Talk:One Day (novel)

Novels Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Errata section

The errata I added were in fact well referenced, other than not linking Geneva Bonnet more specifically than to Edinburgh University.

As an Edinburgh Graduate myself, those errata bothered the hell out of me and spoiled my enjoyment of the whole novel.Martinb9999 (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The errata you added included citations to research you had conducted to support your own premise. While I don't doubt the accuracy of what you found, original research such as that is expressly forbidden by one of the core Wikipedia policies governing permissible content. In a nutshell, what you need to do to include the content in question is to find one or more reliable sources that actually make the contention that there are those errors, not simply sources that support your contention that there are those errors. A fine distinction, perhaps, but a critical one around here. Rivertorch (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you're saying is that asserting that Edinburgh is a dry city (with referenced authoritative sources to rainfall data) is fine. Noting the book's assertion that Edinburgh is a wet city is fine (don't have a copy to hand, but could probably find the page number if needed). Juxtaposing the two in any way is 'contention'? So one could not note a work's incorrect assertion that the sky is green without an external reference that already points out this error? One could not note that Mein Kampf is racist?Martinb9999 (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the gist of it, yes. There are degrees and nuances and quasi-exceptions. For instance, I doubt that your "sky is green" example would cause much difficulty because it's something most editors and readers (i.e., everyone with normal vision, not just those familiar with Edinburgh) know about; it's not specialized knowledge. Keep in mind that even experts, the top scientists in a given field, get little leeway when they become WP editors. Sourcing is vital, and synthesis is verboten. Even in the sky color case, it probably would be best simply to note the author's assertion of green sky, not the error of his assertion. Think of it this way: you're writing for a vast and extraordinarily diverse audience who have no reason to trust anything they read here unless they feel confident it's only reporting what the cited sources say, not combining sources to say something new. If the obvious conclusion—author says x, facts say y, thus author is wrong—is truly obvious and notable enough for inclusion here, then someone either already has documented it in a reliable source or they will get around to doing so eventually. Rivertorch (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similar Plotline

Seeing the trail for the forthcoming movie version of "One Day", and checking the storyline, reminded me of a movie I'd seen with Alan Alda many years ago. This is Same Time, Next Year. Somersetlevels (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]