Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:VPM)
Jump to: navigation, search
  Policy   Technical   Proposals   Idea lab   Miscellaneous  
Shortcuts:
The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals pages, or – for assistance – at the help desk, rather than here, if at all appropriate. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.
« Older discussions, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Why doesn't the mobile version show red links?[edit]

It it because it is thought to be too difficult to begin articles using the mobile version? I tend to think of wp:redlinks as great things, as long as they are placed where articles or redirects should be created. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hm yes, seems they show as plain text w/o link or colour. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I think this is covered in phab:T57500. I didn't read the whole conversation (it is long), but I think it's because article creation flow on mobile isn't finished. Killiondude (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that. I see that conversation ended in June 2014. Any ideas on the location of an updated thread, User:Mdennis (WMF)? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Melamrawy (WMF) is the person to ask about that. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Whatamidoing (WMF). Is it unsafe to assume that that notification will be replied to here? I'm thinking I might need to post on their talk page or send an email. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I've lost track of her schedule, so I'm not sure. But feel free to drop by her talk page. She's far less likely to bite than I am. Face-wink.svg Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Whatamidoing. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Melamrawy (WMF) for the post on my talk page. Unfortunately, I'm not sure you understood my question on this thread. I am wondering why red links do not appear at all on the mobile version of Wikipedia. For example, if you go to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Cheatsheet&mobileaction=toggle_view_mobile you will see that the "red link example" is not red. It is black like plain text. You might also compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pycnanthemum and see how many species still need articles. But when you go to the mobile version of that page (anyone can toggle between versions at the bottom of every Wikipedia article, from "desktop" to "mobile" and vice versa), the red links are not there. There are no links to show mobile viewers that Wikipedia needs an article on the subject. Why is that? Also, wouldn't this approach encourage mobile editors to create wikilinks where wikilinks ([[ ]]) already exist? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be treated as a bug? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I got it correct from the first time Biosthmors :). It is needed, especially now after more editing traffic due to enabling IP editing. I am checking the status with the current responsible team, because as you saw in the phab ticket above, this has already been discussed earlier, so as I mentioned in my comment on your page: Lets see how this will work --it didn't fall off the radar, don't worry :). Thanks again for bringing up the issue.--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Melamrawy (WMF), thanks for the reply again. When I check this (a mobile version of a red link, an uncreated article), I see that IP editors can not create a new article, just like IP editors on the desktop version. So, unfortunately, I still don't understand your answer. =( I'm sorry that I'm still at a loss. Why is it a bad thing for people to see red links on the mobile version? I thought you were trying to say that "because IP editors can start new articles on the mobile version, we don't want to enable red links to prevent a flooding of new, low quality articles". But I now see that's not the case. IP editors can not create new articles on the mobile version. Thanks again for your input. Kind regards. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Biosthmors as agreed, this is needs to change. I will keep you posted of which team could dedicate time to solve this bug on their upcoming sprint. Thanks :-) --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 12:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Maggie, Melamrawy, Whatamidoing, please state the official WMF viewpoint on the proposal being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal to change the focus of pending changes. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Melamrawy (WMF). I appreicate it. Feel free to let me/us know if there is or there will be a wp:phabricator thread on this as well. Thanks again. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

How to adapt the language list?[edit]

Thanks. I tried but it did not work yet. I'll continue this question in WP:VPT Ceinturion (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Formatting.[edit]

Is this essay formatted correctly, or have I messed something up? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

BUMP. Tharthan (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
BUMP. Tharthan (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
BUMP. Tharthan (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@Tharthan: Is there a specific question that you have? Nothing jumps out at me regarding your formatting, beyond redirects into user space generally being frowned upon. --B (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@B: Yes. Particularly, the picture formatting. It looks off to me for some reason. Shouldn't it be higher up on the page? Tharthan (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I have no idea why I messed that up. Then again, I was never the editor to place pictures onto pages, so I practically have no experience doing so here. Tharthan (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@Tharthan: (edit conflict) I moved your pictures up - is that what you are looking for? Remember that the exact position of pictures relative to the text will vary widely depending on the reader's monitor or device. For example, if I have dual 4K resolution monitors and stretch the article across both of them, I will see things differently than if I have an old laptop running 1024x768. So you don't necessarily want to position them just somewhere to look good for you. You could also create a gallery and then your images will flow across. See Help:Gallery tag for examples. --B (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

AWB blues[edit]

I've been experiencing problems for some time with AWB edits, particularly by Bgwhite and Magioladitis/Yobot. There are too many issues to list, but the problem is that they repeatedly restore their edits over objections. A lot of the edits make no difference to the reader but fill up the watchlists. Or they make changes that have an editorial impact and restore them even if the article writers disagree.

For example, for some reason AWB moves references into the chronological order of the footnotes, rather than where they've been placed for editorial reasons. So a sentence claiming A and B might have the refs positioned after the sentence so that the ref for A comes first. But if A is footnote 9 and B is footnote 8, AWB editors will change the position. If you change it back, another one arrives to do it again.

They also repeatedly remove repetition of named references. When I'm writing a first draft of an article, I often repeat the reference in full (e.g. ref name=X, followed by the citation) so that I can section edit and see the citations. Once I have a draft in place, I remove them and use only ref name=X. AWB editors won't let me do this. They keep arriving – on articles they otherwise have no involvement in – to remove repeated citations.

Each of the issues feels too minor to complain about, but the overall effect is time-consuming and depressing. It feels as though articles are held hostage to whatever rules someone has programmed into AWB. Complaints have been met with rudeness and what seemed to be revenge editing elsewhere. I recently tried to add {{bots|deny=AWB}} to stop it, but Bgwhite reverted, telling me I had added it "illegally." [1] I'm bringing it here for discussion in the hope that some of the technical editors might be able to offer suggestions, as I have no idea how AWB works. Redrose64, I'm pinging you in case you can advise. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Sarah (SV) I already contacted you to your talk page and I asked for clarification. I did every single edit step-by-step proving clear edit summary. I left the footnotes untouched and left the AWB deny tag you posted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Since the page already has consolidated references I assumed this was not your problem with the AWB edits. Feel free to revert this. I arrived to the page due to the unclosed blockquote tag which I fixed. I am OK if you leave the AWB deny tag in the page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Magioladitis, thanks for doing that, though I see you restored the edits.
I'd prefer not to talk about particular cases, because then we'll get bogged down. The broader issues are (a) someone seems to have programmed AWB to make odd edits (e.g. moving refs out of position); and (b) when these are reverted, you revert back, or arrive a few days or weeks later to do the same thing again. And this is on articles that you otherwise have no involvement in, so you're saying that your opinions must count for more than the opinions of the people who are actually working on the articles.
It's these broader issues that I feel need to be discussed. I'm also pinging Doc James as I know he has commented on this too. The point is: shouldn't AWB editors observe bold, revert, discuss like everyone else? Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Sarah (SV) I did not restore the edit in question. Am I wrong? You reverted an edit that had many parts and restored the parts I think were uncontroversial (for example I removed an unclosed tag). I left the other parts out. Your edit summary was not very clear so I am not sure if I did right so I left you a message to review by edits. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, that particular case doesn't matter. Can you address the broader issue of AWB (a) not making these edits in the first place, particularly moving refs out of place, and (b) when you're reverted not reverting back? Also, why is the tag being removed and what is meant by "illegally"? We're surely allowed to use it or it wouldn't exist. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Sarah (SV):
  1. The instructions on {{nobots}} says to, "1) Avoid using the template as a blunt instrument 2) Address the root problem with the bot owner or bot community". Nobody contacted the bot owners before applying the nobots template.
  2. We arrived at the pages for CheckWiki fixes for which we both have bot approval.
  3. Doing a complete revert without fixing the underlying problem means the article is still on the CheckWiki lists and we will continue arriving at the page until fixed.
  4. There is the {{in use}} tag for when the page is under active construction. AWB bots will not edit a page with this tag present.
  5. AWB will only combine refs if there are already combined, named refs in the article.
Bgwhite (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sarah (SV), Bgwhite I am OK if the deny tag is used as last resort. The tag still exists in Female genital mutilation where we again had an interaction and I can't recall any other interaction between all us three in the past. After, I was reverted in Study 329 I immediately searched for another approach. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite, I've repeatedly raised this with you and M, to no avail, so now I'm going to add the tag, particularly when I'm working on something where I don't want the ref positions to be changed. On study 329, they've been changed by AWB three times in just a few days, and repeated citations removed too. Again, the point is that AWB editors shouldn't be arriving at articles they have no involvement in to impose the style preferences of the tiny number of people who control AWB. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Not sure why I'm being asked... I'm not an AWB dev; moreover, I have never actually used AWB because (a) I don't edit with IE and in fact I use IE only rarely, in order to check if my CSS suggestions work on that browser (as here); (b) I prefer to make my own mistakes. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Redrose, I pinged you because I don't know who to ask for the best. Pinging Reedy and Rjwilmsi, as they're listed as AWB developers. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Also pinging JamesR from the bot approvals group. The issue for anyone not wanting to read the above is that someone has programmed AWB to make edits that a couple of people simply don't like (e.g. that citations in an article must appear in the chronological order of the footnotes). Those edits are then repeatedly made to articles over the objections of the article writers, month after month, year after year. When we add the {{bots|deny=AWB}} tag we're reverted. So what can we do? Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sarah (SV) you 've been reverted by a single user, AWB does not override the deny tag and I did not revert you. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite removes them, as I said above. Can you address the larger issues, M? First, how can we get rid of that AWB thing that moves references out of place? AWB should not be doing that. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I support you on that. In the past I proposed that we make the ref reordering optional and disabled for bots. I should find the discussion for you. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Can you say how it got added to AWB? It seems a strange thing to do, especially automated. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Ref ordering is a general fix, simply because refs should be presented in order. Having a "This sentence states something.[137][8][97][45]" goes against pretty much every style guide out there, because you should present them in order as [8][45][97][137]. This has been incorporated in AWB years ago and this fix has support. There may be some weird article-specific reason for not following this convention, but you'd need a really good argument for not following professional standards. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
In some cases, I wouldn't use the word "often" but it's not at all uncommon, certain references in a sequence are more important than others and should be read first. If the reader looks at only the first one or two refs, we want to determine which refs those will be. It's sound editorial judgment, there's nothing "weird" about it, and I personally don't lose any sleep over deviating from "professional standards" that stand between me and reader value. ―Mandruss  01:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Thanks for the response, Headbomb. Can you post examples of the professional standards or style guides you're referring to?
On WP we use ref name, rather than posting separate footnotes (which I would prefer to do, but if we try that AWB editors revert us.) So if we have a sentence "Mary likes cake, but John doesn't," and a ref to support each part of the sentence, they need to be placed in order after the sentence, no matter what number the footnote has (i.e. even if one of them has been used earler in the article). That's a trivial example, but there are examples where it's important to begin with the secondary and not the primary source, or where the issues are contentious and the refs have to be easy to find. These are editorial decisions, and AWB editors shouldn't be making them when they're not familiar with the issues, or reverting when the refs are moved back into place.
The AWB rules say that the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate consensus. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Headbomb, I see it was you who suggested adding it to AWB. [2] Rjwilmsi responded that it needed consensus. Magioladitis supported it, JLogan objected, and it was added. Was there a discussion somewhere else that gained consensus, or was that it? Sarah (SV) (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Break 1[edit]

@SlimVirgin: Three suggestions for you:
  1. If you have a sentence "Mary likes cake, but John doesn't," and a ref to support each part of the sentence, you could write Mary likes cake,<ref name=Mary/> but John doesn't.<ref name=John/>
  2. If you add a comment between consecutive references (maybe explaining why they're in a certain order), AWB won't rearrange them.
  3. When you're writing a first draft of an article, you could create it in the Draft namespace or your user sandbox to keep the bots away, and then move it to mainspace when you're done.
Hope this helps make your editing experience more pleasurable. GoingBatty (talk) 03:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks GoingBatty, but I prefer not to be forced to add refs inside sentences, and we shouldn't have to explain why they're in a certain order. The broader point, I think, is that we shouldn't have to jump through hoops like this. Magioladitis, what can we do to resolve this? Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin explaining why ref are in a given order may be a good thing since the main argument of the people who want the re reordering is that a random editor can never know for sure which ref order is the best. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Magioladitis, I'm not sure I understand that. I agree that random editors can't know which ref order is best, but at the moment AWB is helping random editors change the order.
Again, I'd prefer to address the broader issue. Almost all AWB rules are just the preferences of a small number of people, perhaps just one person, being imposed on everyone as though they are policies. If we object, the edits are restored again and again, maybe for years. It's basically slow edit warring. It's that attitude, I think, that has to change. Using AWB doesn't make editors immune from behavioral guidelines, and editors who want to avoid these conflicts have to be allowed to use the deny tag without it being removed. If that last point could be accepted, that would help a lot. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Most of AWB rules are described at WP:AWB/GF and almost(?) all AWB rules follow manual of style. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

A lot of these have nothing to do with the MOS, and anyway the MOS isn't policy. Can you help to establish that, if the deny tag is added, it mustn't be removed? That would allow writers some escape from this. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Magioladitis, Reedy and Rjwilmsi, I would really appreciate a response to this so that we can try to resolve things. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: random comment: there are way more uses of bots/nobots in article space than I would have expected. This seems like a bad idea and like it should be the very last resort and only a temporary measure unless/until the problem is resolved. From looking around, I'm going to pick Canmore, Alberta as an example of an article that uses the tag for a similar reason to the one discussed above - there are ordered refs for the "Population history" table and to keep AWB out, the bots tag is used. I would think that better options would be (1) move the refs into the table itself next to the data actually being cited so that you don't have to count to try and figure out which ref cites which line or (2) if there is an editorial reason not to do that, add the comment between refs described above. The way it is now, AWB is blocked from doing other useful things on the page. It seems like the problem should be resolved with a comment - if you don't want users (AWB or otherwise) reordering refs, you need to tell them why. --B (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi B, thanks for the comment. I don't accept that if I don't want AWB reordering refs, I need to explain why. (I don't understand what you mean about a table.) Rather, editors who want to do it should explain why, and I'd love to hear the explanation. It's something that makes no sense. Editors and readers are very lazy, especially regarding anything contentious. If they click on the first ref, and the most pertinent information isn't there, they remove material, add a cite tag or complain on talk. Refs need to stay where the writers have placed them, unless there's reason to think a mistake has been made.
Re: the tag, I've added it as a last resort (and even then it was removed), because I've been trying to sort this out for a long time, to no avail – not only ref reordering, but several other issues. As I keep saying, the important issue is that AWB editors should abide by the same rules as everyone else, but they don't. They don't even abide by the AWB rules of use, namely: abide by all policies, guidelines and common practices; seek consensus for changes that could be controversial; if challenged, the onus is on the operator to gain consensus; and don't make inconsequential edits. None of these rules are adhered to. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that none explains what they prefer a certain order then everything goes down to level of preference. I think most editors think of the order suggested by AWB as the default order unless someone else proves that in a certain article the order of refs should be something else. Using comments would be really useful not only for AWB users. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not always a matter of preference, M. As I wrote earlier, Mary likes cake, but John doesn't.<ref name=Mary/><ref name=John/> is written that way so the reader finds the sources in order of claim presentation. When the claims are contentious, this matters. Or the writer might place the secondary source first, or the second source might be a "see also" source. But I've said all this already.
Instead of discussing particulars, can we discuss the broader issues, please? Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
"Rather, editors who want to do it should explain why" - if there isn't a sign saying "don't do this", doesn't BRD suggest it's okay to do that? If you don't want someone (editor, semi-automated editor, anyone) doing something, you need to let them know. If I see the Mary and John example, if the reference about John is a really good article from a major newspaper and the reference to Mary is a weak barely reliable source, I might think that moving John's ref ahead or even removing Mary's completely is a good idea, not realizing that there is a reason for it the way it is. --B (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
They do it over and over, and not only that one issue, Maglioditis and Bgwhite in particular. BRD says not to do that, and the AWB rules say not to do it, which is why I keep trying to steer the conversation to the bigger picture, and I would really appreciate it if that conversation could happen, rather than discussing particular examples. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've been pinged about this discussion. I didn't really want to enter the debate here, so I'll post once and bow out. On the one hand, considering the reader of a page, if references are put in a specific, non-numeric order by the editor, I do not see how the reader can be sure if that means something special, and how to know which ref applies to what, so on the basis of reader understanding I would think using a specific, non-numeric order by the editor would be discouraged; within-sentence referencing or explanatory comments within the reference would seem a much clearer solution, ref order would then not be a dependency for understanding. On the other hand, AWB feature requests do not necessarily get widely announced, so maybe a feature was added that goes against some established practice in certain cases. So the simplest thing here would seem to me to have a wide discussion about the encouraged/approved/discouraged options for reference ordering on the MOS/WP:CITE pages, ensure that the MOS/WP:CITE etc. guidelines are updated if a consensus is reached. Then I will ensure AWB is updated if required to support the consensus reached. If, as is possible in these areas of MOS standards, no consensus is reached, then SV has been given some options to update the affected article. Rjwilmsi 06:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for proposal[edit]

The ref reordering was implemented with a 3-1 consensus on a "feature requests" page with relatively few watchers. I would suggest that a wider consensus is needed to sustain something like this. We should pretend that the feature does not exist and take it through the WP:VPR proposal process, like other things that affect a significant number of editors in a controversial way. The consensus burden should be on "keep", not "remove"; i.e., it would be removed in the absence of a consensus. If the idea has as much merit as its proponents claim, it should have no problem earning consensus there. Being an actual community consensus with wide exposure, it should be more durable. ―Mandruss  01:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not about the best order for references, and while a discussion concerning what AWB does would be desirable, such a discussion would not address the underlying issue. The problem is that drive-by editors with no interest in a particular article (and no knowledge of the references or whether there is any reason for the presentation order) are using automated tools to apply a "standard", and they are insisting that their edits apply. AWB users might sometimes develop an unrealistic goal of "fixing" the encyclopedia by making everything follow their style. The AWB rules may well be desirable for many articles, but they should not be applied in cases like those mentioned above where an editor has gone to a great deal of trouble to develop the article content. It would obviously be fine if someone wanted to join in and help develop the article, and a discussion could occur based on what is best for the article and its readers. That is not what is happening. Johnuniq (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Rather than using {{nobots}} like a blunt instrument, maybe we need a {{ref order}} tag to stop scripts and bots from changing that particular part of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi WAID, that would be good, but it isn't the only issue. The problem is that a small number of editors want all articles to conform to their style, and won't stop no matter how often they're asked. They violate BRD and their own AWB rules, but that seems not to matter. If the AWB deny tag were respected, that would help. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
The comments option in the middle of references is still better I think. It's not only AWB editors who visit pages. Editors have been reordering refs before AWB. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Overabundance of photos of President Obama[edit]

I don't know if I'm the only one who has struck this opinion, but it seems we use an over abundance of pictures of the current US President, Barack Obama. Even on articles that have nothing to do - directly or indirectly - with the presidency. Fist bump is a good example. I know there are other examples, but I can't remember any off the top of my head. Just seems POV-ish to me. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 00:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

One of the contributing factors to this may be that public domain photos of him are pretty easy to obtain since photos are taken by government photographers at his events. All those photos are part of the public domain. only (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:SOFIXIT. Get your camera, take high-quality pictures that can replace all of them, and then upload them and replace them. Wikipedia does not have a staff of paid editors who make any decisions at all, it consists solely of people exactly like you who saw a problem and fixed it. If you see a problem and don't fix it, then the only person to blame is yourself. --Jayron32 00:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
What's wrong with the presidential fistbump photo? It's not the lede image for the article; it's in the section on history as a particularly notable example due to the brouhaha it created.~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I see absolutely nothing wrong with : we have a public figure who has show himself to be wise in the ways of social media and in a place where nearly every image of him will be a free image, as such , it is great content for a free encyclopedia. He's also probably the first sitting President that also "gets that" too. Perhaps the next President will realize the same thing and then we can start balancing images with that. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I Actually pity anyone who tries, given the multiple edit wars that will undoubtedly start. Resolute 19:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The section reminds me of a Memory Alpha article. "George Washington was a US President. George Washington was shown in a picture in episode 5 of season 3 and his face was on a coin in Star Trek IV." "A fist bump is when two people bump their fist. President Obama once fist bumped his wife." Yes, the usage of photos of Obama is probably not intended as a political statement or anything ... but it doesn't belong in "history" - it belongs with all of the "other instances". And the trivia about the FNC host that nobody has ever heard of losing her job possibly, but not definitely, related to her snark about the President's fist bump ... good grief, that's absurd trivia to have in an article about fist bumps. Speculation about trivia about trivia? Good grief. --B (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Photo insertion should be judged on a case-by-case basis, rather than according to some criteria about how many there are in total across Wikipedia for a particular subject. Praemonitus (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

A/B Testing for VisualEditor to begin May 21st[edit]

Hi there. I’m about to kick off a short A/B test that will enable VisualEditor for newly registered users. This test will affect half of the new editors who sign up on Wikipedia. We’ll start on 21 May, 2015 by running a 24-hour pilot study (why?) to test our experimental framework. Assuming that everything’s working, we’ll then start a one-week study. Once this experimental week is up, we will cease enabling VisualEditor for newcomers while we analyze its effects.

In this experiment, I’ll be looking for evidence about whether offering VisualEditor makes editing easier/more productive for newcomers or raises additional burdens (reverting damage, blocking vandals) for current editors. One of the WMF's goal in this test is to determine whether we’re ready to start a discussion about offering VisualEditor to new users. Negative outcomes will result in further improvements and user testing.

As has become my standard practice for WMF experiments, I’ll be maintaining a project page on Meta with details about this experiment. I will also maintain work logs while I monitor the experiment and analyze the results. If you have any questions about this test, please feel free to come talk to me on the project talk page. --Halfak (WMF) (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Polemic in factual posts[edit]

I just read part of the Wikipedia page about Deepak Chopra. Let me preface by saying that I have never been to Chopra's health center and am not an avid reader of his books. Having stated that, I found the page written about him terribly offensive. It couldn't have been clearer that the person allowed to write, or deeply influence, the page about him had his/her own agenda. And that is my point in writing. An "inequity" was not cured by allowing a writer aligned with the medical orthodoxy to write about him. Rather, a greater inequity occurred.

Apparently, the writer does not believe that any reader who encounters Deepak Chopra on the page can make a reasonable decision based on his or her own sensibilities and logic, or even feelings (yes, feelings can factor into how a person can make a sound decision). What this writer has been allowed to do is to engage in unadulterated polemic. Is that okay?

Deepak Chopra's ideas come from an ancient philosophical school. I believe I may be correct in stating that his ideas are aligned with the Sankhya philosophical school, though I may be wrong. At any rate, ideas from an ancient philosophical school are not necessarily antiquated. What this writer has been allowed to do is to put Deepak Chopra on trial and to publicly convict him in writing, and on a very popular informational site. This author's conclusions (which all lead to the conviction that Chopra is professing ideas dangerous for the masses) are not necessarily accurate. Science and medicine, which this writer cleaves to as "truth," simply don't present us with all the answers. Some people need to deal with that.

Mysticism is not automatically dangerous, and should not be regarded or approached as such. It is a perennial system of coming in tune with self, a path of inner investigation (even Jung took it). In fact, mysticism is a valid path of self-inquiry practiced in myriad forms by billions of people. Additionally, most people do not take mysticism to an extreme. (But let's face it, there are a lot of things in this world that we can engage in to the extreme that could cause our own death. For instance, we can eat ourselves to death. What are you going to do? Put a warning label on all food?)

Writers of this nature are dangerous because they are telling their readers what to think and are not allowing for the full breadth of human experience. (And thinking for oneself does seem like a God-given right in these States of America. I'm pretty sure there's a public document that alludes to that.) And such writer's should not be given public forum to influence people into thinking that mysticism is laughable at best and at worst potentially fatal. Thoreau spoke about an "authority of one" in his essay, "Civil Disobedience." This author is counseling Wikipedia's readers away from that authority. And frankly, it's my understanding that Wikipedia is about getting information, not being told what to think.

In truth, I do not trust this author as a candidate to shape my ideas about the world because he/she is clearly entrenched in the medical orthodoxy, an alignment that, quite honestly, reminded me of the Catholic orthodoxy that led to the burning of Gnostics in Southern France. (Yes, I actually said that.) "Orthodoxy" means "right-thinking" and it is a moniker that was assumed, not given. People who assume that they are orthodox (right-thinking) can turn into fanatics and become dangerous. And while I don't think that this writer is going to burn anyone with fire, he/she clearly has no compunction about burning someone in the public conception. I appreciate that we have doctors, certainly, and I pay them for their services; but this does not mean that I'm not going to learn how to take care of myself to the best of my ability. And, I have to tell you, I'm 50 and regularly get told that I look like I'm in my 20's or 30's. So, in my mind, there's nothing wrong with not buying into the idea that we have to get old—unless you've got some money to be made by people thinking otherwise. People can make their own decisions about when to seek medical assistance, and what form that assistance will take.

I think I've probably made my point, but here's a news flash: There are actually intelligent people in the world. And, when it comes to Deepak Chopra, I can make up my own mind. Thank you so very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.43.53 (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinion. Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Have you tried discussing the article content on the article talk page, Talk:Deepak Chopra? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Bot request for disambiguation link fixing issue.[edit]

I have requested the bot flag to run AWB as a bot in order to clean up certain kinds of links left from disambiguation page moves. For example, the page Epping previously was an article on a specifc town in England. This page was moved to Epping, Essex, and Epping became a disambiguation page with several hundred incoming links. As is commonly found in such cases, most of the links intended the town in England, and many were found in formulations like "[[Epping]], Essex", or "[[Epping]], [[Essex]]". A similar issue arises in the recurring creation of common patterns of disambiguation links to heavily linked articles; for example editors will often make edits creating disambiguation links like "[[heavy metal]] music" and "the [[French]] language", which can easily be resolved as "[[heavy metal music]]" and "the [[French language]]". Over time, large numbers of these links may build up. Over the course of my career as an editor, I have made literally hundreds of thousands of fixes like these using AWB. Even though this is much faster than editing the pages individually in a browser, it is still time consuming when large numbers of links must be fixed.

I have therefore finally decided to request permission to run AWB as a bot so that when page moves are made or common disambiguation targets become heavily linked, obvious formulations like these can be changed with less of a direct investment of my time. My intention is to use this functionality when a page move creates a large number of disambiguation links, for which obvious formulations for a large number of fixes can be seen. New disambiguation pages are created frequently; anywhere from a few dozen pages to a few hundred pages might benefit this kind of attention on any given day, although there are likely to be days where no pages require such attention. My intention is to determine if there are obvious patterns of links to be fixed, for example changing instances of "[[Epping]], Essex" or "[[Epping]], [[Essex]]" to "[[Epping, Essex|Epping]], Essex", or "[[Epping, Essex|Epping]], [[Essex]]". I will then run AWB in bot mode to make these changes (perhaps in a batch of a hundred at a time), and review the changes once made. It has been brought to my attention that similar proposals have been rejected in the past under WP:CONTEXTBOT, so I would like to know if there is any particular sentiment in the community about such a use of a bot flag. bd2412 T 22:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

"[[Epping, Essex|Epping]], Essex" and "[[Epping, Essex|Epping]], [[Essex]]" are both messy. Use "[[Epping, Essex]]", see WP:SPECIFICLINK. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
My intent in creating the piped link is to disturb the existing layout of the page as little as possible. bd2412 T 00:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
SPECIFICLINK is about linking to the most specific article available, not about how much of the text to link. Consistency of links is more important than consistency with the target page names; a sequence of links such as "Epping, Essex and Eppingen, Baden-Württemberg" is easier to read when editing a page but is not intuitive for navigation, and if Baden-Württemberg is a relevant link in this context then so is Essex. Peter James (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The point of the proposition is to fix large numbers of broken links quickly; tweaks can follow, but it is easier to avoid missteps if the page appearance remains the same after the fix. bd2412 T 23:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

500 edit requirement for editing Gamergate controversy and Talk:Gamergate controversy[edit]

Hi,

I'm looking to discuss the arbcom decision made here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TheRedPenOfDoom.2C_third_filing. I know discussions of an individual page are most commonly found at that respective page's talk page, but until the Talk:Talk: namespace exists that venue isn't open to all to discuss the decision made. The decision was made to restrict the editing of both pages listed above to those editors with both 500 edits and 30 days of age on their account. I don't know if a restriction of this kind has ever been applied to a talk page before; my impression is that such a restriction is exceedingly rare and that it goes against some of the core principles of the Wikipedia project. Rather than dawdling around, let me get into my opinions so those of differing opinions can pick them apart!

-The decision runs counter to the Wikipedia slogan, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." This is not the first such decision to run afoul of that credo, in my opinion; I'm a sort of absolutist on this, and would rather have a wikipedia with more errors and vandalism than a wikipedia that violates that goal. I understand that most people don't feel that way, and that's okay (though I sort of feel maybe we should get rid of that (maybe change it to "the community-curated free encyclopedia" or something that rolls off the tongue better than that) and stop confusing people, though you could imagine the field day conservatives and others who feel Wikipedia is inherently biased would have with that one!)

-The talk page is an important safety valve re:edit restrictions. The argument goes that vandalism is a problem and therefore limiting access to editing of contentious articles (e.g. 9/11) to users with some degree of vetting is a good way to limit the work for those brave souls who devote hours to reverting vandalism. I don't agree with that argument, but I understand it and sympathize with it and accept that it's the prevailing wisdom on Wikipedia. I'm not arguing that Gamergate controversy should be unprotected. However, I feel that the talk page acts as a balancing factor in the process, allowing those with opinions contrary to the current revision of the article (broadly, what we'd call at 9/11 kooks) to both support/defend their opinion as well as just gripe so as to avoid anger turning to hatred and hatred turning to vandalism (of other/related articles), or simply leaving the project altogether. I also think that a vigorous debate on the talk page of contentious articles helps expose how the sausage is made to those readers interested enough to care. That kind of transparency is important, in my opinion.

-The article as currently written accurately reflects the preponderance of RS reportage on the issue. Pains me to say this because I have some misgivings about some of the reporting on the issue, but I don't have a problem with the article itself, or if I do it's only minor niggles here and there and a general complaint about the schizophrenic quality of the article (inherent in contentious articles under the current system).

-The argument in favor of the restriction seems to be that users were tired of arguing about why the article is written the way it's written. To me, this seems to be the primary purpose of a talk page (at least in a contentious topic): discussing the current iteration of the article and debating on how to improve it in a way that is acceptable to people on both sides of the relevant ideological divide.

In short, I feel that the ban as imposed is unduly limiting to the open discussion of the issue at hand and will server to exacerbate the vitriol rather than soothe it. I'd appreciate comment, criticism, or any other ramblings people may have on the topic. Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 01:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

All I can say is yes, the restriction is unfair to those people who are good-faith new editors who haven't done anything wrong. That unfairness does not necessarily mean the restriction is unjustified. There is never any solution which is perfectly fair to every person in the world, and which also would curb the disruption. --Jayron32 01:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, having looked at why the restrictions were placed, coordinated off-site "gaming", they seem reasonable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Where does it say that? Chrisrus (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Read the FAQ and the discussion placing the restriction. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't disagree with this sanction as a resolution to issues of disruption in theory. However, this restriction was decided upon in an unrelated tangent in an AE case about a disruptive editor who wouldn't have even be affected by this particular sanction.[3] Seems wholly inappropriate to have originated that way. For a certainly unconventional sanction such as this, I would have hoped it would have taken more than the agreement of 3 admins. I am certainly curious to hear more about the thinking of @Zad68: and others about their line of reasoning on deciding that AE case. 108.52.24.214 (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I do disagree with the use to resolve disruption, on the grounds that there doesn't seem to have been any significant disruption to resolve. There were no significant problems on the talk page that weren't being handled with semi-protection and hatting, and all this does is cut out what is presumably the majority of current editors (and all new editors) from engaging in discussion, while giving a significant advantage to the current editors on the page. However, I don't think it can be resolved here, so I guess I'll need to take it to WP:ARCA at some point. - Bilby (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Unhelpful on-topic reader feedback is not a problem if we react to it properly as we do everywhere else: we just point them to FAQs or give a stock answer or just ignore it and it will age off into the archives in due course. If some of us overreact, the restrictions should be on those of us who don't treat it properly, not shut down reader feedback. Many eyes are on this article and us seeming to freak out and overreact to so much on-topic negative reader feedback is an embarrassment to the project. Chrisrus (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Let's not pretend this is "regular" unhelpful on-topic reader feedback like what happens at Muhammad or alt-med articles. There's been a coordinated offwiki effort to drive long term editors off the article [4] using socking and other methods. --NeilN talk to me 05:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Despite some truth in their grand and mostly deluded claims of "chipping away" (for instance all the absolutely vile and disgusting things they did to Ryulong), the true monster here has been Wikipedia's culture itself. What finally drove Dreadstar off was a surprisingly vicious dispute over hidden text discussing usage of infoboxes with established featured article writers. Most editors in the area who've been outed (I count 4 out of 5) were either outed first on Wikipediocracy, or likely using information that was available on Wikipediocracy. On the talk page before the Arbcom case established editors were continuously swearing at and insulting each other and this was accepted as part of Wikipedia's culture. Editors who could simply say "read the FAQ" instead went on long insulting rants to users asking questions. Admins have been allowed to call people drama whores while blocking them, or accuse them of being a "motherfucker" with no repercussion (messing with infoboxes on the other hand is an unforgivable sin), and this is for the most part just tolerated with a sort of "admins will be admins," attitude. The Gamergate socks are just a part of this greater culture of Wikipedia shitposting, and they're incredibly ineffectual at it.Bosstopher (talk) 09:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I've looked into the given example, the user seems to have been active in the topic areas around "A Voice for Men", "Campus rape" and "Southern Poverty Law Center" and hasn't edited GamerGate or gaming articles once, what exactly are you implying? Was there any specific disruption on the talk page that would have required these extreme measures? The editor that the original Arbitration Request was meant for is entirely unaffected. How did the admin get from the request of penalizing WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour of a single editor to this sanction? 84.131.64.160 (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
It might be because there had been three identical complaints posted to AE about TheRedPenOfDoom within two days, the first by an unknown IP account like yours, the second by an editor who had received a topic ban and violated it to post this complaint (and received a block in exchange) and the third time by a regular editor. It's hard to view a case like this on its merits when it's clear that someone put a target on TRPOD's back and they were going to continue to post this complaint until the editing environment changed.
As one blocked editor said about the GG situation What you don't seem to get is this is asymetric warfare, mostly in the sense that for you all every loss is significant (hai Dreadstar!) - for us "loss" is expected but we can afford it. Every little victory or nuisance makes it just that much less pleasant here, just that one fewer editor/admin - and bit by bit the ratchet clicks. diff
As others have said, though, neither that sock nor the hand that rocks it posted a single byte on Talk:Gamergate controversy. Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 23:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Saying that an IP geolocating to Germany, registered to Deutsche Telekom, is "like" an IP geolocating to the NY/NJ area, registered to AT&T, is a bit of a stretch. Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 23:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The editing restrictions, which can be lifted at any time that they are seen as no longer necessary, were created to combat this off-wiki battleground mentality that sees the editing of this article as a war of attrition, where the goal is to bring down the few activist editors on this subject. By the way, TRPOD actually hasn't edited the article talk page since May 10th and last edited Wikipedia on May 12th so this is not a case of where a block would have been preventative, it would be punishment. Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The diffs encompassed more than just that page, unless you are saying that TRPoD was never going to edit a talk page contentiously again, *of course* those blocks would have been preventive. 108.52.24.214 (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
This quote from the sock account that declares an asymmetric warfare is positively retarded. It's clear we are dealing with a teenager trying to act tough(failing hilariously.) I don't believe this Professor Chaos like declaration of war against Wikipedia is something to be worried. In fact the reality of Gamergate talk page is that there were occasional new users once or twice a week. If this is a coordinated attack they have forgotten to set a date on it. Darwinian Ape (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The above advice is from an account created in September 2011 but whose first edit was yesterday, making a total of 30 edits, none to articles. The gamergate requirements are intended to avoid the never-ending campaign of ultra-civil contributors who grind down established editors with repetitive commentary such as seen in this section. Johnuniq (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what is it you are insinuating here but it doesn't sound good, nor does it sound sane. Apparently I am a clairvoyant knowing Gamergate issue will arise one day, so I opened an account in 2011 biding my time, until the day THE GAMERGATE RISE!
Firstly I am not ultra civil, in fact I take that as an insult! Secondly, what does it matter who the advice is coming from. a wise woman once said, "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." I could have opened this account yesterday, or in 2001, what does it matter?! Hell I could have been writing as an IP, which I was until recently. But my decision to start using my account is exactly because of this attitude.(that and I was trying to make a point[[5]]) When I edited the articles in this project I did so as an IP, for I did not see any benefit to logging in, to be honest I wasn't very active either(though I would be eligible to edit gamergate had I contributed in this account) But I never even had to discuss with other Wikipedians Since my edits were limited to correcting grammar errors or adding minor changes. Then the gamergate happened, I was following it because its internet drama and that's kinda fun. But the fun part is over when it's changing the Wikipedia from "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" to an environment hostile to newcomers, or occasional contributors like myself. I have my opinion of gamergate sure, but that is not why I am writing here, because this is not about gamergate anymore. This is about the project's rules being fundamentally changed and it's deeply troubling. Darwinian Ape (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The Ape clearly has a point. Please, please, please stop breaking Wikipedia to determine the outcome of a content dispute! - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell Zad68, Bilby & Riffraffselbow you're unbiased on the issue involved. Unfortunately I realized certain individuals were requesting I be "blocked" from the discussion. I'm recognizing the intention of one side to silence opposition of the other; I'm asking if anyone has suggested renaming GamerGate Controversy to the more appropriate GamerGate Harassment Claims(?) - In return, making GamerGate Controversy a topic for Journalistic Ethics(?) That is the main focus of why the Twitter hashtag is so controversial. Let me clarify that with an article from Fast Company by Sarah Kessler that extends the narrative of the 12% findings;

--j0eg0d (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi J0eg0d, It is an interesting question. I would think that "Gamergate movement" might be a more appropriate title for the topic you have in mind than "Gamergate controversy". That being said, I think it's unlikely to receive much support - for WP:POVFORK reasons as much as anything else.
Apologies again for the "collapse" above; I have explained on your Talknpage, but please let me know if you have any questions. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind that you collapsed it, I think it actually draws more attention to it than before, so thank you.--j0eg0d (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The admins applied their discretion as specifically appointed to do by the ArbCom to apply a sanction that has great potential to minimize disruption.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Perfectly reasonable for any Wikipedia article, TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom as I was here for the Scientology disruptions. I differ on the TALK section limitations. The Arbitration Committee muses reestablishing a fact-based dialogue within the TALK section and/or rename the article to the more appropriate Gamergate Harassment. This reasoning outlined for Zad68 and Bilby in the collapsed post; The initial "controversy" of #gamergate claims this Twitter hashtag is a "corporeal group". The hashtag alone IS an intangible asset used by some 250,000 separate diversities. That's two objectives defending good or bad relations; Such exponents of "all-or-nothing thinking" prompts every WIKI disruption. But considering the earnest demand for further elaboration; Why not adjudicate by segregating the claims? Wikipedia needs one GamerGate article respecting the "harassment" claims, as another GamerGate article structures the "ethics in journalism" narrative. --j0eg0d (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
No. We do not consider "demands", earnest or otherwise, from humans trolls or ocean going mammals. We consider what the reliable sources state. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
->WP:CIVIL --j0eg0d (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I can't possibly imagine this scenario ever happening. Gamergate is and has been about harassing women. No reliable sources state otherwise.--Jorm (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to impede Jorm, but you're statement avoids the 12% issue by Women of Action Media. Likewise, the acclamations with Fast Company that expands on WAM's findings. Gamergate is a Twitter hashtag, not a physical entity or discernible group. Have you discounted the collapsed thread? I questioned if Editors overlook such events.--j0eg0d (talk) 05:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Trust me, I read it. And then I immediately discounted it. One - and seriously we're talking one, a single - primary source (and your interpretation of what that source says is fairly interesting if not inaccurate) (and yes, primary source) - is not going to erase or counterbalance the plethora of secondary sources that say, effectively, "gamergate is about the harassment of women". That's what Gamergate is about: harassment of women, according to a significant percentage of primary sources. You can't wiki-lawyer or whitewash this away. --Jorm (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Apologies again, I'm unfamiliar with you. We've never spoken. You dismissed the primary & secondary sources for a conclusion definition, then I understand why further clarifications would be irrelevant to you. You further admit to discounting a factual percentile to favor a popular opinion. Fair enough. To each their own. Although alleging perceived interpretations as a factor in your judgment seems dubious. There are primary and secondary sources regarding the article's links to a group of journalists relating private information & strategy amongst themselves that are agenda specific. This is reason enough to not be so contemptuous towards pertinent communications.--j0eg0d (talk) 06:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah, yeah, snerk snerk snerk, gamergate, milo, breitbart, ethics. I've heard it before. Let's move on.--Jorm (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Jorm, may I recommend becoming more familiar with WP:CIVILITY? After all, we are to assume Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith, are we not? Mythiran (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
while we begin with an assumption of good faith when the evidence shows such an assumption is no longer valid, we are not obligated to continue to pretend we are living in a fantasy land of lollypops and bunnies where the sea lions have been exterminated. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
respectfully, j0eg0d, I don't think your source is very good, nor the citation; All it's saying (if I understand you correctly) is that 12% of the harassment complaints reported to WAM in a certain time period were gamergate related. I don't think people are saying that Gamergate is "the only group harassing women on the internet" or anything, barring a few fringe pov sources. It's also not entirely what (to me) should be the topic of discussion over here; that's more appropriate for the talk page. Now obviously, you can't post on the talk page. I disagree with the restriction in part because it's just going to force discussion of sourcing etc onto random editors' talk pages, as well as random venues like WP:VPM; if they think it's annoying having to explain sourcing issues to the alleged "coordinated offwiki effort" under the old rules, imagine waking up and logging on to find a vitriolic debate raging over the legitimacy of e.g. Breitbart as a RS on your own talk page. Obviously, it's nice to be able to delete the discussion from your own talk page (as you are allowed to do), but as you might imagine going down that road will lead to even more frivolous whinging and useless ANI postings. And if you think people are bad at researching previous discussions now, imagine trying to defend "oh, you should have checked the history of User:RandomEditor553 and seen the discussion on this exact issue!" My opinion (as I have already stated, though I guess I'm refining it now) is that allowing discussion on the talk page, even stupid, frivolous, unproductive or even potentially wp:nothere discussion is preferable to scattering it to the wind. Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 15:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I've chosen to avoid circular reasoning in regards to staying on topic. Weighing "good or bad" descriptions is purely subjective, as well (again) it redirects from the original topic. I'm clearly in agreement about WIKI alterations; I'm suggesting ideas to improve the article's TALK page. We can circumvent demarcation through partition between "harassment claims" and the "#gamergate movement". The single comment made towards an amendment on the limitation block has been the word "no". Any fixation on what I source is irrelevant. Popular denigration of a separate affirmation being the "ethics in journalism" statement. Assertions of vexing currently controls the narrative. How can an audience understand what the #gamergate movement claims itself to be, when all we present is a negative opinion? Metaphorically this is the Bill Cosby WIKI dedicated solely to the sexual assault allegations. Bill Cosby and the Gamergate hashtag are larger than the allegations. Yet even in the TALK section, it's a resisted topic. --j0eg0d (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I endorse the "500 edit requirement" or virtually any other measure taken to address the disruption at the Gamergate pages. I have only superficially looked over the situation, but Wikipedia is clearly under attack by highly motivated individuals. WP:NOTHERE. Not only is this measure a valid step to protect the article, this step is a valid measure to protect the Community Members who volunteer to work there. I have the deepest sympathies for any responsible generalist editor volunteering to deal with that mess. Alsee (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Alsee The underlying bemusements aren't to scrutinize the Main Article's injunctions, but rather the preventive measures of it's TALK section. The consensus of motivation seems genuinely determined to silence a balanced narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J0eg0d (talkcontribs) 07:05, 21 May 2015
WP:BALASPS / WP:VALID we do not strive for a "balanced" narrative. we strive for a narrative that appropriately reflects the mainstream academic perception. We do strive to impede the use of Wikipedia for non encyclopedic purposes .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
What this really demonstrates above all is the limitations of Wikipedia; that if a small group is able to control the media narrative running through reliable sources, then it's presented as encyclopedic fact without consideration for the biases of the media. You can find a great deal of information on GamerGate that is not used on the page presenting an entirely different perspective, but either because it's primary source or because it's not a traditional source then it's not considered reliable. The conflict between the article and reality is what's causing this entire problem, and the stricter and stricter measures being taken to control it only demonstrate that fact. It's worth considering that the further you need to go from "the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" for some particular article, the further you should question your motives for doing so. Mythiran (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
No, what this demonstrates is that there is a small group of people who truly believe (or say they believe) that Gamergate is actually about ethics in games and the rest of the world isn't buying that line of malarkey.--Jorm (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
e/c WP:V and WP:RS have been core to shaping content for a very long time and have served Wikipedia well. But that is off topic from the heart of the question here which is: Is Wikipedia better served in creating an encyclopedia if herds of sock accounts are forced off the gamergate controversy page for 30 days and forced to invest a more significant bit of time and effort before being allowed to swarm with their ark ark ark ark about decisions that policies and sources have fully rejected multiple times? the answer is clearly: Yes. Good faith new accounts will be more than willing to contribute an additional 20 days elsewhere before wandering into the minefield and having more experience with Wikipedia policy and culture will be better able to productively contribute. Its a Win for Wikipedia, a Win for Goodfaith New Accounts and a Lose for Outside Disruption Campaigns. You can hardly ask for better!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
As someone who was essentially "kicked off" the gamergate article and talk page by the new restrictions, I heartily endorse the decision. Even though I don't get to vent my spleen (for a while, anyway!), I think it will result in a better article. And that's the real goal. Dumuzid (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
There's so much pessimism in maintaining the harassment article that you're ignoring the structure. For example, Wikipedia doesn't have a page dedicated to the sexual assault allegations made against Bill Cosby; We have a Bill Cosby WIKI that mentions the claims. The same goes for Gamergate. There's a much larger narrative than this small portion of "trolls" that attack women online. --j0eg0d (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Let's say, for the sake of argument, we grant that your claims are true. But then what does that have to do with the page restrictions? Dumuzid (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
If arguendo? The TALK page should be unrestricted in allowance for the encompassing source of information. The recognition of harassment is a footnote of the totality; That singular agendum manipulates structure to the whole. My focus states limiting TALK is blocking both assertions from updating an in-progress issue. --j0eg0d (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The "much larger narrative" that's been suppressed by the vast liberal media cabal, right? --NeilN talk to me 03:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Why reciprocate with languid retorts? We're here to preserve & advance the topic.--j0eg0d (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I guess I don't understand is that why if there's a counter-narrative out there, why you think it is restricted or biased in favor of recent accounts with comparatively little activity? Why doesn't the restriction cut across both viewpoints equally? Dumuzid (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The restrictions obstruct new developments; Not only to chronicle persecution claims, but advancements in Gamergate's "ethics in journalism". A movement some editors vehemently deny, even within this very topic. For example: The Federal Trade Commission crediting #gamergate supporters when rewriting FTC policies. Policies concerning Affiliate Link Disclosures. The bias is recognized by ablating or oppressing such information. --j0eg0d (talk) 06:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
@J0eg0d: -- Forgive me, but again, I don't follow the logic of your argument. Established editors are perfectly capable of taking note of new developments in the reliable sources, and it's entirely possible for a new editor to be oppressive and deny good information. I still fail to see what this has to do with the restrictions on the gamergate page; I understand your complaint regarding the content thereof, but thus far you've failed to persuade me that the editor restrictions are a bad idea. Dumuzid (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm offering suggestions through conference. I'm presenting suggestions to "improve" rather than inhibit. That's the topic. I'm sorry for your confusion, but persuasions aren't an intent. I have neither argued nor deflected proposals or questions. I suspect your perusals are illiberal & disingenuous. I'll note that certain posters here are unreceptive people inducing unpropitious tripe. They're sterile to deliberation; Yet you're scrutinizing my intentions as persuasions in lieu of their ineffectual twaddling. --j0eg0d (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
"Inhibiting disruption" is an "improvement" to the project of writing an encyclopedia. "enabling" disruption is "inhibiting our goal" of writing an encyclopedia. From a cost benefit analysis, you are way off. The "cost" of this proposal - the chance that a goodfaith new editor who has meaningful contributions to bring to the ggc article decides that they cannot wait 20 days to bring their contribution or find another method of bringing such contribution via another another method such as discussing with a 30+day editor on their talk page - is essentially zero vs the benefit - severely draining the ability of an organized troll campaign whose objective is to disrupt the project and who has been doing so for over 9 months - well you can see the obvious choice. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
That's not very WP:CIVIL of you, J0eg0d. I'd like an apology. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
It was unnecessary of me to play devil's advocate in light of observable commentary. If I revealed dissimulation thorough observation then you have my apologies PeterTheFourth. Perhaps a more furtive parlance amongst allies can maintain inconspicuousness? --j0eg0d (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
@J0eg0d: -- My apologies, I didn't mean to second-guess your intent, something at which you obviously took offense. I just assume everyone who posts in such a forum intends to sway others to his or her position. I'm not sure what it means for my 'perusals' to be illiberal and disingenuous, but I apologize for that too. I understand you have issues with the content of the gamergate article, and I understand you are making suggestions about that subject. More power to you. For what little my opinion is worth, I still believe (to my own detriment!) that the editing restrictions will lead to a better article. But reasonable minds can differ, as they say. Have a nice weekend! Dumuzid (talk) 04:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
As a side note: It's amazing to me, as someone new to all this debate, that accusations of sealioning get thrown around so lightly and freely, both here and anywhere else the ggc-debate and meta-ggc-debate and meta-meta-ggc-debate rears its ugly head. Ad Hominems have very little place in rational discourse, at least when the discussion is not regarding the personal character of the person being impugned. Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 20:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Riffraffselbow, I thank you both for noticing this, and for calling it out. I could not agree with you more. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
As I understand it, the "sealion" accusation is more a comment on debate tactics rather than the person themselves, and while it might be construed as an insult, it is not strictly speaking an 'ad hominem' unless it is used as a logical inference. Sorry, this is just an annoyance of mine! Other than that, I am quite in agreement that it's best when the arguments here (or elsewhere, for that matter!) are not made personal. Dumuzid (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
It's hard for me to see "you just don't know when to stop" as much of anything but an insult in all but the rosiest of contexts. Forgive me if I'm not understanding that comic right. Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 23:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
That's fair. I think of it as sort of the semantic equivalent of "beating a dead horse," a metaphor enshrined in this very encyclopedia (at WP:DEADHORSE, of course). While I'd grant you neither expression has positive connotations, nor do I think of either as a sort of grave insult. To me, they're both a convenient shorthand for different, but related, phenomena. No one is obligated to agree with me, naturally! Dumuzid (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
As an impartial observer; This "sealioning" accusation is unfamiliar. One may not ascertain the reviewer understands "exclusive slang" or believes it to be friendly exchanges. Some terminologies directed on me (I noticed) appealed to prejudice or special interests rather than reasoning. --j0eg0d (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Iron Guard[edit]

I see that Wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board is no longer active, so this is the only forum I can think to bring this to; if someone has another suggestion, I have no problem with moving the discussion.

The article on the Iron Guard, the radically antisemitic political party in Romania in the 1930s until its suppression in 1941, contains some uncited statements in the article's own voice that could almost have been written by the party itself:

The internal situation was favouring the Jews, as they were in direct charge of Romanian press, politics and public life. As the First World War ended, the Jews turned to pro-communism, an attitude strongly condemned by the population, as the Soviet Union was growing more and more aggressive.

I don't have time at present to work on this, especially not to find citations for the status of the Jews in Romania in the 1930s (which I assure you was not a status of "direct charge of … press, politics and public life") and the claim of Jewish support for the Soviet Union reads like a justification of the Iași pogrom. Surely this is not what our encyclopedia article should say. - Jmabel | Talk 04:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I tagged the article with {{neutrality}} based on this. Which page do you want people to post on, here or the article talk page? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@Jmabel: In general, if a notice board is inactive, what I do is go to the most relevant WikiProject, which in this case would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romania. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah. I hadn't noticed that was active. Eight or so years ago, all the action moved from the WikiProject to the notice board; I guess it's moved back.
  • I'll post on the WikiProject. I don't think there is any need for further discussion here at the VP, that should really be on the article talk page; I mostly just wanted to call more attention to what I see as a pretty serious problem than it would get from just a posting on an article talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 04:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Some University of Massachusetts Dartmouth-related users don't want Dzhokhar Tsarnaev listed as an alumnus[edit]

Hi! I added Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to the list of alumni at University of Massachusetts Dartmouth alumni. Another user challenged the

What do you think? Do you think this is a fair reason to exclude someone from an alumni list? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course not. It has no basis in Wikipedia policy. Even if there were a local consensus, it's not a matter for local consensus. You don't even need to ask the question. ―Mandruss  05:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) An experienced editor like Denimadept should know far better than to make such a statement. It can be argued that since Tsarnaev didn't graduate he shouldn't be added to the list but arguing what boils down to managing PR for the university is a non-starter. --NeilN talk to me 05:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The no-graduation argument wouldn't last long given the dictionary definition of alumnus. There is also plenty of precedent elsewhere at Wikipedia, if anyone needed it. ―Mandruss  05:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I suspect the dictionary definition would be challenged if there were a way to do it. I'd prefer his and his brother's entire existence be erased, that he be forgotten. - Denimadept (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
What you prefer is irrelevant. See also WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

That aside, I would tend to agree that the dictionary definition is somewhat... old. I rarely see/hear of dropouts at the university level described as alumni (WP:TRUTH), and even more rare is it to see particular individuals on the various lists we keep around of alumni of universities who were dropouts. I think the latter practice (rather than the dictionary definition) is more interesting since we should be informed by present article practice (notwithstanding WP:OTHERSTUFF). --Izno (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

If UMich's reputation can survive listing the Unabomber and Papa Doc Duvalier as alumni, I think UMass Dartmouth will be OK. Tarc (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
While we are at it, I was always grateful that Timothy McVeigh went to Harvard so his connection to the University of Michigan is obscured by the media. And Ivan Boesky from Detroit College of Law]. I went to both of the Michigan schools, and would happily expunge them from the college roster. Nunc pro tunc. But their roots are part of who they are, where they came from, and obviously belongs in the pertinent Wikipedia articles. We don't give our readers an expurgated article because somebody is discomfited. 7&6=thirteen () 17:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Why not just preface the list with a specification that it contains graduates from the school? Including this name on the list seems somewhat WP:UNDUE. He was a marine biology major, but we wouldn't put his name on a list of marine biologists; he was born in Kyrgyzstan, but gets no mention in that article. bd2412 T 17:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, most alumni lists in general are WP:UNDUE and are largely vehicles for basking in reflected glory (and in this case, its evil twin cutting off reflected failure). To take another example from the same school, is UMD notable because Pooch Hall is an alumnus? Is Pooch Hall's notability somehow related to UMD? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, according to the article, "Hall attended the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth where he got his first taste for acting with the UMass Dartmouth Theatre Company". It is a much stronger argument that Hall's time at Dartmouth was a factor in his acting success than to say that a given criminal having attended a given college lead him to notoriety (in this case, unless Dartmouth also happened to have a bomb-making club or a class on becoming a terrorist). bd2412 T 19:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
"What's your major?" "Oh, I'm majoring in Terrorism. My favorite class this semester is Advanced Bomb making."~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving
Psssh, typical liberal education, always stressing theory and knowledge over practice and results. As if you'd ever use any of the things you learn in Advanced Bomb Making in a real-life pressure-cooker-bomb scenario! Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 21:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm surprised by this answer, given that nothing says anything about success. Unless I'm radically misreading WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, the best way to make a strong argument that Pooch Hall's time at UMD was a factor in his acting success is to provide a secondary source that actually states it. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
At least there is some connection whatsoever between what Pooch Hall did at Dartmouth and what he did later. bd2412 T 19:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I would agree, Orange Suede Sofa, with all of it. Good luck getting consensus to remove them, however. --Izno (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
bd, you have cherry-picked one example that supports your argument. Now, for all of the others in the list, please use reliable sources to show the same clear connection between the UMass education and the notability. I'm guessing at least half of the list would have to go, if your new criteria were applied evenly. ―Mandruss  20:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Huh? I didn't cherry-pick anything. Read the discussion. Orange Suede Sofa picked that name out and asked: "Is Pooch Hall's notability somehow related to UMD?" I merely answered the question. The burden remains on those trying to pick counter-examples. bd2412 T 20:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I assumed it was you based on your comments in article talk, which I read first. You may not have committed the cherry-picking, but you seem to support the argument based on it. Side note: Why are we having parallel discussions on this? Is anyone suggesting that anything resolved here at VP would affect anything but this one article? It wouldn't. Actually this would be a good use of the RfC process, imo, local to the article. ―Mandruss  21:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Beats me. I found this one first, and then decided to comment there after saying my piece here. bd2412 T 23:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Ted Bundy is listed as a University of Washington alumni under 'Crime', even though he failed to graduate. Bundy has Tsarnaev beat on mass murder, hands down. Praemonitus (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Fan service image[edit]

I am just going to drop this, there appears to be a clear consensus against the images use on English wiki. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So long story short, I found File:Kogaru1.jpg and thought it would be good to use as an example in the article Fan service what I had forgot about was a discussion 4 years ago about the said image: community consensus. So I am wondering, has anything changed? A few points I want to make:

  • 1. The image is being used globally on 11 different Wikipedia languages.
  • 2. If the Wikimedia Foundation took issue with the image it would have been axed a long time ago, my example being the lolicon image of wikipe-tan that was deleted by Jimbo Wales.
  • 3. The image is free use, it is very hard to find free use images on the internet that depict what a subject is about.
  • 4. Wikipedia is not censored, this being a fictional drawing there is no way of telling how old the depicted female is (Nothing is shown to indicate).
  • 5. The original up-loader of the image had been banned but the image was re-uploaded and as I said has been in use globally.

So with all of these points said, is there a way we can form a new consensus on it's use? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

In context with the fan service article the image would be used to illustrate the following:

  • In shonen manga, pin-up girl style images are common "in varying states of undress", often using an "accidental exposure" excuse to show a favourite female character[1], or an upskirt "glimpse of a character's panties".[2]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Brenner, Robin E. (2007). "Fan Service". Understanding Manga and Anime. Westport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited. pp. 88–92. ISBN 978-1-59158-332-5. OCLC 85898238. Retrieved June 15, 2009. 
  2. ^ Drazen, Patrick (October 2002). "Plastic Little: Not What You Think" in Anime Explosion! The What, Why & Wow of Japanese Animation Berkeley, California: Stone Bridge Press p.329 ISBN 1-880656-72-8.

Comments[edit]

  • I can't see how this would be a good thing. Just because Wikipedia is not censored doesn't mean that we can't exercise editorial constraint. I feel that including that image would only serve as a detriment and reduce the overall integrity of the encyclopedia.--Jorm (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • As I said the image is already being used globally so it in the encyclopedia, can you show me the damage that has been done in the 4 years it has been used on those other global wikis? I want to add that artists are very out there when it comes to anime art, the character Yoko from Gurren Lagann [6] for example is 14 according to the series. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Just because another project does something that isn't great doesn't mean that we should, too. That's not an argument. We can be better, and we should be better.--Jorm (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I understand your position but you haven't addressed why, I suspect age which I gave an example of above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The "why" is because I don't think we need to celebrate the sexualization of children. It's pretty simple.--Jorm (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Prove to me that the image is of a child, I can look at it and say a college student with her back turned. Can you make out anything that would give away that this is a child? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh brother. I'm not going down this rathole with you. I might instead ask why you are so dead-set on including images of sexualized children (or people who look like children, or people are trying to look like children). The end result is the same: a degrading of the encyclopedia's integrity. --Jorm (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm no expert, but I'm fairly certain college students in japan don't wear uniforms, or if they do, they certainly don't look like that. It's clearly a child. Regardless, you know exactly what he means and it's embarrassing to try and play semantics about this. It doesn't matter that it's common in anime, that doesn't make it so we have to use it. Parabolist (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you want some more examples of anime characters with panty shots with youthful faces? Its not child sexuality, its reality and the type of artwork in the form of media. fan service like this is common in English anime media, if you dont believe me read the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This is where understanding the cultural differences come into play. In Japan, such images are very commonplace, and hardly cause an issue. In the US and some European countries, they are considered scandalous. On the other hand, while the current -tan bikini shot is meant to be alluring, it has very little cultural difference and won't set off any alarms from anyone. We're not censored, but we do consider using images that are considered "safer" across the whole of the world if we have that option, and that exists here. --MASEM (t) 00:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It is a common occurrence in English released anime and manga though as well, there is no way to prove that the image is of a child, you can see no features other than a cute face that would possibly give that away. if we are going with the cute face thing here then as I have said that is the standard of the type of artwork anime is. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • However, it is in an outfit (the fuku) that in the US and Europe we associate with high schools and lower grades in Japan, and in these Western cultures, teenage girls that attend high school or lower are generally not of the age of consent and so this starts boarding on questionable nature. We have a much safer free image that can be used instead that conveys the same idea - fan service being art that is meant to be slightly sexual but far from pornographic, and that has no issues that I am aware of in terms of sensibility in any part of the world. --MASEM (t) 01:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I will drop this, an image already exists. I just hope that a better one can be used in the future. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see what reader value it would add to Fan service, which already has one image. It's not necessary to illustrate what an upskirt image is, I think the average reader can figure it out. Not opposed to use where there is better justification or need. ―Mandruss  23:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The current example is a cropped picture of wikipe-tan and doesn't really provide a good example of what fan service is. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Principle of least surprise. Since fan service include both the current image and the one suggested, and the current image is much tamer (it's risque but no greater than the need to explain the nature of fan service) it is the better one to use, and the other is not needed. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Why do we have the image then if we cant use it? The image both can show accidental exposure and is an up-skirt shot. I know its not tame but neither is sexual intercourse. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Masem (and I) didn't say we can't use it, he said it isn't needed in this article. As for Sexual intercourse, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Presumably, the editors of that article have decided locally that the image use in that article is appropriate and useful to the reader; that's why we have article talk. Actually I'm not sure why this is here rather than at Talk:Fan service, where there are 133 watchers, some of whom would be happy to discuss the suitability for that article. ―Mandruss  00:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Because the image was originally removed per a "community consensus" according to Risker. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Gotcha, I just now read the comments in article talk. Well so far it seems little has changed in four years, but the discussion is young. ―Mandruss  00:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The article states "Fan service usually refers to "gratuitous titillation"". Is adding an example truly improving the article's educational role, or indulging in that titillation? Infested-jerk (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Our Lady of Victory Catholic School ‎ - I could use some help[edit]

I've been cleaning up some hoax content added by 71.36.237.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), some of which has survived unchallenged since 2011. But I've run aground at Our Lady of Victory Catholic School - with the others I've been able to find a stable version to revert to, or just been able to excise 71.36.237.179's nonsense. But that whole article is unsourced, lots of it is either hoaxing or at best unencyclopedic trivia, and it's hard to find a stable version that isn't a couple of lines long. Unfortunately I have to go out now, so I'd appreciate if someone (perhaps unjaded by the other junk I've removed) could take a look at it while I'm gone. Obviously I don't like wiping the good-faith edits of unimplicated editors, but I'm thinking we may have to nuke it from orbit, just to be sure. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 08:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Despite the length of this article, I don't see any reasons to think this primary school is notable. I've searched around and found very little on the web beyond the school's web page. Under our customary procedures for primary schools, this should be redirected to List of schools of the Ottawa Catholic School Board, unless someone comes up with substantial evidence that the school passes WP:GNG. I've tagged it accordingly. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I couldn't find anything beyond the same basics you found. I see you've done the merge, with which I agree entirely. Thanks for your help. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 12:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Help Requested from Experienced Editors[edit]

It has been alleged that the article Manahel Thabet may be a hoax. Due to limited response no consensus currently exists. Input from experienced editors would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manahel Thabet. Thanks! -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)