Talk:Log house

Opening heading

I'd like to know why IMALogBuilder added the word SPAM to the link I added to the external links area of this page. This was a good faith edit, as I have no vested interest in the Log Home Builders of North America. Their website seemed in line with the other sorts of sites linked from this page. I will not revert the page at this time as I am unsure of the protocol here. But I'd appreciate any light IMALogBuilder, or anyone else could shed on this for me. Thanks! KateH 04:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has once again added the SPAM qualifier. Since he has not responded here, or to your talk page questioning, I would (and have) term any further edits as vandalism. Pepsidrinka 04:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We received a correspondence from the user; he believes that the address qualifies as spam because it is a commercial address. I've directed him here to discuss the issue. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LHMNA is an association, just like the other organizations linked from this article. LHBNA offers a seminar and membership benefits. It does not sell any goods or other services. A quick review of the other links shows that they link to numerous businesses offering both goods and servicess. If those links are acceptable, and not considered "SPAM," I'd appreciate an explanation as to why LHBNA is considered "commercial." Thank you. KateH 17:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From: IMALogBuilder: Sorry it's taken a while to find out where to properly address these issues. Although I could be wrong, it is my belief that LHMNA is a privately-run business that teaches log building, as well as offers other services for a fee. It does not have an independent board of directors made up of log builders that run their own businesses. All the other links are of associations that are "independent" in the way I just described.

LHMNA should not be a link because it is a for-profit business whose operators depend on it for their livelyhood. The LHMNA benefits only its operators, and does not benefit a wide variety of independently owned and operated log home building companies or log building schools as do the other associations.

So, let me make sure I understand your argument: It's perfectly fine to link to a commercial page made up by multiple independent builders who run their own businesses, but a link to a single independent business that offers only an educational seminar is SPAM? Sorry, but that doesn't seem like a logical approach to me. I can't see how benefitting multiple commercial businesses simultaneously is morally superior to benefitting one business. Besides, the first page linked from this article goes to Hirsh Log Homes' site - the only link from this article with a .com domain. At the very top of that page it states, "Hirsh Log Homes is a leading Canadian Log Home builder." I can't see how it gets any more commercial than that. So, IMALogBuilder, could you please explain why you did not object to the link for Hirsh Log Homes?

I'll repeat: the LHBNA offers only a single seminar, and no other services. It strongly encourages the do-it-yourself approach to owner-building and does not sell any products whatsoever. The benefits of membership include free access to the expertise of experienced loghome owner-builders, both instructors and other members. So it could easily be argued that the organization is more educational than commercial in nature. To argue that the site benefits only one business is to ignore the information that members and non-members can freely access from the site and the forums. In any case, objecting to a business's for-profit status seems a very weak argument if you're arguing for the inclusion of multiple associations of for-profit commercial companies.

If commercial links are not allowed at wikipedia, then I will ask for clarification of the term "commercial." If that definition includes any for-profit business, regardless of other, non-commercial content on a business' website, then I will make the argument that links to associations of for-profit business should also be disallowed. It would logically follow that most of the links from this article need to be removed (including the one for LHBNA, and in fact all but the link to the National Park page). I'd be pleased to hear from anyone who could point me to a wikipedia page concerning "commercial" links from articles. KateH 16:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've got this page watchlisted, I'll try and point you all in the right direction: Wikipedia:External links. A general rule of thumb regarding the inclusion of external links is whether or not the link adds significantly to the article; remember that we are not a link repository. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Flcelloguy, for providing that link.

IMALogBuilder spake: (LHBNA) "...does not have an independent board of directors made up of log builders that run their own businesses...LHMNA should not be a link because it is a for-profit business whose operators depend on it for their livelyhood."

-Not quite. Because the status of this organization was questioned here, I looked into this issue. In fact, LHBNA does have a board of directors. It turns out that LHBNA is registered with the state of Washington as a non-profit educational organization, the organization being managed by the aforesaid board of directors. Its Washington state business license, clearly indicating its non-profit status, can be found here:

http://dor.wa.gov/content/brd/Results.aspx?RequestType=1&Criteria=log+home+association&City=

So much for labelling the LHBNA link "SPAM" because it's a "commercial" site. As for the merits or demerits of such sites, I'd say that the wikipage mentioned by Flcelloguy makes a stronger (though not irrefutable) case for disallowing links to associations of "commercial" businesses. KateH 20:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- IMALogBuilder responds: - - So KateH I know of MANY businesses that run exactly as you describe yours: for educational purposes. Let's start with putting a link to the Great Lakes School of Log Building; then Bill Lasko runs a school in Indiana. And Pat Wolfe runs a school. And Mackie still runs classes so let's list him. And I teach some classes, too, so let's list my personal website. I don't sell any log homes, but only do classes, and the only difference between my company name and yours is that mine doesn't have the word association in it. We're not done. There are at least 15 other log building schools in the lower 48. Why can't we list all them? And at least 10 professional log builders teach building in addition to building homes. And if I were a student, I could be persuaded that the BEST log building teachers are those who build real houses every day. So maybe only the BEST teachers should be listed, which would exclude all the schools who are dedicated to teaching only. And what about those schools, like yours, who use students to build a log building and then you SELL that building to the public. What's the difference between that and a log builder who builds a single log home each year and sells it the same as you do. The only difference is that he does the work himself and doesn't use slave labor. So your company should be listed and his shouldn't? Go figure? - - KateH, you wrote the following: "So, let me make sure I understand your argument: It's perfectly fine to link to a commercial page made up by multiple independent builders who run their own businesses, but a link to a single independent business that offers only an educational seminar is SPAM?" Yes, that is EXACTLY what I am saying. Links that directly benefit one business are spam. Links that benefit hundreds or dozens of indepdentent companies dedicated to furthering a trade is something different. Under your arguement, every single long builder on the planet should have a right to be listed. At least with my approach there are less than six such organizations in North America.

IMALogBuilder adds: I just reviewed the external link provided on what kind of links are appropriate, and it says that links to be avoided are those that "...primarily exist to sell products or services." So I would agree, with that information, none of the external links, except the NPS link, should be listed. Based on that information, which is "irrefutable," I made the change on the page. I also suggest that the page be locked to keep the wolves (spammers) away from the meat.

LHBNA is in no way "my" organization, business, company, or school. I'm a member of LHBNA, not a teacher or a member of its board. I won't bother restating my points above. Your position seems entirely without logic to me, particularly since LHBNA is dedicated to promoting greater awareness of log home building techniques and does not compete with the businesses you seem to want to support. Be that as it may, if the community consensus is that no businesses of any kind should be linked from wikipedia, then I defer to that community standard and support your removal of all links but the one for the National Park Service page. I'll leave it to other, more experienced, users to carry on the commercial/non-profit debate, and to add or restore the deleted links. KateH 21:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hirsch Log Homes has again added its commercial link to the page, and I again removed it. What is the best way to inform them that what they are doing is perhaps best offered elsewhere?

Adding links which provide users with the best content to satiate their desire for knowledge should be what is talked about here. I think we spend too much time splitting hairs and not enough time trying to point users toward the best content. This should be a democratic meritocracy. So let it be one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.249.114 (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partisan Builders Links

... this wiki is obviously too tempting for many to follow Wikipedia's guidelines, as every few weeks, someone adds new external links that are obviously partisan and non-inclusive to some builders. Please see Wikipedia's guidelines to make sure that what you are posting in the way of external links, is indeed appropriate, all inclusive, and NON-COMMERICAL in nature!

you guys need to chill out and stop acting like you are saving the world from commercial links. commercial links provide a service...called content, which happens to be supported by advertising. it is actually better content than the crap listings you do allow up here which don't point anyone to legitimate content. get over yourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.145.55 (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first two links in this page are blatently commercial. What is to stop anyone from just adding their own links here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhagwad (talk • contribs) 17:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment the page is free of commercial links - If there is a significant future problem then it will be dealt with. TerriersFan (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Log house → Log home – This was the name used in the first version of the article from 2004 until moved without discussion on September 24. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is the most common name on goggle hits (2,460,000 for log house v 6,540,000 for log home. The old title was stable, accurate and unambiguous. The reason for the move was Home is subjective, except in the language of real estate agents; "house" is the common term for small residential buildings. However it is clear that house and home are not used interchangebly for some types of places. To quote choster from here, No one says "mobile house," we say mobile home, and towards the other end of the economic spectrum I don't know anyone with a "beach home," but a few with a beach house, and in between some with houseboats but not homeboats. In the suburbs, tract shoppers browse model homes, not model houses, but a bit farther out you can buy farmhouses, but not farmhomes. My point is that we should use the vernacular. The move of log home to log house was entirely arbitrary and without discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Most of Vegaswikiian's points above amount to unsourced opinion; they are as irrelevant as my own observation that "log house" is a much more familiar form to me.
When it comes to data, Vegaswikian's search is malformed, because it is a general google search. The advice at COMMMONNAME is that "When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources". Applying that principle, I searched Google books when this arose at CFD ... and Google Books gave 583,000 hits for "log house", but only 144,000 hits for "log home".
The nominator here was aware of that Google Books data, having posted immediately beside it at CFD, and a good faith editor should no try to omit inconvenenient evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I repeated the search using Google News, which gives rough parity between the two terms: 2,330 hits for "log house" and 2,360 hits for "log home". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And that parity shows that the recent page move was not justified. If the two are similar, then you can not really choose one over the other as the common name. So title stability needs to be considered and other usage can also be considered. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent parity, maybe, but the Books results are fairly conclusive. I think whoever moved the article to its current title should have done so through an RM, but the evidence supports it. The recent results may portend a shift in usage, but we can't make that judgment at this point. --BDD (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I wasn't previously aware that House and Home are separate articles, which I find to be a bit ridiculous, but this topic better fits our definition of the former ("a building or structure the primary function of which is to be occupied for habitation by humans or other creatures"). --BDD (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - "Log home" is a branding term used by the builders of a modern product, whereas "log house" is a viable descriptor for the scope of this article, which is log-based houses (and occasionally log schools, log churches, etc.) in general. The move on September 24 may have been undiscussed, but it was long overdue. --Orlady (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.