Talk:SimSig/Archive 1

I hope I have resolved some of the issues raised by earlier editors. I have added references. Perhaps I should think about breaking the article up into sections now? Jezhotwells (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

DELETION
This article has been nominated for deletion by User:NurseryRhyme on somewhat, it seems to me, spurious grounds. Discussion at SimSig deletion discussion Jezhotwells (talk) 11:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I would welcome input from Pagrashtak here. I have re-instated one link to the forums that you removed as it includes the actual request to use SimSig imagery in a forthcoming publication by Professor Jörn Pachl. That is a piece of source information. I have provided citations for the other points. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be bordering on the farcical. It's now been nominated for deletion twice within a week- why? Can't we stand by the first result or are we adopting the Irish referendum tactics- do it again and agein in the hope that it'll come 'right' eventually? It seems to me that 1000's of web postings on disparate web sites atesting to the qualities of SimSig must count for something and make it noteworthy on that basis alone. As for the pathetic argument that these are personal sites- so what- every site is owned by a 'person' whether with natural personality or legal personality. Does having legal personality make a site more reliable as a source- of course not. Ballymoss9018 (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Newbie on the forum, so please excuse any faux pas. I am lost in regard to what constitutes "verifiability". If I have understood things correctly, something issued by Simsig would not count as a "verifiable" source because of its provenance. However, an article in a reputable publication such as one of the mass media would count as a "verifiable" source because the article has been through their processes to establish its bona fides. Now if this article is the result of a bored hack transcribing a Simsig press release, how does what is in effect a secondary source become more reliable than the primary source? Apologies if I have either misunderstood the verifiability criteria or if this is the wrong place to raise a fundamental question like that, but it does seem to get to the nub of the problem which would affect most voluntary organisations or products wishing to gain an entry in Wikipedia. Postalmag (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Self Promotion
This article has been truncated twice by ZoeL on the grounds of self promotion. I believe that it has moved away from that and would welcome discussion of the reasoning for that. The simulation enjoys considerable support from a registered user community of over 800 members and has a separate Netherlands page and a Hungarian user forum so I think that it is notable.Jezhotwells (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You have somewhat improved the article from the original state but I still have concerns some of it is written as though it is an advert for SimSig listing all the simulations and stating in the main article that the simulations are available as a free download from the forum. ZoeL (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I note that most of the freeware games' pages mention that the game may be downloaded from the website. Some such as BVE Trainsim state that it can only be downloaded from the official site. That seems logical to me for a free game. I have altered the text to remove the direct indication of the download link. The listing of simulations seems neccessary as each simulation is in effect a different game. You need to download an individual signalling area to play, it won't work with just the system files. It is not possible to build or design your own signalling areas or routes as in Railroad Tycoon or other such sims.Jezhotwells (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Assessment
I have asked for a quality assessment at Open Requests. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Article source problems

 * In this forum post, how do we know that Block_operator is Jörn Pachl? Since the book hasn't been published, we don't even know that the final product will reference SimSig, or if it does, how much will be said about it. This seems like a little bit of fishing.
 * I quote from the forum page referenced above: Geoffm wrote: >As long as reference is made to SimSig then that >will be fine.

Fine, thanks. >Out of interest, what is the title or theme of >the textbook? It is the second edition of this book: http://joernpachl.gmxhome.de/roc.htm
 * Checking out the URL shows it to be the url of Professor Jörn Pachl, who is intending to use the SimSig imagery in his forth coming second edition. When postring in SimSig forums he signs as Joern as the English version of his name. His profile confirms this

Username: Block_operator Full Name: Joern Pachl E-mail Address: joern.pachl@gmx.de Last Logged In: Home Page URL: http://joernpachl.gmxhome.de/index_en.htm Occupation: university professor City: Braunschweig State/Province: Niedersachsen Country: Germany

Jezhotwells (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * http://britishrailwaysboard.co.uk/simsig/ is part of a personal website. (http://britishrailwaysboard.co.uk/home/ clearly says "Dazrah's Personal Webpage".) Per WP:SELFPUB, this is not a reliable source.


 * But Dazrah is not the author of SimSig. So that is not Self Publication. He is  a professional signalman so his comments about accurate simulation and the fact that Tresim is the big brother of SimSig are citable (is that a proper word?) Jezhotwells (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Do we even need to mention that someone has modified SimSig to run on Linux? It seems trivial.
 *  Pagra shtak  21:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No-one has modified SimSig to make it run on Linux. Wine is "a translation layer (a program loader) capable of running Windows applications on Linux and other POSIX compatible operating systems." (from Wine HQ)
 * I would suggest that that is of considerable interest to those who choose to run Linux rather than Windows as their operating system. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to reply down here, as the formatting above is hard to read now.
 * the textbook—My point stands that the book has not been published, and I could make my profile say I'm Barack Obama, but that wouldn't make it true. I'm not convinced this qualifies as a reliable source for Wikipedia.
 * That website is absolutely self-publication. I think you're confusing self-publication with primary/secondary source. Dazrah is publishing his own writing—that's pretty much the definition of self-publication. From WP:SELFPUB (with added emphasis): Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For this reason, it is usually not acceptable in Wikipedia to cite self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, podcasts, vcasts, patents, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources. Unless you can show that Dazrah is generally regarded as an expert in this field, this source needs to be removed full stop.
 * Linux—My apologies about the modification comment, I didn't understand. Wikipedia doesn't include information based on usefulness. A phone directory would be useful to many users, but is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. In fact, if a particular piece of information is only useful to those using the product covered, that's a usually a red flag that it shouldn't be included. To use a long-standing example from the video game field, giving the hit points of a boss is only useful to those playing the game, and is an unsuitable level of detail for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is intended to provide a general overview of subjects applicable to the general reader. Fine details or details specific to those using the particular product are best left to specialized wikis or other specialist sources.  Pagra shtak  23:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please respond in a block below so that we can read this.  Pagra shtak  23:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment."reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context."
 * There are few if any articles in magazines or big publishing house websites about freeware. Why?  Because the originators of freeware are obviously not able to spend big money on advertising in those sources.  So forums and websites spring up run by others who review or comment on the software. So if only magazines and publishing house websites are to be regarded as reliable we are going to need to remove most of the pages about freeware and even many about old unsupported commercial programmes from Wikipedia. If that is to be the case then I believe Wikipedia will be the poorer for that.
 * In the case of freeware, open source software I would take the context to be that verification of the existence of the product and its usefulness / popularity / notability is only ever going to be found in sites like forums, hobby websites etc.
 * With regards to your comments about Linux, Wikipedia infobox templates do specify the platform and it would seem notable that it has been successfully ported to another platform. Also the very mention by WineHQ is a 3rd party source, although perhaps you would regard WineHQ as self-publishing as Wine is open source software.
 * So currently I see:
 * 1 reference from WineHQ a small group who produce open source software for free.
 * 2 references from working signallers (self-published to be sure).
 * 1 reference from a working London Underground train driver (self published).
 * 1 reference from the newsletter of the North London Society of Model Engineers.
 * 1 reference from a 3rd party who has developed 'add-ons'.
 * 7 external links to user forums in UK and other countries, more are available.
 * In context, I would suggest that that establishes some form of notability.

Jezhotwells (talk) 12:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As Wikipedia grows, we begin to shift the emphasis from quantity of content (which was what was needed in the early stages) to quality of content. The emphasis we place on having reliable sources is dramatically greater than it was two years ago, and is only getting stricter. Secondary sources are the backbone of articles—the raw materials needed to construct them. If we build an article on personal websites and forum posts, we can't ask our readers to put any faith in our products. At this point the discussion has turned from establishing notability for this article to redefining notability for Wikipedia as a whole. If you wish to pursue this, that's a discussion for another page.  Pagra shtak  17:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional Sources for verification
Despite a nomination for deletion having failed and having a better range of independent sources than other train simulations or freeware games in Wikepedia, this article has been cited for needing additional sources for verification. Any help with this appreciated. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable sources
http://britishrailwaysboard.co.uk/simsig/ is a personal website. Verifiability says "it is usually not acceptable in Wikipedia to cite ... personal websites". I see no reason why this should be an exception. Please provide a reason why I am constantly reverted when trying to remove this unreliable reference.

Secondly, http://www.signalbox.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=708&sid=c61c5145a79fc0302de4e83a30ae65d7 is a forum and is also not a suitable reference.  Pagra shtak  16:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Darren Towler (Dazrah) is a professional signaller and has permission from Network Rail to publish information about his own signal box, I would regard him as an expert in the field of signalling.


 * The statements in the featured discussion involve other UK signalmen who presumably know what they are talking about. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to where it says that Darren Towler is responsible for that site? I looked around a few pages and just saw "Dazrah". Can you show me proof that Darren Towler is widely regarded as an expert in the field? For example, have mainstream media sources used him as a resource or cited his work?


 * {http://britishrailwaysboard.co.uk/coventrypsb} Text says: Photos by Darren Towler, 18th July 2007. Page last updated: 3rd December 2008 Jezhotwells (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We can't "presume" that people know what they are talking about. Random people talking on an Internet forum simply isn't up to Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources.  Pagra shtak  18:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the new sources added—http://www.train-sim.com/ appears to be a fansite. I see no evidence of academic or corporate backing, and it appears that the entire site is produced by one person with no editorial oversight.


 * {http://www.train-sim.com/review/menu.htm} lists more than ten contributors. The subscription page links to Arcanum Computing which is a games shareware company operated by the site editor. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Academic and/or corporate backing are not required by WP:RELIABLE.  Reading the  site you will see that that there is an editorial team of experienced train simmers. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They're not required, they're just common methods of establishing reliability. I'm bringing them up to let you know that I've done a little bit of research into the site, trying some of the more common methods for establishing reliability and falling short. Which site are you talking about with the editorial team of train simmers, train-sim.com? Please provide a link.  Pagra shtak  23:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see above under original response. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.users.waitrose.com/~romseysignalbox/otherlinks.html is once again a personal site, and thus not a reliable source unless someone can prove otherwise.  Pagra shtak  23:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually if you read the front page it is the page of teh Friends of Romsey Signal Box, a voluntary group preserving a signal box in Romsey. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless, it has no academic or corporate backing, no statement of fact-checking, and as far as I can tell the entire site is generated by the webmaster (Steve Hailes) with no editorial oversight. What makes that site reliable?  Pagra shtak  23:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A further look {http://www.users.waitrose.com/~romseysignalbox/membership%20application.pdf} shows that the Friends of Romsey Signal Box are agents of Romsey and District Buildings Preservation Trust, another voluntary group and they operate the Signal Box as a visitor centre which was opened jointly by Test Valledy and Romsey Town Mayors earlier this year {http://www.romseynet.org.uk/randsociety/news/2008/08august101.pdf, p13. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just read the interesting posts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources on fansites and the like. It seems that there is no consensus there either.  Basically it conmes down to two POVs.


 * 1 Only websites produced by either large corporations or obscure university presses can be relied upon even if their statements are bunk.
 * 2 Fansites, forums, etc that are produced by the community interested in the subject can be considered if there is evidence of some peer review, opportunity for adverse comment, etc. Personal sites by professionals in the field could also be considered in this class.


 * I give you the example of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Lots of big circulation news corporations swallowed the Bush administration lies about this.  Should we consider thiose news corporations reliable?  Or shoudl we consider the small non-corporate groups that protested the folly that was to come as being more reliable??


 * Big business or truth. I know which side I stand on. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The very first sentence of Verifiability, a core Wikipedia policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". To put it bluntly, truth has no sway here unless you can back it up with a reliable source. Perhaps you disagree with that, but that is the way Wikipedia works and this article talk page is not the place to change that.  Pagra shtak  01:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether http://britishrailwaysboard.co.uk/simsig/ is run by Darren Towler or Dazrah is not material to the fact that he is a professional signalman- or do you want site of NR's staff records before you accept that? Also referred to by Wakefield Signal box web site http://www.wakefieldsignallers.bravehost.com/links.html. So if references by practicing signalmen is not good enough then I can't see why any other reference will ever satisfy the nit-pickers. Ballymoss9018 (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All I need is some sort of proof that he is considered an expert in his field—a major news source relying on his opinion, for example.  Pagra shtak  22:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In general, personal websites and forum posts are not considered reliable sources. Wikipedia doesn't work on truth. It works on WP:Verifiability. That means that we want websites where we know who is actually saying what, and that they have standards for fact checking and editorial review. Most news sites have it, including gaming news sites. Even scholarly journals do this. But personal websites and forums don't. So even if there's a gut feeling that someone says something on a forum that's true, it's not reliable, and shouldn't be here. Randomran (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

But there is the problem in regard to this discussion. If we are talking about specific cases rather than "in general" can I refer back to Jezhotwells posting of 00:20, 3 January 2009 and his reference to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources. This includes a section on self-published sources which includes the following;

"The golden rule is that self published sources may only be used in two instances.

1. When the author is an expert discussing his field of expertise, material he has self published is acceptable."

If this is Wikipedia policy rather than a statement in a discussion, that automatically means that anything published by Geoff Mayo in regard to Simsig is a valid reference as Geoff is the main protagonist in the development of the Simsig software as well as other software for which references in the Simsig entry are under dispute. Clarification on whether it is a rule or a discussion point is needed as we seem to be at the point where the editors are claiming to be more expert than the developers in a matter like this? Postalmag (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (Disclaimer: I am Geoff Mayo, so at the risk of blowing my own trumpet rather obnoxiously...!) So if that were the case, then (a) being an associate of the Institute of Railway Signal Engineers; and (b) being a Technical Authority for The Railway Engineering Company, which specialises in railway signalling, should both qualify me as an expert in my field! And I certainly agree with Postalmag's last sentence about random administrators (who are unelected and unverifiable sources, who have no listed qualifications, and who don't even mention a passing interest in the subject) claiming to be more expert than the experts!!! Geoffmayo (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey Geoff, and thanks for disclosing role in the development of SimSig. There's a conflict of interest issue here and you might want to read the policy there, but as long as we stay true to Wikipeda policies it is totally acceptable to work on this article and try to improve it. We can definitely use self-published sources and primary sources to fill in certain important gaps. So stuff from your website is helpful, the same way that we might use the instruction manual or corporate website of a Nintendo game. Something from simsig.co.uk would be okay to verify certain facts, so long as we don't get carried away. The problem is that this article is using web forums and other personal websites to cite certain information. That really goes against our WP:Verifiability policy, which is a pretty central and uncontroversial idea on Wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Randomran - it is my understanding as an outsider looking in that the article is only using "web forums and other personal websites to cite certain information" because the first moves to delete the entry were made by ZoeL and Ciaran H on the grounds that all of the information in the original Simsig entry was promoting a cause or event by virtue of the fact that the information was self-referential. Please can we have some consistency so that we can understand what is and is not allowable to the plethora of people who wish to act as guardians of Wikipedia. Postalmag (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Articles that are just getting started tend to attract a lot of commotion. I imagine that's even more confusing for editors who are new to Wikipedia, or who only focus their efforts on one major article. You'll never find consistency on Wikipedia, because people will have disagreements and make honest and good faith mistakes. So let me tell you -- an article *needs* reliable third-party sources. That's probably what people meant by criticizing the "self-referential" nature of the site. It is not enough to find any third party source, such as a web forum. It has to be reliable, by our policy on reliable sources -- where forum posts are not acceptable, and personal websites are *very* rarely acceptable (only to verify someting about the personal website itself, usually). Also, I might remind you to assume good faith and take a more WP:civil tone, in order to understand the problems with this article and improve them. Randomran (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if you thought my tone was offensive rather than forthright. I have no doubts about the good faith of the various contributors and editors who presumably all want to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. I was merely trying to clarify what the authors of the Simsig entry had to achieve given the contradictory nature of the various criticisms of the entry (which after all is not "just getting started" but was first published on 15 Dec 2005 and which attracted no adverse comment until Dec 2008). I hope that people don't mind reference back to postings they have made as part of the assumption of good faith is that these statements have been made in their view of the best interests of Wikipedia. However these statements ought to be reviewed and challenged in a polite and civil manner rather than accepted as fact if others feel that there are points at issue. Hope that we can come to a satisfactory resolution of this debate, but in a sensible and rational manner and without any acrimony or loss of good manners. Postalmag (talk) 09:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies if I'm a part of the contradictory criticism, it's not my intent. Wikipedia has quite a few rules, and it's not uncommon to see someone try to follow one rule by inadvertently breaking another. The deletion nomination was based on a perceived lack of notability. At that time all references in the article were to the website, a primary source. Since notability on Wikipedia usually equates to secondary sources, when an article uses primary sources exclusively, it's one of the biggest red flags as to a potential non-notable subject. In response, editors started adding references from other sites. This is the correct response; however, Wikipedia also has rules about what sites can be used as references, and many of the sites added do not meet our rules. So by responding to one problem, we've landed in another problem. Given the choice between an article with only primary sources or an article with primary sources and unreliable secondary sources, the former is preferable. I hope that clears up my intentions.  Pagra shtak  19:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Pagrashtak. Just to make sure I understand things correctly, I believe that we have established Geoff Mayo as a subject matter expert in regard to both signalling and the Simsig software. As Geoff controls the Simsig web-site, and taking on board the comments in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources, I believe that the Simsig web-site would now be acceptable as a "verifiable" primary source. Have I got that right or am I jumping one step too far? Postalmag (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no problem with this article using primary sources. Even if SimSig were internationally famous, received numerous awards, and had a cover story in Time, I would still expect this article to have primary sources for information about the development and operation of the program. Primary sources can't be used for subjective statements like "this program is really well-written" or "this program is extremely accurate", for reasons that are hopefully obvious. What I'm trying to do here is remove the personal websites and forum posts that are being used as references. Not meaning to dredge anything up, but I noticed that someone (not you, I believe) referred to me "attacking" the article on an off-Wiki site, and there is a reference on this page about not standing by the results of the AFD. I just want to make it clear to everyone—I'm not attacking this article, I'm trying to improve it (by Wikipedia standards). After the AFD closed without consensus, I started by making sure that the article only used references that comply with Wikipedia guidelines. I understand how some may feel that the article is better with those references, but in the eyes of Wikipedia, it is not. I'm sorry that I seem to have given people the wrong impression here.
 * Off-topic question—I see someone has added the Free Software banner above, but it was my assumption that this program is copyrighted, as the images used in the article say they are copyright. Is this a copyrighted program?  Pagra shtak  20:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My mistake - confusion with freeware which I now realise is a different thing. I have removed it. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In respect of User:Pagrashtak's comments above I am sorry if I upset you with the comment about attacks. That was written when, a very short time after the AfD was closed, another editor who had initiated the AfD slapped the citation marker on.  I probably over-reacted. Unfortunately that editor hasn't engaged in the discussion here. I will save a copy of the article to my user pages to work on.  I do understand [User:Pagrashtak]]'s points and accept the good faith intent.  As several people have stated it can be very difficult to get 3rd party references of a good enough quality for Wikipedia.  I think we can accept that the reference from the Rail Standards and Safety Board is good as that is a recognised body.  Likewise the North London Society of Model Engineers and their publication?. The personal pages of signallers are to many very reliable, but I take the point that this may not be apparent to people who don't know the rail industry.  How about the pages of various signal boxes, many of which appear to be  a team effort and have the permission of Network Rail?  We also have pages from preservation societies and the like where there are committees and affiliations to conservation organisations?

Hopefully some of the PC press might review the programme, but although some of them do review freeware occasionally, I guess it is a long shot. I would like to be able to raise this article up to at least start quality. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of contrition that has now broken out, can I also appologise for any intemperate remarks I may have made here and elsewhere. I'm glad we seem to have reached an understanding.80.6.42.128 (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Might help if I logged in!Ballymoss9018 (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No hard feelings towards anyone here. I think it's great that you and others are passionate about something, and I understand the emotions that come along with that. I hope this exchange hasn't given you a bad impression of Wikipedia, and perhaps you might even care to stick around and help edit other articles.
 * Anyway, I'm not as familiar with the UK rail system as you, but the RSSB seems acceptable to me. As for signal boxes and society websites, I can't give a blanket yes or no, I'd have to see the website to determine reliability. Personal pages are usually a blanket no on Wikipedia. We need something to show that we can rely on what they say. On major news sites, content undergoes editorial review; some sites are backed by the reputation of a reliable body, such as an academic institution; for others, their opinions are quoted by reliable sources. While there are exceptions, the vast majority of personal sites do not have any of these traits to instill confidence in the reliability of their content. If someone asked me, "Can I trust this story from the AP?" I would reply yes, even if I don't know much about the subject of the article, as the AP is a well-recognized news source with a proven record. If someone asked me, "Can I trust the information from http://www.britishrail.uk.com/?" I would not be able to say yes with any confidence. I hope that makes sense.  Pagra shtak  16:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand the point but it seems to me the more detailed and specialist the subject the less likely that 'main-stream' media will be reliable. Take something as mundane as the BBC travel report- "train failure North of London disrupting travel"- I'd probably be able to find a forum quite quickly that would tell me which train, the unit number what is wrong with it which signal its at etc.- simply because 'insiders' have access to the internet at work. It's a conundrum I realise and it takes a specialist interest to know which specialist sites are reliable and which are not.Ballymoss9018 (talk) 09:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia, like most general encyclopedias, is designed to give overviews of subjects. We intentionally do not go into a certain level of detail, leaving that for specialized sources. For example, we summarize the plots of works of fiction even though it would be possible to write extremely lengthy and detailed plot descriptions. You're correct that highly specialized subjects have less mainstream media coverage, and that's why Wikipedia doesn't cover everything. The general concept is that if something is notable enough to cover in Wikipedia, then surely it's been covered by a reliable source. If no reliable sources are covering a certain topic, then is it truly notable?  Pagra shtak  18:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)