Wikipedia talk:TenPoundHammer's Law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Essays
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
 Mid  This page has been rated as Mid-impact on the project's impact scale.
 

Flaw[edit]

I can think of many bands who did not declare the title of the album until a month or two before it was released. Recently, The Offspring's Rise and Fall, Rage and Grace comes to mind. The album was "The Offspring's seventh studio album" for a full year, yet still had sources, information from interviews, and even information on the release date. The title of the album for an article shouldn't be a reference for when to delete or not.-Inzweep (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but I can think of dozens of exceptions. Many bands just don't come up with a title until well after recording. Some come up with an album title well before anything else can be said about the album, or well before it starts to be recorded. It kind of renders the rule completely useless. I think focusing on the sources is more important.-Inzweep (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
It's an essay, not a guideline or policy, and therefore isn't actually a rule. It has a discaimer at the top. Pinch of salt, and remember it's an opinion. :) - Toon05 20:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but referencing this in Articles For Deletion seems rather careless.-Inzweep (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
It's basically just a way of going into more depth re his argument, without ranting on the page I guess. - Toon05 20:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea. Not a "law" by my definition, but an excellent rule of thumb, rather. StevePrutz (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Location, location, location[edit]

Since this seems to be widely cited, would it make sense to move it to project space? --Clubjuggle T/C 12:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the crystal hammer[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omarion's third album, just in case anyone is wondering where the term "crystal hammer" originated from. MuZemike (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

John Doe[edit]

Maybe we should think up a different fake name, as there is a famous John Doe (musician). Chubbles (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)]

Extension[edit]

Your essay was referenced in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wii 2, where it was argued against. You would you have an issue with an extention being added to this essay, explaining that "hammer's law" can also apply to other things, like game consoles, games, and other products? The whole "crystalhammer" name just works so well with those situations just as well as with music. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

  • After Hammer's edit, I went and expanded it just a bit to make it a bit more clear as to what it covers. I also generalized the nutshell a touch, and added 'blogs' as not reliable sources. I also removed the "then forget it" disclaimer. Feel free to revert all or none, Hammer, I just felt an outside set of eyes would be helpful. This really is a good all purpose "law" for future products in general, particularly music (of course), movie and gaming related topics. A further generalization might not be a bad thing, to have it less music specific. imho. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Time to promote this essay to a guideline?[edit]

This has been a useful shortcut for quite a while now. It's regularly cited and accepted as an extension of WP:CRYSTAL, which is already policy. I believe it appropriate to recognize this as normative by promoting it from essay to guideline. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. --candlewicke 18:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


There is nothing here that doesn't already follow from WP:NOR and WP:RS. We don't need more guidelines getting into specific applications of policy; it just makes it more confusing for everyone. Blackworm (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
So you're saying that this "law" is correct and applicable, inasmuch as it follows just fine from existing policy, but there's no need to recognize it as a guideline, since more guidelines means more confusion? Jclemens (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a common problem on Wikipedia and this essay is commonly (and correctly) used to deal with that problem. It's time to make it a guideline. Let's merge it into WP:CRYSTAL. I'd argue that it's a reasonable CSD criteria.--RadioFan (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely should be a guideline, I always thought it was ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 22:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be a guideline, but I think if it was "official", then it should have a more official name that doesn't apply ownership. Tavix |  Talk  14:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding some unnamed future project language in WP:CRYSTAL would solve this. WP:HAMMER needs to be a redirect there as it will always been thought of that way by many.--RadioFan (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding like canvassing. This discussion needs to occur on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Proposal: Elevate WP:HAMMER from essay to guideline. and currently there are 2 oppose !votes there.--RadioFan (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
No canvassing at all--I was the one who posted the note there originally, per Wikipedia:GUIDELINE#Proposing_guidelines_and_policies. I'll go there and redirect discussion here--thanks for letting me know, I didn't watchlist that page. Jclemens (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Content from Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Proposal:_Elevate_WP:HAMMER_from_essay_to_guideline.[edit]

I moved this content here to keep discussion in one place Jclemens (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was Ain't gonna happen; this discussion has been open way too long. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 17:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  • oppose because I know some exceptions / borderline cases to the "title must be known" rule. Stephen Jay Gould wanted to call his book about the fossils of the Burgess Shale Homage to Opabinia because that organism was the poster-child for his interpretation - but the publisher objected and the final title was Wonderful Life (book). The working title of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets was Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince! The only example WP:HAMMER considers in detail is a pop album, whose contents as well as title may vary significantly until the launch date. The content of most other information and entertainment products cannot be changed so easily - the next nearest is films, where the cutting room is busy right up to launch and DVDs often contain "deleted scenes" sections, but these are minor adjustments. Video games undergo balance and graphics tweaks right up till they go "gold", but it's impossible to change the gameplay significantly; but the title can easily change, for example Total Annihilation′s working title was Really Cool Wargame. -Philcha (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think WP:HAMMER addresses working titles, does it? It's talking about predicted releases that don't even have a name yet, final or otherwise. Powers T 13:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment if there are sufficient references to Stephen Jay Gould using this as a working title, then WP:HAMMER wouldn't apply. WP:HAMMER is specific to un/poorly sourced articles about unnamed projects.--RadioFan (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - Either enough is known, or it isn't, but knowing the name isn't the deciding factor. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - useful essay, but not suitable for a guideline in its current form, starting with the title (and perhaps better if its thoughts are incorporate into existing guidelines anyway). Disembrangler (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Support This is a very specific guideline which, unlike some guidlines, leaves little grey area. It mirrors WP:CRYSTAL in a very specific way is very useful for explaining why articles on unnamed future projects just aren't appropraiate for articles yet. It's only foible is it's less than official sounding name which this proposal would resolve. WP:HAMMER is widely recognized and cited by editors in these kinds of AFDs. If worded properly, it could be very useful. Here's a stab at wording, as a 5th point to WP:CRYSTAL:

5. Articles, such as "[name of artist]'s [nth] studio album", which cover a future album, video game, movie, book, or other media which are yet to be named are rarely encyclopedic. Only when sufficient reliable information is available should an article be created.

Oppose It's a handy rule of thumb, not a real content guideline (the content guideline is already covered by CRYSTAL, of which this is an extension). WP:NOT should address the underlying content issues, rather than giving specific heuristics. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Judicial use of CRYSTAL should avoid the creation of articles on unnamed media when the extent of their coverage can be cited in a different topic (series article, artist article, whatever). There are rare exceptions when there is enough information (non-CRYSTAL) about a yet-named work to merit full articles (the 7th Harry Potter book, for example). HAMMER is a good statement that extends CRYSTAL that explains for the specific cases of unnamed work, but it need not be added as a new guideline since CRYSTAL still covers this case. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Existing guidelines cover these cases perfectly adequately. We already have people trying to get articles on future albums deleted despite multiple significant coverage and sufficient verifiable information, simply because they "fail WP:HAMMER" - making this a guideline isn't going to help.--Michig (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose mostly per WP:CREEP and because it's redundant to existing guidelines, stay as essay Power.corrupts (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's redundant, so making this a guideline would be instruction creep. If you absolutely must, find a place for a sentence about this in an existing notability guideline and add a link to this essay. But I am not even sure that that is a good idea. Hans Adler 18:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's unnecessary. A nice point to refer to sometimes as a quick way of making it, but it wouldn't work as a guideline. Sometimes you know lots about an album and it's creation process before you know the actual name. This whole matter should be covered by the guidelines on notability: if an album page doesn't have enough to justify itself, delete it. If it does, keep it. The actual title is only one part of this. 86.146.156.203 (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is completely covered by WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. It's fine as an essay: essays can summarize existing policies and guidelines. A new guideline should not merely do so, however.--Srleffler (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support But do so by adding it as provision 5 to WP:CRYSTAL, not as a stand-alone. This would merely reflect actual practice in AFDs where this essay has been cited in the deletion of "Goober's untitled 13th studio album." Edison (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Unnecessary. It is basically a summary of WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V and WP:NSONGS, so while useful shorthand in some situations, it adds nothing as a guideline. Also, as it itself observes, there are many exceptions to this "law", such as when there is adequate information on an untitled album to satisfy WP:N, so making this a guideline might also be confusing to some. Rlendog (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. This is more specific than WP:CRYSTAL. The vague guidelines leave too much to debate. Specificity is good. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Good essay, but all current policies cover whether articles should be deleted or not. Besides that, I feel that this essay should not be cited in deletion review, since those other policies determine whether an article should actually be deleted or not. In other words, if the article in question meets WP guidelines for existence, this "policy" would be contradictory. -Freekee (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • oppose even if we don't know a name or a track listing, if several media outlets are reporting it, it is notable and what little info we do have should be put into an article. I don't see anything here that really expands beyond normal notability guidelines.--Crossmr (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

An addition?[edit]

Wondering if Twitter should be added to the places where unreliable info can come from? I'm seeing that more and more. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 05:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

it depends on the twitter feed. Like most self-published sources, if something is an official self-published source, forum, blog, etc they're just as reliable as if it was a press release on the companies website. An official twitter feed, facebook page, myspace page, forum, etc are usually maintained by the company (with the exception of an official celebs personal blog) and in my mind should hold the same weight as a press release so long as there is no question of who is behind the posting. If www.recordlabel.com identifies x as their twitter feed, anything posted to it can be considered a primary source. It does nothing for notability, but it does allow it to be used once notability is established.--Crossmr (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Needs reminder re no original research[edit]

As WP:HAMMER is widely cited, it's likely its readers will be relatively new editors (experienced ones already being familiar with the excellent advice). Eager newcomers could be misled by "until you've got something more to say". WP is NOT about what editors have to say.

I suggest this be re-worded: "until you can cite verifiable information from reliable sources". These fundamental WP:V and WP:RS concepts are currently not mentioned until the next section, and in a different context, so lack enough impact there, IMO. (But I suggest they be repeated there too, as they are.)

Also, to be explicit about WP:NOR I suggest changing "But if all you can do ..." to "Remember, Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought, so if all you can do ...". (Note the expanded hover text under the link, for newbies' clear information.)

Thanks, -- Bricaniwi (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Page name[edit]

As stated in the opening paragraph of the project page: "If the name and track order of a future album are not yet known, the album is very likely to see its page deleted from Wikipedia. Pages of this sort usually take the naming convention "[name of artist]'s [nth] studio album". There are occasional exceptions to this law, as sometimes a future album will contain enough verifiable information for a decent article even if the title is not known."

Since there are "occasional exceptions", shouldn't this project page be named "TenPoundHammer's Rule", as scientifically speaking a law can never be broken. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

How about "TenPoundHammer's Sometimes Applicable Generalisation"? --Michig (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

No title=no search term?[edit]

Re. latest addition "And if that wasn't enough, exacerbating the issue even more is that if the article is nominated for deletion, performing the relevant pre-checks for sources online is made extremely difficult by the fact that, by definition, no genuine search term exists." - how about "[artist name] new album" or "[artist name] album" in a GNews search limited to say the last 6 months, e.g. [1]? --Michig (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Funniest named article in need of the hammer?[edit]

Check out Untited Tour....William 01:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)