Wikipedia talk:Cite WP42 at AfD

Essays Low‑impact

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia 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. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Comment[edit]

The things this essay says are not just questionable. They are unequivocally factually wrong. There is no way that the present text of 42 is accurate. See for example the replacement of "multiple" (ie two) with "several" (ie three) in direct contradiction of what GNG actually says. The advice given is so absurd (anyone with common sense could see that citing 42 is exceptionally dangerous, and couldn't possibly be done without expressing careful qualifications, so it plainly isn't a "great" thing to do, and it couldn't possibly reduce confusion under any circumstances), and expressed in such bombastic language, that I am tempted to suggest this be marked with Template:Humour. James500 (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is more discussion at Wikipedia talk:42. It might be useful to have this conversation there.

I created this page as a counterpoint to WP:NOT42. This page is supposed to be the opposite of that one, because I thought that would be the best and least controversial way to express that there are opposing views on the WP:42 policy and that there is difficulty reconciling these perspectives. If you apply template humor to WP:NOT42, then I would also support the humor notice being put on WP:YES42 also.

In all seriousness, I confirm my agreement with everything said here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent change[edit]

This looks like edit warring. And WP:42 is not completely accurate either. Nor is it ever likely to be. It is obviously an approximation. Even the original author admitted it was only an approximation. I suppose that, stretching language, you could call it 'approximately accurate' (ie always nearly right but never actually right) which is exactly within the scope of "Wittgenstein's ladder", unless I'm mistaken. For example, it claims that multiple sources are always required when what N actually says is that they are normally required. I could go on in this fashion, pointing to other errors. James500 (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:42 is demonstrably 100% accurate. Reyk _YO! 11:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]