This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
300-page iPhone bill article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | 300-page iPhone bill has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
The risk with articles like this is that we are allowing people who get 15 minutes of fame to be "encyclopedia worthy," theoretically for eternity. If Justine Ezarik is notable, we will have to add a new person every other day who gets 500,000 hits on youtube and some minor media coverage (which seems to amount to a few human interest stories, i.e. fluff.) Specifically, about this article, I think the fact that AT&T and Apple sent out large amounts of paper is notable enough to be included in wikipedia. The fact that some girl got a bill does not *represent* the notableness of the topic. It is an example of the story, but it is not the story. The guy who got a 6000 dollar bill made news too; should we branch this article into two - one called 300 page bill, and the other called 6000 dollar bill? While I STILL think the article should be merged, another option would be to rename the article to "iPhone bills" or something similar, and then cut down the amount of information specifically on Ezarik. We should merge the Video and Other Noted Phone Bills sections. Rm999 06:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Fuck me, how low is wikipedia going to sink? a man received a 52 page phonebill? this is notable? worth a mention in an encyclopedia article? -- Fredrick day 11:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I would support the (2nd) deletion of this article. I do not think invoices deserve their own article. It's obvious the article is more about the media circus around an invoice for a new electronic gadget, rather than the invoice itself. It appears the only information about the bill is "300 double-sided pages that had to be sent in a box with postage charges of US$7." That's notable? The media circus may be notable, but I don't think you can rely on the media to accurately report on a media circus they are directly involved in. If the page isn't deleted, maybe a better name for the page would be iPhone bill media circus, I don't know. But it's clear this article is not mainly about a bill. -- Pixelface 05:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, I say we delete this article. Plus the only reason she got such a big bill was because she texted like 300k times. LightSpeed3 ( talk) 03:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
This 'event' doesn't really warrant an article about it. Maybe a mention in AT&T's article for their phone bills, but nothing more. I'd agree with the move to delete this article. -- Antictzn113 ( talk) 04:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Good work improving the article as per my suggestions. As I'm sure you saw, I did a bit of minor copyediting myself, and I think that this article is now up to GA level, and as such, I have passed it. — Daniel Vandersluis( talk) 15:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I have listed the site for a Good article reassessment. See WP:GAR. Rm999 06:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Why is the first half of the background paragraph practically an iPod ad? What importance has its drag-and-drop interface and camera has to do with AT&T's excessive paper usage? A simple link under the first mention of "iPhone" should be enough presentation of the device. 91.135.34.232 23:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
An anon editor has been repeatedly removing the tree calculation and the supporting references saying "it's a blog" or some variation of this in the edit summary. This content is not sourced to the blog as a primary source, it is sourced to other secondary sources that commented on the blog post in connection with the article subject. The anon is also claiming that the calculation is invalid, but that is OR. It does not matter if the assumptions are correct or not, they became part of the public discussion in this form, and that is what is relevant. The assumptions the calculation is based on is presented in the article, and it is up to the reader to decide if they are valid or not. The reader can easily re-calculate based on their own assumptions if they wish. If an anon wishes to claim that the calculation is invalid, they need to get their opinion published in an outside reliable source, and then it can be added to the article as a rebuttal. Until then, the calculation was discussed without rebuttal in RS, and it is discussed in that context in the article. Dhaluza ( talk) 23:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I added this article to "requested moves", because I think the title is misleading and is not relevant in any means. If Wikipedians thinks the video is important enough to be here, OK, but the name is really misleading... the requested name is just an example, if anyone came up with something better -- Have a nice day. Running 01:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I am removing the listing of this move request from the backlog at Requested moves, as there doesn't seem to be a current consensus to move the page. If that situation changes later, then please feel free to move the page, and if you need pages deleted in order to move it, you can find us at WP:RM. Cheers. - GTBacchus( talk) 04:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It wasnt a big media spectacle, noone really knew, it only really happened online. It has been a gone, am I the only one who thinks that this article really needs to be cut down now? Because to be frank, noone really cares anymore. Its just a very slightly interesting portion of the iphone's history. Crampy20 ( talk) 15:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The "300 page bill" is just a hoax. Deletion recommended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bidness ( talk • contribs) 02:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe this article meets the "non-trivial" guidline in the web notability guidelines. 67.180.174.213 ( talk) 07:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Is the non-free image ( Image:IPhone Home.png) necessary for the understanding of this article? This is about an excessive bill and the story therein; seeing the detailed iPhone isn't necessary to understand any aspect of that. I would recommend either using one of the libre images at Commons ( commons:category:iPhone), or none at all. Thoughts? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Barring that, our options are either one of the libre Commons images, or no images at all, depending on whichever is optimal for the article. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The article appears to be misleading; I was expecting the article to be about a phone bill that was outrageous in the amount charged but what I am getting is this:
Should it not be made more clear in the article that the bills they are receiving are perfectly normal - i.e. they are a normal function of the phone company and are the result of people using the services for which they are paying? The article never really makes that clear. 139.48.25.61 ( talk) 20:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
An online bill would'nt kill trees. 90.220.24.189 ( talk) 15:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 06:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
This is not "encyclopedia" worthy, this is an article which is useless knowledge, sure it was good news but does not need it's own Wikipedia page, if Wikipedia keeps a model like this going, everyone who has some "odd event" will think it's newsworthy and demand their own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.200.100 ( talk) 07:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree, if more than half the article is just references made in an attempt to verify its notability, it obviously shouldn't exist as anything more than a subsection of another article. Nearly all of the sources are links to tiny five-year-old blurbs from online news and tech magazines. This article and the related one on Justine Ezarik are flagrant violations of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper. If Wikipedia's rules were actually enforced somehow, it might be taken more seriously as a reliable source of information.
Powerful users like TonyTheTiger and Dhaluza seem to get their way on every issue related to these articles. This isn't the only instance of this kind of corruption. The Hugo Chavez article (which Jimmy Wales himself can't even seem to fix!) is in a similar situation (relating to a different kind of bias): small handfuls of users can completely dominate a given article, catering content based on their personal motives. It's unfair and completely hypocritical for a "free" encyclopedia. 72.198.211.245 ( talk) 03:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't this page have a mention of the Simpsons episode Mypods and Boomsticks, in which Lisa receives her first "MyTunes" bill in a box and assumes it is a gift from "Mapple"? – Pee Jay 12:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe. I will add it under a new area called Other uses
Draft -
==Other Uses==
The 300 page iPhone bill was used in Mypods and Boomsticks, an episode of The Simpsons. In the episode, Lisa recieves a boxed bill from Mapple, and she thinks it's a gift, when it's here MyTunes bill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by World Flying ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
But then, it was still in a box and also is around the same times — Preceding unsigned comment added by World Flying ( talk • contribs) 18:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I added the name "Justine Ezarik" to the article. For some reason, even though this article was reviewed a few years ago for WP:GA, no one ever noticed that her first and last name were never mentioned in the article, not once. Only "Ezarik" was repeatedly mentioned. "iJustine" was mentioned only once, but without saying that this is the same person. These are kind of glaring omissions. I made some other minor improvements too, like making it clear up front that the point of the video was to highlight that the bill wastes paper, not that it is too expensive. Prhartcom ( talk) 19:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
300-page iPhone bill article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | 300-page iPhone bill has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
The risk with articles like this is that we are allowing people who get 15 minutes of fame to be "encyclopedia worthy," theoretically for eternity. If Justine Ezarik is notable, we will have to add a new person every other day who gets 500,000 hits on youtube and some minor media coverage (which seems to amount to a few human interest stories, i.e. fluff.) Specifically, about this article, I think the fact that AT&T and Apple sent out large amounts of paper is notable enough to be included in wikipedia. The fact that some girl got a bill does not *represent* the notableness of the topic. It is an example of the story, but it is not the story. The guy who got a 6000 dollar bill made news too; should we branch this article into two - one called 300 page bill, and the other called 6000 dollar bill? While I STILL think the article should be merged, another option would be to rename the article to "iPhone bills" or something similar, and then cut down the amount of information specifically on Ezarik. We should merge the Video and Other Noted Phone Bills sections. Rm999 06:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Fuck me, how low is wikipedia going to sink? a man received a 52 page phonebill? this is notable? worth a mention in an encyclopedia article? -- Fredrick day 11:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I would support the (2nd) deletion of this article. I do not think invoices deserve their own article. It's obvious the article is more about the media circus around an invoice for a new electronic gadget, rather than the invoice itself. It appears the only information about the bill is "300 double-sided pages that had to be sent in a box with postage charges of US$7." That's notable? The media circus may be notable, but I don't think you can rely on the media to accurately report on a media circus they are directly involved in. If the page isn't deleted, maybe a better name for the page would be iPhone bill media circus, I don't know. But it's clear this article is not mainly about a bill. -- Pixelface 05:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, I say we delete this article. Plus the only reason she got such a big bill was because she texted like 300k times. LightSpeed3 ( talk) 03:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
This 'event' doesn't really warrant an article about it. Maybe a mention in AT&T's article for their phone bills, but nothing more. I'd agree with the move to delete this article. -- Antictzn113 ( talk) 04:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Good work improving the article as per my suggestions. As I'm sure you saw, I did a bit of minor copyediting myself, and I think that this article is now up to GA level, and as such, I have passed it. — Daniel Vandersluis( talk) 15:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I have listed the site for a Good article reassessment. See WP:GAR. Rm999 06:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Why is the first half of the background paragraph practically an iPod ad? What importance has its drag-and-drop interface and camera has to do with AT&T's excessive paper usage? A simple link under the first mention of "iPhone" should be enough presentation of the device. 91.135.34.232 23:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
An anon editor has been repeatedly removing the tree calculation and the supporting references saying "it's a blog" or some variation of this in the edit summary. This content is not sourced to the blog as a primary source, it is sourced to other secondary sources that commented on the blog post in connection with the article subject. The anon is also claiming that the calculation is invalid, but that is OR. It does not matter if the assumptions are correct or not, they became part of the public discussion in this form, and that is what is relevant. The assumptions the calculation is based on is presented in the article, and it is up to the reader to decide if they are valid or not. The reader can easily re-calculate based on their own assumptions if they wish. If an anon wishes to claim that the calculation is invalid, they need to get their opinion published in an outside reliable source, and then it can be added to the article as a rebuttal. Until then, the calculation was discussed without rebuttal in RS, and it is discussed in that context in the article. Dhaluza ( talk) 23:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I added this article to "requested moves", because I think the title is misleading and is not relevant in any means. If Wikipedians thinks the video is important enough to be here, OK, but the name is really misleading... the requested name is just an example, if anyone came up with something better -- Have a nice day. Running 01:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I am removing the listing of this move request from the backlog at Requested moves, as there doesn't seem to be a current consensus to move the page. If that situation changes later, then please feel free to move the page, and if you need pages deleted in order to move it, you can find us at WP:RM. Cheers. - GTBacchus( talk) 04:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It wasnt a big media spectacle, noone really knew, it only really happened online. It has been a gone, am I the only one who thinks that this article really needs to be cut down now? Because to be frank, noone really cares anymore. Its just a very slightly interesting portion of the iphone's history. Crampy20 ( talk) 15:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The "300 page bill" is just a hoax. Deletion recommended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bidness ( talk • contribs) 02:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe this article meets the "non-trivial" guidline in the web notability guidelines. 67.180.174.213 ( talk) 07:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Is the non-free image ( Image:IPhone Home.png) necessary for the understanding of this article? This is about an excessive bill and the story therein; seeing the detailed iPhone isn't necessary to understand any aspect of that. I would recommend either using one of the libre images at Commons ( commons:category:iPhone), or none at all. Thoughts? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Barring that, our options are either one of the libre Commons images, or no images at all, depending on whichever is optimal for the article. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The article appears to be misleading; I was expecting the article to be about a phone bill that was outrageous in the amount charged but what I am getting is this:
Should it not be made more clear in the article that the bills they are receiving are perfectly normal - i.e. they are a normal function of the phone company and are the result of people using the services for which they are paying? The article never really makes that clear. 139.48.25.61 ( talk) 20:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
An online bill would'nt kill trees. 90.220.24.189 ( talk) 15:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 06:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
This is not "encyclopedia" worthy, this is an article which is useless knowledge, sure it was good news but does not need it's own Wikipedia page, if Wikipedia keeps a model like this going, everyone who has some "odd event" will think it's newsworthy and demand their own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.200.100 ( talk) 07:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree, if more than half the article is just references made in an attempt to verify its notability, it obviously shouldn't exist as anything more than a subsection of another article. Nearly all of the sources are links to tiny five-year-old blurbs from online news and tech magazines. This article and the related one on Justine Ezarik are flagrant violations of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper. If Wikipedia's rules were actually enforced somehow, it might be taken more seriously as a reliable source of information.
Powerful users like TonyTheTiger and Dhaluza seem to get their way on every issue related to these articles. This isn't the only instance of this kind of corruption. The Hugo Chavez article (which Jimmy Wales himself can't even seem to fix!) is in a similar situation (relating to a different kind of bias): small handfuls of users can completely dominate a given article, catering content based on their personal motives. It's unfair and completely hypocritical for a "free" encyclopedia. 72.198.211.245 ( talk) 03:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't this page have a mention of the Simpsons episode Mypods and Boomsticks, in which Lisa receives her first "MyTunes" bill in a box and assumes it is a gift from "Mapple"? – Pee Jay 12:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe. I will add it under a new area called Other uses
Draft -
==Other Uses==
The 300 page iPhone bill was used in Mypods and Boomsticks, an episode of The Simpsons. In the episode, Lisa recieves a boxed bill from Mapple, and she thinks it's a gift, when it's here MyTunes bill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by World Flying ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
But then, it was still in a box and also is around the same times — Preceding unsigned comment added by World Flying ( talk • contribs) 18:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I added the name "Justine Ezarik" to the article. For some reason, even though this article was reviewed a few years ago for WP:GA, no one ever noticed that her first and last name were never mentioned in the article, not once. Only "Ezarik" was repeatedly mentioned. "iJustine" was mentioned only once, but without saying that this is the same person. These are kind of glaring omissions. I made some other minor improvements too, like making it clear up front that the point of the video was to highlight that the bill wastes paper, not that it is too expensive. Prhartcom ( talk) 19:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)