This site appears to be WP:USERGENERATED ("findacadabra gives you the opportunity to: [...] Register for free and add new places to the map, write comments and upload photos.") and doesn't seem a useful source for the statement that "There are more than two dozen notable (all but one are publicly accessible) museums concerning magic, magicians and magical apparatus." - the article already lists 27, so to claim "more than two dozen" doesn't require further sourcing, but neither the article or findacadabra appear to support the detail that exactly "all but one" are open to the public. --McGeddon (talk) 11:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- "The all but one" was from another source. You are quoting from the lead paragraph. The map is a nice way to lay out the other information -- it provides information not otherwise available elsewhere. I had this also as a link, and you deleted that. Its been in this article since I created it long ago. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I reordered/reformatted the lead sentence to address your concern. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- The map might be a nice one, but as it seems to be generated by users and moderated anonymously, Wikipedia can't rely on it being an entirely reliable source. Per WP:USERGENERATED, we should not use it as a reference. I'd say that WP:ELNO #11 ("most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority") also precluded its use as an external link. I don't see that it's that useful, in context - if I want to see where a museum is, this article already tells me. (Although perhaps it would be clearer to group the list by continent.) --McGeddon (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
This has been re-added due to "no consensus". I still can't see why we need to source the claim that "there are more than two dozen notable museums concering magic" when the article is itself is a list of those very museums. Nor can I see any evidence that finacadabra.com is anything other than WP:USERGENERATED.
Am I missing something about the site's level of editorial control, or the verifiability of the article's statement that "there are more than two dozen notable museums concerning magic"? It's a nice map and it has some material Wikipedia doesn't cover, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia can use it as a source. --McGeddon (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- It was an external link, and you eliminated that. You have created a Hobson choice and a Morton's fork. I disagree. I've put it back as an external link. Wikipedia:Sauce for the goose is (not) sauce for the gander. There is editorial value in the map. That it confirms the fact that there are more than a score of magic museums suggests it is correct. Indeed, you have admitted that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- I took it out as an external link because, as I say above, WP:ELNO says we should generally avoid linking to "fansites, except those written by a recognized authority". If the map has been collated by a recognised authority or published in an editorially-checked newspaper or book or something, that's fine, but if it's a user-generated map with unspecified or unrecognised editorial authority, it would be against policy for Wikipedia to endorse it.
- I don't see how my concerns over its suitability as a reference are a contradictory Morton's fork; they're just two reasons why we shouldn't be using this particular source for this particular sentence - we shouldn't use a WP:USERGENERATED source, and there's no need to source a statement in the lede that's already effectively sourced in the article. (I'm afraid I don't understand the relevance of the goose thing.)
- The findacadabra site might well be correct, and nicely designed, and informative, and popular, but if we're using it as a source we need to make sure it meets WP:RS and if we're giving it an external link we need to ensure it satisfies WP:ELNO. At the moment I don't see that it meets either. --McGeddon (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- You've stated your case. I've stated mine. We disagree. "World map of places related to magic". findacadabra. Retrieved August 1, 2011. I think this is a better source and is highly relevant.
- I put a notice on the Magic list, which I imagine will get some interested editors here and they will develop their positions. Perhaps a consensus will arise. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
It should be considered that findacadabra.com features "[…] physical spots on the territory that other magician may visit", and is not a website about questionable facts. I can't see any difference between findacadabra.com and other similar websites such as Findagrave, which is extensively used as a reference by Wikipedia. Utcumque (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- The Findagrave template warns that there's no consensus for the site being considered a reliable source, and that "whenever appropriate reliable sources discuss the same material, editors are encouraged to prefer those". From the tone of its help pages, Findacabra sounds as if it is less rigorous than Findagrave about verifying new additions. --McGeddon (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Since this thread has gone a little stale and WikiProject Magic don't seem interested, I'll ask over at RSN. --McGeddon (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Good. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- RSN weren't interested either. Let's try an RFC. --McGeddon (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The Findacadabra Regulation Page has been updated and now clarifies the moderation process. Utcumque (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
