Talk:Playing God (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine)

RfC: Is a reference to the DVD of a TV series an example of WP:CIRCULAR?
WP:CIRCULAR states: "Do not use articles from Wikipedia or from websites that mirror its content as sources, because this would amount to self-reference. Similarly, do not use sources that present material originating from Wikipedia to support that same material in Wikipedia, as this would create circular sourcing. Citing Wikipedia to support a descriptive statement about Wikipedia itself is not a form of circular referencing. Instead it is the use of Wikipedia as a primary source and should follow the relevant policy for the use of primary sources."

Is this:


 * Star Trek: Deep Space Nine DVD set, volume 2, disc 5, selection 1.?

See diff:

a reference to an article from Wikipedia or from websites that mirror its content as sources?

see also: - are the edits marked 'per WP:CIRCULAR' a valid application of WP:CIRCULAR?

see also: |WilliamJE user talk page: misapplication of WP:CIRCULAR?

Dlabtot (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I have removed the link as it is an internal link, not even a reference.Curb Chain (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I finally understand the problem. The source in question is the Deep Space Nine DVD, not the Wikipedia article about the DVD that is linked within the reference.     The link to the Wikipedia is not actually necessary, although it is helpful.  Dlabtot (talk) 06:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The page isn't a source for anything in this article....William 09:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The source for the plot summary is the TV show itself, which is cited in this reference to the DVD of the TV show. Could you please explain your objection to citing a TV shows DVD release in an article about that TV show?  Thank you in advance for your respectful reply. Dlabtot (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

A DVD is a reliable source per policy: "However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources." and can therefore be used as a reference. Nobody Ent 01:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A DVD of a show is a reasonably reliable source for the plot of the show, provided it is borne in mind that  DVDs often contain a somewhat different version of the show than may have been broadcast--and may even contain episodes that were not aired, or not aired in a  particular market. This is usually made clear on the labeling of the DVD--the additional material is normally a selling point for buying the DVD. I regard the work itself as being both the broadcast and the DVD, they are two different editions of it. If the work is important enough to warrant the trouble, & the differences significant, we normally discuss the differences in our article. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The link to the list page was put into the article well after its creation. Unlike Memory Alpha external link which actually contains a summary, usually a lengthy one, of each and every episode....William 00:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's okay, as long as the referenced material supports the content. What's important is how the article ends up, not the exact sequence that got it there. Nobody Ent 01:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I think a DVD set released by the original creaters would still be valid as long as it's about its self and not making third party claims. So the summary used for the series on the DVD set could be reworded and used on here about the series, with the DVD set as the ref. SD (talk contribs) 00:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * RfC Comment: I do believe that there is confusion here. The issue seems to be User:WilliamJE use of WP:CIRCULAR in edit summaries. The 20-some edits that he did on 4th June with the edit summary "WP:CIRCULAR" are what seems to be primarily at issue here.  In each case, he removed text like this:
 * ==References==
 * * Star Trek: Deep Space Nine DVD set, volume 7, disc 5, selection 1.
 * This is clearly a bad edit that needed to be fixed - but the precise reasons for that are a little complicated to explain:
 * This is clearly a bad edit that needed to be fixed - but the precise reasons for that are a little complicated to explain:


 * He deleted the entire "==References==" section - including the template that inserts the reflist. That is clearly a very bad edit indeed!  This wasn't a simple slip of the mouse - because it happened roughly 20 times in different articles that day.  It's a probably a misunderstanding of how the  template works to insert references into the article...but it's hard to say what his reasoning was.
 * He deleted a link to a Wikipedia article that's been inserted with a bullet ("*") in front of it at the end of the auto-generated references list. That part of his edit is somewhat correct.  This isn't a "reference" (an external link made from within the body of the article that backs up some statement that we made) - it's a link to another wikipedia article that readers might be interested in looking at after they've finished reading this one.  As such, that link should probably have been inserted into a "See also" section and not in the references section.  So moving it there would have been a better edit than deleting it...but this part of his edit is at least well justified - and somewhat correct.
 * He used the "WP:CIRCULAR" guideline as justification for doing this in his edit summary - which is a mild and extremely subtle misunderstanding of Wikipedia guidelines. Using a Wikipedia article as a reference for a fact is NOT technically a WP:CIRCULAR matter (the guideline specifically says that) - it is, however, a problem with WP:RS in that one wikipedia article cannot be a reliable source for a fact in another wikipedia article - so such links should never appear in the ==References== section.  WP:CIRCULAR applies if (for example) the Wikipedia article Moon used http://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Moon as a reference for some fact or other - then there is a major problem because academickids.com is essentially just a word-for-word copy of Wikipedia.  However, even if we grant this slight (and understandable) misunderstanding of WP:CIRCULAR, this is a dubious claim because that link was never used as a reference for any fact in the article (there is no little blue number linking to it).  This is really just a misplaced link to the article on the DVD that should have been in the "See also" section. SteveBaker (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. It is a reference. The source being cited is the DVD.  The reference included a possibly helpful but ultimately unnecessary link to the Wikipedia article about the DVD.  The Wikipedia article is not in any way being cited or used as a source.  Dlabtot (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a reference because there is nothing in the text of the article that uses it as a reference...no little blue number pointing to it. If you need to link to a helpful Wikipedia article - then it should be in "See also" - and if you wanted to link to some non-Wikipedia thing then "External links" would be the place.  If it was a reference then it should have been attached to one or more sentences in the article using a &lt;ref&gt; or a  tag.  Anyway, there was good justification for changing something here - there was clearly an issue here that needed changing - it's just not the right change. SteveBaker (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "there is nothing in the text of the article that uses it as a reference" - that's just not so. The 'Overview' and the 'Plot' summary are sourced to the "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine DVD set, volume 2, disc 5, selection 1". No link to any Wikipedia article is needed because Wikipedia is in no respect a source for the plot summary. The source is the DVD. Dlabtot (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I would caution User:WilliamJE that assertions on his talk page that User:Dlabtot is "vandalizing" articles by reverting his edits is a personal attack. Edits - no matter how badly thought out, no matter how incorrect, no matter how much in violation of policy - are not vandalism if made in the honest belief that they needed to be done to improve the encyclopedia. WP:Vandalism says "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism."...and WP:NPA says that "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence."...are a form of personal attack. Since you accused and failed to show evidence of vandalism, that's a clear personal attack on Dlabtot. I recommend a swift apology.


 * So, I think everyone should dial down the rhetoric here - and simply work to fix the misplaced links in the references sections of these articles.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)