is either. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no way to determine if it is a better resource because it is offline. It is a book that has to be purchased. It is not a easily accessible link. While I don't object to the reference being included on the page, it is not an adequate replacement for the link. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Take care not to fall victim to FUTON bias - contrary to your statement, it is fairly easy to determine that the book would be a better resource. Even if you can't be bothered to locate a physical copy, there are several reviews online that praise its image galleries. Furthermore, you still haven't presented any evidence supporting the link's accuracy. It may be clickable, but that doesn't make it better. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And no evidence has been presented that the link in inaccurate. There is no objection to including the reference to the book on the page, just that it is not a suitable replacement for the link.SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * See, per our policies we assume open wikis to be inaccurate until determined otherwise, so burden of proof rests with you. Same goes for WP:ELBURDEN - burden for demonstrating justifiability rests with those wanting to include the link, not those wanting to exclude. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * According to WP:ELBURDEN, "Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article. Disputes about links can be addressed through the normal dispute-resolution process, particularly at the external links noticeboard. Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them."

That happened, External links/Noticeboard, and 5 editors supported restoring the link. Plus, there is noting in WP:ELNO #12 that assumes open wikis are inaccurate. SonOfThornhill (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Only it didn't happen; there was no consensus that the external link met WP:ELNO #12. - SudoGhost 19:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What happened is you made your points about WP:ELNO #12 repeatedly, and still five editors supported restoring the link. That's consensus to restore the link, which is why we're here. Furthermore Betty, MarnetteD and SonOfThornhill all addressed WP:ELNO #12 in their Support statement. The standard of WP:Consensus is not that they had to convince you. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)- Gothicfilm (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All five supporters supported the inclusion of the link based on it being a unique resource not available elsewhere. The added Further reading source demonstrates that that is not the case, and so replaces the poorer-quality source with no demonstrated reliability. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That is your opinion, and it doesn't convince me. Now that Betty has added a Google preview link I can see some of it, but the page it's supposed to directly jump to, pg269, does not display. Instead a msg says the page is unavailable for viewing. I can see that page 270 has 12 black-and-white cover images. That is not "better" than dozens of color images of covers that were in color, as seen at The Sacred Scrolls site. You have not demonstrated the site is inaccurate either, if anything this book backs up its accuracy. Though note the book describes itself as "unauthorized", and it's out of date, being published in 2008, three years before Rise. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It could be argued that it is "better", but that is largely subjective. However, the fact that this wiki has images is most certainly not unique given this source, nor is there a consensus to include the link now that other editors have given opinions especially concerning WP:ELNO #12. - SudoGhost 06:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The Sacred Scrolls background
MagicManky posted the following at WP:External links/Noticeboard. I'm reposting it here for the record as that noticeboard will be archived, and more people interested in the novel will be more likely to see it here in the future. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm an admin on the Sacred Scrolls site in question. I'll try to clarify a few points here, purely so that you might be able to bring this to a conclusion. I know from being involved in a number of groups and online forums over the past decade that the number of Planet of the Apes fans worldwide - or at least those willing to get involved in anything online - is a tiny fraction of virtually all major sci-fi franchises, and this is reflected in the numbers of editors contributing to the Sacred Scrolls. It's pathetic when compared to the likes of Star Wars or Doctor Who, etc. And that was the main reason I got involved in the wiki in the first place - to help make this material, the facts and figures, more accessible and hopefully to generate interest. I have functioned as the site's main admin for 3 or 4 years now and I check recent changes on a daily basis (unless in exceptional circumstances), and make any corrections necessary. Of the top of my head, I can think of a prolonged attack of spam vandalism aimed at the site in the early months of this year, which was repaired on a daily basis, and also an unusual spate of vandalism over the last few days which, again, has been noticed and repaired quickly. I have gone to great effort to ensure that the site is as accurate and as unbiased as it can be, and I believe it now serves a useful purpose in presenting reliable facts on the subject. The alternative link which has been recently added to the Wikipedia article is to the excellent timeline book by Rich Handley - it may be significant that Rich himself is a named editor on the Sacred Scrolls (though under a pseudonym) and has praised the accuracy of the wiki on his blog and in print many times. He also invited me to serve as a proof-reader and fact-checker on his follow-up Planet of the Apes encyclopedia, because of my involvement with the wiki site. Consequently, I understand only too well the need for Wikipedia to refer only to safe and dependable sources. All I can add is that I believe the Sacred Scroll's content to be reliable, but having written much of it myself it's probably better if I leave that for others to decide. I'll answer any further questions anyone might have about the administration of the site, but I have no wish to get bogged down in a lengthy discussion about the definition of the guidelines. If you feel it doesn't meet the standards for a link from Wikipedia then so be it. - MagicManky (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Consensus?
Five support restoring the link to the site. Two are against it. It should be noted Jreferee, an administrator, twice tried to close the discussion at WP:External links/Noticeboard, with the summary Closed as particular external link is appropriate. He put in the comment:


 * Consensus is that the La Planète des singes at The Sacred Scrolls external link is appropriate for the Planet of the Apes (novel) article. -- Jreferee (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)}}

Certain editors will never be satisfied. Five may not be a landslide, but it is a majority. If the standard was everyone has to be satisfied, nothing would be brought to a conclusion. As demonstrated above, the link is useful. It was there for nearly three years and no harm came from it. Any vandalism is immediately dealt with. It should be restored per consensus. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The link must be shown to meet the concerns of WP:ELNO #12, and there is only a claim of a consensus that the article in question is "unique", which is not why it is removed. At any rate that claim to consensus concerning the "uniqueness" of the site was before other links were presented with the same information, which makes it anything but unique, and doesn't even address the actual reason it was removed.  There is no consensus to restore the link.  Consensus is not a vote, and even if it were your count is a bit off.  The amount of time it was on the page is irrelevant, and claims that "it's useful" is not a reason to ignore how links are included; everything can be said to be useful to someone, so that doesn't amount to much. - SudoGhost 19:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You keep saying that even though supporters like MarnetteD wrote Support inclusion of the link. WP:ELNO #12 was addressed. You have demonstrated you will never be satisfied. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A single editor claiming that WP:ELNO should be ignored has already been addressed multiple times by multiple editors; that sort of rationale cannot decide that the larger consensus does not apply, so claiming that WP:ELNO should be ignored does not address how the article meets WP:ELNO. If I am not "satisfied" it is because the link does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines on the matter, and as long as there is no consensus that the external links meets WP:ELNO #12, I will remain "unsatisfied". That doesn't suddenly change after waiting a week or two, so I don't know what point you're trying to make when you say that I "will never be satisfied".  I could just as easily make remarks about how you "would never be satisfied" until the link is restored, but it would be just as pointless a remark. - SudoGhost 20:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Because it's applied to someone who continues to fight against consensus. Administrator Jreferee tried to close this, saying consensus to include the EL was reached. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If there were a consensus there would be some merit in that statement. However, that is not the case.  An administrator not familiar with WP:ELN attempted to do something that is not done at WP:ELN, and was reverted by several editors, none of them were myself.  That does not create a consensus.  Until there is a consensus that the external link meets the concerns raised at WP:ELNO, it will not be in the article; a weak claim to consensus that the site is "unique" is insufficient and irrelevant. - SudoGhost 20:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: The Sacred Scrolls external link
How do WP:ELNO #12 and WP:IAR apply to the issue of including or excluding The Sacred Scrolls as an external link? Can WP:LOCALCONSENSUS overcome a majority vote in this case? - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It's been recommended more than once this should go to RfC. It was also discussed at length at WP:External links/Noticeboard. It regards a link that was removed after nearly three years on the Planet of the Apes (novel) article. I only want to restore the link to the site, not reuse the images on Wikipedia. This is how the EL appeared:

La Planète des Singes at The Sacred Scrolls - History of the novel's international editions with book cover images.

It should be noted Jreferee, an administrator, twice tried to close the discussion at WP:External links/Noticeboard, with the summary Closed as particular external link is appropriate.

The book cover images are obviously accurate and very useful to people interested in the Planet of the Apes novel's history. When I first saw The Sacred Scrolls page it answered questions I had about the book's different title Monkey Planet in the UK, for example. WP:ELBURDEN says Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article. I've been maintaining the article for nearly two years, and I found The Sacred Scrolls site to be very useful in ways WP cannot. We obviously cannot post dozens of book cover images on a WP page. The Sacred Scrolls is the main "go to" site for people interested in the Planet of the Apes series. Removing it on the issue that the page enables copyright infringement is not appropriate, as this was resolved at WP:Media copyright questions/Archive/2013/March. It is not covered under WP:ELNEVER. WP:ELNO says one should generally avoid a list of certain EL types. Even if The Sacred Scrolls site meets one of those types, "generally avoid" does not mean in every case. The copyright has been cleared so there isn't a policy reason to keep the link out, we just need the intention behind ELNO#12 elaborated on. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * First of all, a "majority vote" does not determine consensus. If WP:IAR would apply in including the link, then WP:IAR would apply in removing the link; if there is disagreement about an external link then a consensus must be reached to reinsert it.  WP:IAR does not permit editors to ignore the larger consensus concerning the appropriateness of external links. - SudoGhost 20:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Replying here, since you moved my comment out of its original location and expanded what you wrote: claiming that something is "very useful" is, ironically, not useful as a rationale to include an external link. Everyone would argue that every link is "useful" to someone, so that doesn't actually mean anything.  WP:ELNO does indeed say that one should "generally avoid" certain types of links, and this one squarely falls into that type; it is an open wiki with little to no moderation and no community of active editors whatsoever.  Certain types of open wikis have a substantial community of editors that actively maintain the wiki, and those are the exception, but this one is exactly the type of open wiki that is not permitted as an external link on Wikipedia because it is not one of those wikis.  Copying a few images off of a Google search and placing them at the bottom of a wiki does not make it "useful" nor "unique"; there is already a link in the article that has these same images, and these same images can be found online elsewhere.  It does not meet the criteria listed at WP:ELNO #1 or #12, and provides nothing useful or unique of any value. - SudoGhost 21:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You have no basis for your statements above on The Sacred Scrolls. Where do you come up with Copying a few images off of a Google search and placing them at the bottom of a wiki? It's obviously not put together that way, it is well organized - unlike a Google images search result. And it's not a few images, it's many. As has been said before, the timeline book by Rich Handley can be used as a Further Reading entry, but it is not a good replacement as an EL because it does not include all the cover images supplied by the site. And a book is obviously not very useful for most online readers. Now that Betty Logan has added a Google preview link I can see most of it, but I only get a limited number of views and the page it's supposed to directly jump to, 269, does not display. Instead a msg says the page is unavailable for viewing. I can see that page 270 has 12 black-and-white cover images. The 350 covers provided in the book are not of the original novel by Pierre Boulle but of later novelizations, comic books, home video, etc., and they're all in black and white. That is not what we're looking for regarding the novel, nor is it better than the dozens of color images of the novel's international editions that can be seen at The Sacred Scrolls. The site's accuracy is backed up by the book, whose author is also a contributor to the site. Did you see the statement from the site's administrator above? The site is maintained daily. You've done multiple paragraphs on this already on two discussion pages. Let others come to this section before it's too long to read. It could be 24 hours before the RfC is posted. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hope neither of you take this the wrong way, but it would probably be better if you two don't respond to each other directly in this RFC. I think you've probably covered everything that can be covered, and people are less likely to respond to the RFC if they are confronted by a wall of text. We really don't need another discussion that doesn't have a conclusion through lack of participation. Betty Logan (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Now I'm confused. Can you not see the link or does it support the site's accuracy?  Which is it? - SudoGhost 01:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion This discussion has been going on for some time now, but it really comes down to how WP:ELNO should be interpreted. I think the only discussion responders really need to take a look at is External links/Noticeboard, since the copyright issue was cleared up. In that discussion there generally seemed to be weak support, or rather an absence of disapproval (from the uninvolved editors). My personal view on this is that the article wouldn't be harmed by omitting the link, but on balance it looks like a helpful resource to readers. External web pages die and change all the time just like online sources, and if this happened to The Sacred Scrolls we can always drop the link at a later point. As it stands, people may find it useful so I don't have any objections to its inclusion; it's not like there are plenty of alternatives available. Betty Logan (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The inclusion of open wikis as external links have a stricter criteria than non-wiki links due to the unstable nature of an open resource. This external link fails WP:ELNO #12 as poorly as any link that I've ever seen discussed on Wikipedia; wikis with many more editors than this one were removed for lack of editors.  It has no history of stability and a paltry number of editors, none of whom edit the wiki with any frequency.  It is not "a unique resource", and also fails WP:ELNO #1.  Absolutely nothing is gained by providing the link; at the bottom of the page it duplicates images already linked in this article and that can be found elsewhere online, and if that is the claim to "usefulness" and "uniqueness" then it isn't sufficient enough to warrant linking it to this article. - SudoGhost 01:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion The lengthy words that have been added since I first commented on this have not changed the fact that this cite merits inclusion as an EL in the article. MarnetteD | Talk 02:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * On the basis of what? It fails WP:ELNO #12, are you still of the opinion that the larger consensus should be ignored? - SudoGhost 02:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose as a wiki it has no place here, but more importantly it has a serious amount of copyright violation. The book cover images are possibly acceptable under fair use, but there are a huge number of other photographs taken from books, films and other websites with no heed paid to copyright or licensing. See, for example, Special:NewFiles, or the Gallery, or artwork based on the Planet of the Apes. I could go on, there is so much copyvio that WP:ELNEVER clearly applies. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:ELNEVER does not apply here as clearly explained in the opening statement. The link has been cleared at the copyright noticeboard. The purpose of the RFC is to purely establish the applicability of WP:ELNO. Betty Logan (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It was not cleared. Read the entry, and you will see only one editor responded. Perhaps it should betaken back for a fuller discussion. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It was cleared. M ASEM, an administrator there, wrote:

I'm not seeing this as a massive copyright violation on the Wikia end, in the sense that it might be over fair use, but it's not wholesale reproductions or the like. Removing the like on the issue that the page enables copyright infringement is not appropriate.
 * No one there disagreed with his assessment. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion As has been stated before, the link does provide a unique resource as required by WP:ELNO#1. The gallery of internation book covers is that unique resource that can't be duplicated here. And the copyright issue has been resolved WP:Media copyright questions/Archive/2013/March. As far as WP:ELNO#12, it allows for open wikis to be linked to that have substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. The Sacred Scrolls clearly meets this requirement. It is very stable with all recent instances of vandalism being reverted in less than a day. It also has substantial number of registered editors, 166. So is satisfies WP:ELNO#12. I agree with Betty that exclusion of the link does not harm the article, but neither does the inclusion of the link. Rather, including the link enhances it. It provides a resource of information on the subject that is not availible here. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 166 editors over 7 years, the majority of them making an inconsequential number of edits, is anything but substantial, especially when nowhere near that number actually edit the wiki. You would be hard pressed to find an active wiki with a fewer number of total editors.  Most wikis that have been included as external links have at least tens of thousands of editors and hundreds of edits daily, and that is certainly substantial.  A handful of active editors occasionally editing is exactly the reason WP:ELNO#12 was written. - SudoGhost 02:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, you have your interpretation of WP:ELNO#12 and what constitutes a significant number of editors, and I have mine.SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The difference is that your interpretation does not reflect Wikipedia's definition; I would welcome an example of any wiki with anywhere near this small number of editors that a consensus has determined is significant. - SudoGhost 20:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - ELNO#12 is clearly not met, with under 200 total editors and far fewer that are actually active - not even close to a "substantial number". ELYES is also not met, as open wikis are considered to be inherently unreliable. The argument about the "unique" gallery is unpersuasive - first, the presence of the book demonstrates that these images are not unique, and second, the site is not primarily a gallery, but an "encyclopedia" (in the loosest possible sense) whose inclusion has not been justified by anyone. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * stronger oppose not a unique resource, the open nature of the landing site, and copyright concerns all suggest that any potential value is entirely conditional and not guaranteed with any reasonable belief. Wikipedia has enough trouble looking after its own content, we do not need to be adding patrols of external wikis as well.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom


 * Nothing is guaranteed anywhere on the web, but this site is maintained daily, as its administrator explained well above. And it has been cleared as an EL at the copyright noticeboard. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * oh if someone said they will update it daily on Wikipedia then all our concerns .... well, they are still right there as being highlighted a one man shop that we SHOULD NOT depend upon and adding the concerns that the sole reason for the battle for inclusion of the link is a self promotional spamming of their site. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What? I and the others supporting its inclusion have nothing to do with the site. We found it useful, as explained above. It is clearly not spam, and it is clearly not a one man shop. That administrator is not involved in this discussion beyond his one post explaining its background. He even said he didn't want to get involved. Have you read the above discussion? - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * oppose as the link does not met ELNO criteria. Dlabtot (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Unclear plot summary
The plot summary is not clear about the ending. It is in fact revealed that the "message in a bottle" was picked up by the ape couple a thousand years later, and Mankind has become extinct, nothing more than a long lost legend the likes of the Boogie Man, the Vampire or the Yeti.... That's not clear from how it is written up in this summary.Colliric (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have the original French version right here on my lap, and never does it say that Manking has become extinct, and even less a long lost legend like the Boogie Man. The Astronaut Chimps in the last chapter actually seem to "know" Humans well enough, saying that the story they just read is ridiculous since no man could be so "reasonable, wise, or have spirit". Mankind is surely still an existing species for them, though they are like animals.
 * Where you might be confused is that one of the chimps comments on the story saying it's a "nice mystification". By that, the chimp meant that the idea that a man could be so intelligent is a rather interesting story. The expression doesn't mean that mankind as a whole is a myth, it means the chimp thinks the story is false, like a fairy tale.--Munin75 (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Reboot series
I removed the mention of the reboot. User Gothicfilm correctly pointed out that sequels, prequels, and other adaptations are not mentioned on this page about the original book. Rather they are talked about in the separate article, referenced at the top of this section. Nick Beeson (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually I pointed out This article doesn't list the four sequels to the first film. But it does mention they exist in the Adaptations section. The bit there about Rise should probably be restored as similar follow-through on the 2001 remake (or else others surely will put in their own text), but should not be elaborated on further - meaning we should not list Dawn as it is further removed from the original novel than the first four sequels. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

"Bestiality" vs. "Wildern"
I removed the reference to Antelle reverting to "bestiality" in the zoo, as there is no evidence in the novel that he ever engaged in zoophilia. The correct terminology is likely closer to the German "wildern" ("to revert to a wild state" - see http://www.dict.cc/german-english/wildern.html), but there is apparently no equivalent English term, so I simply changed the sentence to "Antelle reverts to primitive humanity in the zoo". Feel free to edit if you know of a better term or description. 2605:6000:7BC1:F100:CD0A:594:93C3:AB0B (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Heh, good catch. Yeah, I can't think of any single verb in English that would directly correspond, though there are certainly nouns like "wildman" and adjectives like "feral".  Your wording seems good to me.  --Dan Harkless (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Humans are apes so intro currently wrong factually
"in which great apes are the dominant intelligent and civilized species, whereas humans are reduced to a savage animal-like state." ApeGreatness (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

"Mellenium" THlых THooloosov ..
Увы .. Мир оказался ширше .. Ширлее .. 176.59.193.217 (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)