Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Image copyright?[edit]

I checked at Wikipedia:Upload, and it appears that the image at right

is under CC-BY, and thus is a fair-use upload. Unfortunately, I cannot figure out which copyright template applies. Could anyone help with this? Sithman VIII !! 19:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

CC-BY-2.0 is regarded as a free licence, so you do not have to use this image under a fair-use licence. It may be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons under the {{cc-by-2.0}} licence. That having been said, I'd suggest you find a better quality image to use. This one, apparently taken with a mobile phone, is extremely grainy. — Cheers, JackLee talk 20:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Of course, this particular image may have a copyright that applies to the object in question, and it may be considered a "trademark" depending on how it is being used as well. This appears to be a sign in front of a store, and the reference given on the image lists no additional information in regards to which business is associated with this spoon or how it is used. As it appears to be an actively used trademark (literally... it is being used for the promotion of trade and "marks" a distinction between this company and other businesses in the area) it might still be a non-free image. See also Wikipedia:Logos, which I think applies in this case. --Robert Horning (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The photograph was taken in Australia. Under Australian law, there is freedom of panorama – copyright is not breached by taking a photograph of a work of artistic craftsmanship permanently displayed in a public place. Therefore, I don't think a copyright issue arises here. In addition, the use of the image in the article would be a non-commercial use, so it does not appear that trademark law would be an obstacle: see "Wikipedia:Logos#Trademark concerns". However, I would suggest that Sithman VIII try and find a better quality image. — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Even in the absence of FOP, utilitarian objects like this spoon do not attract copyright. Trademark is a non-copyright restriction and as such is of no concern to us, although you may tag it {{trademark}}. Dcoetzee 04:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if the object qualified as a "utilitarian object". It looks like a spoon, but of course it is oversized and never intended to be used as a spoon but only as a sign. That's why I thought it was better to regard it as a work of artistic craftsmanship. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Page views dropped?[edit]

Hey there. I've been keeping a close eye on the page views for an article I created of late, because if the statistics are true then it will very soon receive it's millionth page view which in a very geeky way I am quite excited about. The article was getting about 10k views per day, but in the last few days it's dropped down to about 1-2k per day.

At first I figured maybe the everyone who wants to read about 'the Human centipede' had finally done so, but I looked at the page views for some other articles, including Michael Jackson and Barack Obama (http://stats.grok.se/en/201006/Barack_Obama) and they seem to be down by a similar proportion too. Has the world suddenly stopped reading wikipedia overnight for some reason or is this just a coincidence? cya Coolug (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Alice Cooper had something to say about that, long ago and far away. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks xeno, I can say, vandalism on my watchlist always drops alot come the second week of June, then spikes back up in September when the day-prisons open again. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Probably a combination of the two. It's unfortunate we won't have all those inmates to stress test our new pending changes facility... –xenotalk 15:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Pokémon Diamond and Pearl Adventure![edit]

How do I make the spoiler like on tvtropes (the text has a dotted border around it in addition to being the same color as the background)? Right now, there's a large white space which looks weird. --75.25.103.109 (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't. Readers should expect spoilers and so the policy is to treat them as normal text. See WP:Spoiler. Svick (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
But with the article like that, people who haven't read to volume 4 will have a major plot twist revealed. --75.25.103.109 (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
So they shouldn't read the article then. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 15:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

New Wikipedia needs to be discarded[edit]

moved from Wikipedia talk:Village pump#New Wikipedia needs to be discarded

How can I inform the owners of Wikipedia to change the website back to its original form? They will listen to me and comply, I just need to know how to contact them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.174.98 (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the new Vector "skin" or interface? Just go to "My preferences", click on the "Appearance" tab, and select "Monobook" and click "Save" at the bottom of the page. Also, just because you don't like the new skin doesn't mean that others agree with you. Personally, I find nothing wrong with it. (How are you going to make the "owners of Wikipedia" listen to you and comply – Jedi mind trick? Just kidding.) — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

They will listen to me and comply, I just need to know how to contact them? What's the matter with you? ╟─TreasuryTagprorogation─╢ 18:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he is President Obama? --B (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Why would the WMF listen to Obama? --Tango (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, BP does! — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Was the joke too subtle? (I guess the old adage applies - if you have to explain it, it isn't funny.) --B (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want the original form then you need to choose Nostalgia or Classic which make it look (almost) like it did in 2001. Sadly there's no way to make it look exactly like its original form. You will still see images and various other new-fangled bits and pieces. I use Classic which is close enough to the original form for me. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Reporting users[edit]

I came across a user, who has continued to create a innapropriate pages after a final warning. Do I report to AIV for a block? Is there some other suitable place? I don't know if it counts as vandalism or not... Jolly Ω Janner 00:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

AIV would seem OK, but it might be deemed stale for their purposes. ANI could also handle such a thing. Fences&Windows 01:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Chess diagram changes[edit]

I've had little response on the pages themselves, so I was asked to post here. I'm going to start making changes to the letters used on the chess diagram as shown here. Some of the changes are in-progress, as you can tell for "E" for example:

{{Chess diagram}}
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z xo xx x0 x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8 x9
Chess t45.svg Chess alt45.svg Chess blt45.svg Chess clt45.svg Chess dlt45.svg Chess elt45.svg Chess flt45.svg Chess glt45.svg Chess hlt45.svg 26px Chess Blt45.svg Chess klt45.svg 26px Chess mlt45.svg Chess nlt45.svg 26px Chess plt45.svg Chess qlt45.svg Chess rlt45.svg Chess slt45.svg Chess tlt45.svg Chess ult45.svg 26px Chess wlt45.svg 26px 26px Chess zlt45.svg Chess xot45.svg Chess xxt45.svg Chess x1t45.svg Chess x2t45.svg Chess x3t45.svg Chess x4t45.svg Chess x5t45.svg Chess x6t45.svg Chess x7t45.svg Chess x8t45.svg Chess x9t45.svg Chess x0t45.svg
Chess t45.svg Chess adt45.svg Chess bdt45.svg Chess cdt45.svg 26px Chess edt45.svg Chess fdt45.svg Chess gdt45.svg Chess hdt45.svg 26px Chess Bdt45.svg Chess kdt45.svg 26px Chess mdt45.svg Chess ndt45.svg 26px Chess pdt45.svg Chess qdt45.svg Chess rdt45.svg Chess sdt45.svg Chess tdt45.svg Chess udt45.svg 26px Chess wdt45.svg 26px 26px Chess zdt45.svg Chess xot45.svg Chess xxt45.svg Chess x1t45.svg Chess x2t45.svg Chess x3t45.svg Chess x4t45.svg Chess x5t45.svg Chess x6t45.svg Chess x7t45.svg Chess x8t45.svg Chess x9t45.svg Chess x0t45.svg
Chess t45.svg 26px Chess brt45.svg 26px Chess drt45.svg Chess ert45.svg 26px Chess grt45.svg 26px 26px 26px Chess krt45.svg Chess lrt45.svg 26px Chess nrt45.svg 26px Chess prt45.svg Chess qrt45.svg Chess rrt45.svg Chess srt45.svg 26px Chess urt45.svg 26px Chess wrt45.svg 26px 26px 26px Chess xot45.svg Chess xxt45.svg Chess x1t45.svg Chess x2t45.svg Chess x3t45.svg Chess x4t45.svg Chess x5t45.svg Chess x6t45.svg Chess x7t45.svg Chess x8t45.svg Chess x9t45.svg Chess x0t45.svg
Chess t45.svg 26px Chess bgt45.svg 26px 26px Chess egt45.svg 26px Chess ggt45.svg 26px 26px 26px Chess kgt45.svg 26px 26px Chess ngt45.svg 26px Chess pgt45.svg Chess qgt45.svg Chess rgt45.svg Chess sgt45.svg 26px 26px 26px Chess wgt45.svg 26px 26px 26px Chess xot45.svg Chess xxt45.svg Chess x1t45.svg Chess x2t45.svg Chess x3t45.svg Chess x4t45.svg Chess x5t45.svg Chess x6t45.svg Chess x7t45.svg Chess x8t45.svg Chess x9t45.svg Chess x0t45.svg
Chess t45.svg 26px Chess byt45.svg 26px 26px Chess eyt45.svg 26px Chess gyt45.svg 26px 26px 26px Chess kyt45.svg 26px 26px Chess nyt45.svg 26px Chess pyt45.svg Chess qyt45.svg Chess ryt45.svg Chess syt45.svg 26px 26px 26px Chess wyt45.svg 26px 26px 26px Chess xot45.svg Chess xxt45.svg Chess x1t45.svg Chess x2t45.svg Chess x3t45.svg Chess x4t45.svg Chess x5t45.svg Chess x6t45.svg Chess x7t45.svg Chess x8t45.svg Chess x9t45.svg Chess x0t45.svg

Proposals

  • Inverted knight S -> U (Unicorn; frees S for ship)
  • Champion Z -> H (second letter; more logical)
  • Inverted pawn H -> D (p inverts to d)
  • Inverted bishop E -> J (Jester; also frees E for elephant)
  • Inverted rook M -> Z (Zurafa)
  • Inverted king F -> X (reX)
  • Fool T -> F (logical)
  • Removal of duplicated grasshopper in D

Does anyone have any issues with this? Also, if anyone has any time and would be willing to help me make changes where clashes occur, that would be a great help. Currently, only the small diagram template is using the vectorised images. Therefore, only small diagrams using any of the fairy pieces would need to be changed. NikNaks talk - gallery - commons 17:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess? I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about! Fences&Windows 21:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, yes I have, and the response was pretty low there, too! xD Well, in simpler terms, the icons of different pieces up there clash between different templates. For example, some use the S for the ship icon, but others use the upside-down horse, known as a unicorn. I just need to know if it's alright to go about making the changes to the main template that'll get it relatively uniform, with the switches I've listed above. And, trying to get someone to help me, too, but that's not too much of an issue. NikNaks talk - gallery - commons 17:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
If there hasn't been any resistance to your changes, I think you can implement them, as long as you don't break any existing instances of the template (e.g. you should make sure that if there was an inverted knight on some page, it is there after your change too). Svick (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
That was what I was looking for help with, although I don't think many of these are used in too many places, so it should be alright. Thanks! NikNaks talk - gallery - commons 17:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Other Wikis[edit]

Hey, I was wondering, can you also make subpages in other wikis, such as Wikiversity or Wiktionary. I was wanting to make a subpage of my userpage on Wikiversity but didn't completely understand if it was ok or not I guess. Tetobigbro talk 04:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You probably can. Why not ask them rather than us? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 11:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

worth a laugh[edit]

see skid mark, find text "in the picture shown at right" 75.4.206.211 (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What? ╟─TreasuryTagstannary parliament─╢ 08:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The "picture shown at right" is a pair of sculls, rather than a ladder skid mark. Demonstrating why it is a bad idea to use the phrase. OrangeDog (τε) 11:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
And an informal term for soiled underwear. --Philcha (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Inactive projects[edit]

Every time I look around Wikipedia at Wikiprojects I see that nearly all Wikiprojects are inactive. One example was the Wikiproject User Rehab. It looked promising, but now, it is defunct. There are alot of Wikiprojects around that no one has used, especially for ones that cover very narrow subjects. I believe that we should either remove those defunct wikiprojects or reinstate them. Sir Stupidity (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If no one wants to run them then they can't be reinstated. If they are removed then they can't be easily reinstated and their useful categorisation is lost. What harm do they do? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 11:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with that. Also, you can mark them by {{Inactive}} if you want. Svick (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyright status of clipart[edit]

Is it ok to use clipart that comes bundled with Microsoft Office as a component of a logo for a WikiProject? Roger (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to check the terms and conditions that come with the software to see what the copyright status of the clipart is. It should be possible to retrieve them from the setup CD (you may have to run the installation program). The clipart must be released into the public domain, or licensed under a free licence (Creative Commons or GFDL). If there are restrictions such as "for personal use only" then the answer is no. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

how to tell whether an edit is worth keeping?[edit]

Richard Dawkins, professor at Oxford who is the world's foremost authority on the theory of natural selection, makes a helpful edit to the "natural selection" entry. And it gets removed within minutes!! I was watching a Youtube video of his panel discussion and he talked about that experience. I thought it was really funny. The video is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gwV8etx4sI&feature=channel The wikipedia comment starts at around 1:50 mark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyorker3122 (talkcontribs) 14:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't search the article's edit history to try to find Dawkins' edit, but in general if a reference is removed without explanation the change will be undone. I suspect Dawkins didn't use an edit summary to explain his removal; many recent changes patrollers prefer to revert such an edit quickly and let those more familiar with the article take a closer look. Based on the video itself it sounds like there was a mention on one page of the book which was relevant, so he would have better served the article by updating the citation to include the exact page.--~TPW 14:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
"Revert unexplained deletion" is probably what happened. Roger (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Translated Works Wiki[edit]

Hey all, just wanted to announce and invite feedback about a new Mediawiki project I'm starting called Translated Works Wiki. As the welcome page says: "Translated Works Wiki is a wiki-based project for collaborative translation of public domain and freely-licensed works, including books, articles, poetry, recorded speech, and illustrations. Translators release all rights to their translated works under the Creative Commons Zero waiver, making them just as free as the original source. Anyone is welcome to participate in any project, or begin a new project." It operates with extensive use of subpages and templates. I created it for someone I know who has an interest in producing a public domain Afrikaans version of the Bible, but I think it could have very wide applicability. I'm mainly interested in what you all think about the idea, the choice of license, possible projects that would be fun to undertake translating, and possible obstacles or limitations I should keep in mind. Thanks! Dcoetzee 00:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you aware that Wikisource, one of Wikipedia's sister projects, already does this, but with a different license? --Yair rand (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually no, I wasn't aware that Wikisource translated works, I assumed they only collected and archived them, although I do think the choice of license is critically important. I found the discussion of this at wikisource:Wikisource:Language policy. I assume their translations are CC-BY-SA. Do you have any insight into how often translations of this sort are carried out on Wikisource or any good examples? Thanks again. Dcoetzee 04:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
See s:Wikisource:Translations for the English Wikisource page. —innotata 20:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride[edit]

Is this discussion closed or not? Cuz I wanna fix some typos. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It was closed on April 8, 2009. What typos to do you want to fix? You should not normally fix any typos from any post signed or normally signed by anyone, anywhere across the encyclopedia, nor arbitrator's findings. So whether that ArbCom case is closed or active is not really the issue. The typical exception to this prohibition is when a user made a typo in a link so it is not working, or when a link has become changed and you are dabbing so that the original intent is not lost. Even then, users often state something in an edit summary or on a user's talk page to highlight they've done this ("such as fix broken link by USERNAME, hope you don't mind"). Please see WP:TPO, which does not state the issue in as strong language as it probably should given just how annoyed many users become when their posts are corrected.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, Thanks. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair use[edit]

Hi, I've found this file that is hosted under Fair Use, in which license says that only scaled-down and low-resolution images are allowed, but that file is not low-resolution at all, can you please check this? --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 06:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right that the image should be low-resolution, so I tagged it with {{Non-free reduce}}. Somebody should fix it soon, or you can do it yourself. Svick (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Face-smile.svg --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 14:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Guest libellous vandalism/Google cache[edit]

I googled "Chris Guest" and the top result is his Wikipedia article. The preview in the Google results says "Christopher Haden-Guest, 5th Baron Haden-Guest (born February 5, 1948), better known as Christopher Guest, is an American screenwriter, pedophile,composer, ...". It looks really bad... the vandalism's been fixed but Google's policy is webmasters have to request their site be re-crawled if they want to removed outdated results. Is there a way to get Wikipedia to get Google to re-crawl that article? 87.80.97.137 (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Note - this is on google.co.uk retrieved from within the UK, my Canadian friend gets different results. 87.80.97.137 (talk) 09:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You can file a request at https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/removals?hl=en, but it may take a while and may not always be acceded to by Google. — Cheers, JackLee talk 05:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

July 5-9 Wikipedia campaign[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

RFA - Administrator recall for User:Herostratus[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2

Prior related threads:

RFA subpage, administrator recall, now taking place, at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Lists of non-notable "past employees" of television stations?[edit]

Over the past week or so, I've been broadening my editing into including articles regarding U.S. television stations and I've noticed a trend toward including the compilation of long lists of non-notable past employees of the stations. These lists also include former employees who already actually have existing referenced articles in the encyclopedia, their inclusion in the lists make sense to me in terms of "notability". However, I'm very dubious of the notion of compiling (in some cases) extensive unreferenced lists of people, who in some cases are no longer even employed in the television industry or who have moved on to other stations. I've been taken to task by another editor for reducing this type of list in a couple of articles to only those listed individuals who have at least at minimum established their notability by having a preexisting bio article in the encyclopedia.[1][2]. In my opinion, in addition to what I consider a problem with verifiability and notability, this sort of thing smacks of promotion/vanity and to me clearly violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I'm wondering, if perhaps I could get some opinions on this practice from other editors. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You are, IMHO, absolutely correct - those lists are unverifiable and pointless. Your standards (if he/she isn't notable enough for a wikipedia article, he/she doesn't belong in some long list) are fine. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not so sure that WP:N should be used to determine who is included in such in-article lists, but they should at the very least be verifiable. If on searching you can find nothing to verify an entry, please do remove it. Otherwise, it's a question of editorial judgement: how prominent was that person in the organisation? The tea boy won't get included, former presenters and producers might be. Fences&Windows 16:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your input,it's genuinely appreciated;I'm hoping that others will comment as well. I can honestly understand why editors who have taken a fair bit of time to compile long lists in good faith in circumstances like this are upset when they're told that the content they've added is questionable according to our policies and subsequently removed. However, I've been reviewing a fair number of this type of list in other television station articles and I'm encountering instances where, not only are some of the list entries unreferenced and "non-notable" (in that they lack their own referenced article) they contain dubious and potentially harmful claims regarding the person's 'employment history'; tagged with comments like "contract not renewed, reasons not given". I'm seeking opinions here, because I'm somewhat intimidated by the overall numbers of this type of list that I'm finding in various television station articles all over the U.S. and Canada and I'm hoping to improve the situation without precipitating a 'firestorm' when I start to make changes. Again, comments regarding this situation are avidly invited from other editors. Thanks again. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh wow yes, remove any muck racking or innuendo about reason that people left the job. Fences&Windows 18:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely, I think that goes without saying. However, in my opinion shifting the onus from the editors who are adding these kinds of lists to other editors, in terms of substantiating things like notability and verifiability can be potentially hugely problematic. For instance, there are numerous examples of list entries that resemble "John Smith - weekend anchor (1985-1987)"; no reference, no indication of why this person should be considered "notable", beyond their purported employment at the station for a short period of time twenty years ago. Maintaining "good faith" toward the original contributing editor is important to be sure; but where we're dealing with lists, in some cases numbering upwards of 75-100 unreferenced entries, where do we draw the line? In my opinion, it would be a sensible approach to simply apply existing policy and require that the onus for the appropriateness of inclusion should rest on the shoulders of the editor adding the material to the encyclopedia. Also, there are many examples of instances like KGO-TV, where easily 75-80% of the existing entries are 'red links'. Again, good faith is important, but at what point should we view these as a form of "vanity place-holding", an attempt at simply maintaining the presence of a persons name in the encyclopedia, with little hope of an actual article ever appearing? Thank you for your opinions. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to echo Fences&Windows's point with an example - an article about a championship basketball team might easily pass the notability hurdle for the team, and several players on the team might individually hurdle the notability bar and have their own pages. However, some players on the deep bench might not deserve their own pages. It would be quite natural in such an article to list the team members, and it would be quite odd if we only listed the team members who were themselves individually notable. That said, I've noticed some articles about a marginally notable organization that go on to list all the members of the board, and sometimes many of the staff. There is a line to be drawn, and I'm not quite sure where it is. Citigroup is notable, as are some of its employees, but not all 200,000 plus employees, not to mention past employees. --SPhilbrickT 13:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete most of these for lack of sources. Sphilbrick's basketball team example seems appropriate enough as a general rule about these lists. However, most of these lists of personalities should still be deleted or chopped down because they are mostly unsourced, and WP:V/WP:RS cannot be overcome with "encyclopedic use" exceptions as WP:NOTDIR can. It is of course the person adding an item who has to demonstrate WP:V of WP:RS for every line per WP:PROVEIT. Oh, and I almost forgot: WP:BLP issues if someone is unhappy about how closely they are associated with (possibly disreputable) stations/owners nobody has proven they were really associated with yet. --Closeapple (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

–I completely disagree. If a former employee has at one point or another worked for a TV station, they should be included in the former list. By adding their name, an editior is in no way, shape or form vandalizing the page. A person who lives in a particular city might ponder back to a particular personality and wonder how many years they were with that station. They could then easily look and see the question to they're answer.--TV Superstar (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

-I agree with the last statement made. As long as you are not putting wrong information, I feel as though everyone at one point or another affiliated with the station belongs on the page. They're are so many people that vandalize articles that should have their edits reverted and therefore blocking them from future edits. I don't see anything wrong in this case at all.--TVFAN24 (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Even if they were worth mentioning, the list that has been deleted is just a bunch of names with no sources put down by some anonymous person. It might be baloney; there's no way to tell. You could be some college kid making names up as a joke (a common occurrence on WP) or you could have mis-remembered a name or two or five. That's why having a separate WP article as a minimum requirement is reasonable. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

-First of all I don't appreciate you accusing me of making up names, search some of them and you'll see that they are legitimate. For instance, Anna Davlantes who exited WMAQ last July to join WFLD, or feel free to look up some of their resumes on Linkedin I am very knowledgable in regards to anchors/reporters that come or exit a station and was trying to stick up for the edits that were made to make Wikipeda more accurate. Another question I have, how come this edit has been up for a year and hasn't been bothered with up until now??? Maybe because everyone else knew it was correct and accurate. I never disrespected you so I expect the same courtesy. TVFAN24 (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Anna Davlantes leaves WMAQ-Ch. 5 July 30, 2009 11:00 AM | 18 Comments

Newscaster Anna Davlantes has left NBC-owned WMAQ-Ch. 5.

Her immediate exit was announced to staff in a terse memo to staff Thursday morning from Frank Whittaker, Channel 5's station manager and vice president for news.

"We appreciate Anna's contributions over the last nine years, and wish her the best in the future," Whittaker wrote.

Davlantes is the second anchor to leave the station in recent weeks.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/07/anna-davlantes-nbc-wmaq-5-chicago-tower-ticker.html


Ed Curran’s Experience

WMAQ-TV (Broadcast Media industry)

1999 — 2002 (3 years )

Meteorologist for the NBC owned and operated station in Chicago

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ed-curran/4/506/a59

These are just some of the many names that were deleted. Do you still think I am making names up???? What more proof do you need. I am going to defend this as much as I can b/c nothing wrong was done.TVFAN24 (talk) 02:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Recently, there has been a systematic removal of many notable former on-air staff members from a few TV station articles pertaining to several markets, especially prevalent with the Oklahoma City station articles. However, they chose to leave the names that link to Wikipedia biographies, removing the list entirely is not really necessary. I think that, whether or not that person has an article, if a reporter, anchor, meteorologist or sports anchor who no longer works for a station is well known for their work, or has contributed a service that they may have been awarded for their work, then they should be included in the former on-air staff list. There are instances where a former station employee being shown in the list may not be needed if they are not really notable, but it isn't necessary to remove everyone. Chances are there will be additional articles added for many people whose work in television news, local or national, will be added in the future, and those may be added to the former on-air staff sections on station articles in the future; and they may have to be added to these articles. Tvtonightokc 02:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) TVFAN24 (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

  • We would only list former employees of Honeywell if they were notable enough for their own article. What uniquely makes us forego this standard in our coverage of local television stations, besides some desire for vanity on the part of the backup weekend anchor from June through August 1997? (ESkog)(Talk) 05:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:Source list and WP:NOT#DIR are both worth considering in this context. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
There are now more than 75, maybe 100 (I lost count), former folks listed in that very long article, more than half of whom do not have WP articles of their own. However, they are now mostly sourced, after considerable effort, so my above concern (that ruffled TVFAN24's feathers) has been answered. Whether the list remains an un-WP-worthy yearbook list - that question remains.
Another question is, of course, why is TVFAN24 prejudiced against camera operators and producers? Makeup folks? Writers? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
In response to your last comment; it appears to me that TVFAN24 has "mixed" reasoning in regard to their editing practices in these situations. On one hand they appear to be simply editing under the impression that any on-air presence constitutes "notability". For instance, few days ago, I changed a section title of a list of former employees on WFLD from "Former on-air staff" to "Notable former on-air staff"; shortly afterwards my edit was reverted and TVFAN24's comment in the corresponding summary was "The word "notable" is not necessary b/c they all are in their own right".[3] Conversely, a couple of days before that in the same article; when I removed all the unreferenced list entries that did not have their own supporting articles, the same editor, reverted my edit and commented "Anyone who was on the station at one point or another is notable enough to list. Please DO NOT Revert my Edits ANYMORE!!!"[4]. Presumably, this just might open the door to your "camera operators", "producers", "makeup folks" and "writers" as well, all seemingly without the need to establish notability in the way our policies seem to me to indicate.WP:NLIST tells us that list entries of this sort "must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including WP:Trivia sections). Furthermore, every entry in any such list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group." As I understand it,in other words, unless "John P. Smith - weekend anchor- (1987-1990)" would be regarded as important enough to be included in the text body of an article; they have no place in a list of this type at all. As you've pointed out, I've noticed as well, that TVFAN24 has been subsequently adding citations to many of these previously unreferenced names, presumably in an attempt at bolstering the argument for their inclusion. The problem with many of these in my opinion, is that they consist solely of simple mentions of the individual on a single website, (in some cases on the person's own personal website) and actually provide nothing in real terms to support a contention of "notability" or importance according to our policies and guidelines. To be fair to this editor, they are certainly not alone in making these kinds of edits and in all likelihood they might see all of this as a personal challenge after putting in a fair bit of work; however, after closely looking at this I don't think we should pretend that there isn't already existing policy that adequately addresses and forbids this sort of thing. The question: is there enough 'will' to actually apply it on a case by case basis? My guess is no. Although there are exceptions; perhaps this one being a case, I'm convinced that much of this stuff is bound up with vanity and promotion in a highly competitive industry. Despite that, I'm certainly personally not prepared to contest this on an article by article level, through constant firestorms; no way. Thank you to everyone for your comments. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
"So-and-so's been on TV! They're important!!" Ridiculous, of course, but then again every cheezbot garage band in the world has a WP article, so maybe we're just being grumps. Perhaps TVFAN is right - as long as that silly list is at the bottom of the article so it doesn't get in the way of real readers, perhaps it doesn't hurt much if the occasional makeup-clad newsreader enjoys seeing their name. And it is, as you say, way more work than it's worth trying to derail this PR project. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Give me a moment David, I want to get this scowling mask of disapproval off my face. There. When it comes down to it, it would take an explicit policy position on this type of 'use of lists as promotion' to even put the brakes on it. There is a mind numbing amount of it just in the local market television industry articles alone. It's justified occasionally by claiming historical value, I can honestly see how in some cases that might even be desirable; I have an interest in social history myself. But, in a sense we're being "gamed" here when it comes to the "promotional" side of things and we're most definitely encouraging the addition of unreferenced "directories" derived through original research and containing BLP type material; there are obviously several problems going on at the same time there. In some cases, I was coming across some fairly underhanded editing practices in these lists; snide comments regarding the circumstances around someone changing jobs; "let go without explanation" next to their names, that sort of thing. At other times I was getting the distinct impression, that we were being used as an industry "conduit" of sorts, gossipy crap about the swell new jobs they have, now that they're out of local television; again, something that policy suggests is not a good idea. Rather than replace my scowling face with one that has turned blue holding my breath waiting for the explicit policy I mentioned earlier; I think I'll move along. I'm intending to maintain some of the articles I've previously looked at in this area on my watchlist, just to see if anything ever does change. Thanks again to everybody for helping me to explore this a little. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible consensus?[edit]

To summarize what I'm taking from the above, it seems like most people, for BLP and/or WP:NOT reasons, would agree to the following "nutshell": Individuals should not be in 'laundry lists' of former employees of a company unless they are themselves notable, usually demonstrated by the fact that they have a Wikipedia article. I've been bold to get the ball rolling on the two articles at the center of this dispute, but will not get into an edit war over them [was reverted by TVFAN24 eleven minutes later]. Thoughts? (ESkog)(Talk) 21:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

WMAQ and WFLD Controversy[edit]

I believe that Chicago is a very big market and should include all of the personalites that were once part of the station. I have another question to ask. How come the current personalities don't need a reference after their name but the former one's do??? I feel that adding a reference just adds too much text to the article. But since everyone didn't agree with that I took the time to find an article for each person that didn't have a Wiki page. No, I don't think the list needs to go as far as adding hair stylists and makeup people b/c they were never seen on air. TVFAN24 (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

  • What's "very big"? Why does sitting at the desk in a "very big" city for one local newscast instantly confer notability on an individual? You can find transcripts of local newscasts and then reference every single thing they say, but the mere existence of a reference doesn't make something worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. We shouldn't water down the list of interesting, notable people who were connected with a station by adding every single person who once read the teleprompter. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • By the way, for you to accuse me of being TV Superstar is absolutely ludicrous. Why would I have worked so hard on all those articles only to delete it back to the way no wanted it in the first place. Think about what you say before you say it. TVFAN24 (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Ponder this for a minute, by adding those names which are at the BOTTOM of the article, is it in anyway impeding with the artice as a whole. Is it taking anything away from all of the text about the station itself. No, I don't think it is. It's a harmless edit that tries to add accurate information. When I think of Wikipedia, I think of history and that is certainly adding history about the station. All former employees play a part in making up a television station's overall history. TVFAN24 (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • My true thoughts on this whole situation is there are plenty of other happenings going on in the world to be arguing back and forth about something as silly as this. I feel both pages WMAQ and WFLD should go back to how they were a week ago before all this stirred up. How come it has been that way for a year w/o anyone changing it??? Why is everyone worried about it now??? There are plenty of other issues on Wikipedia that should take your attention away from this. Like vandalism, and other Wikipedia violations. If no one agrees with this, then just leave it as it stands right now. TVFAN24 (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Another reason I feel references are not necessary is b/c if someone wants further information on a given persoanlity, all they have to do is search them and they will indeed see that at one point or another they were part of that television station. TVFAN24 (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it will be left as you've made it, but out of fatigue rather than because your argument makes for a good wikipedia article. You've trivialized the "former staff" portions of the articles, turned them into MySpace yearbooks, so loaded with "I remember Billy and Sally!" minutia that the interesting stuff is invisible.
And by the way, what have you got against cameramen and makeup artists and writers and producers - why don't you add them? They don't count because they don't get in front of the camera, eh? Such snobbery! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
lol I think it's fairly obvious at this point, that this editor is claiming some sort of "ownership" over these articles and appears to be unprepared to explain the reasoning behind their editing decisions beyond claims of "privilege" owing to the amount of work they allege they've put into compiling these lists. Minimally, unless an administrator is prepared to view this kind of behaviour as at least "disruptive"; in my opinion, we're wasting our time. Personally, I find it exceptionally galling that this same editor is now reverting edits and making the claim that a consensus was reached here to support their actions.[5] [6]. Once again though, unless someone is prepared to step in and directly address this situation, we might just as well all be be complaining to our monitors. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps an RFC or request for a third opinion would be in order at this point. I'm an admin, and I do believe TVFAN24 is acting in bad faith at this point, but I also consider myself involved in this dispute so it'd be inappropriate for me to take any kind of conclusive action. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
There are 6 of us in consensus backed up by policy and one who disagrees. It's not very difficult to enforce the consensus on the article. Rather than moaning about it, why don't we just edit? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
My guess is that you are right. –MuZemike 22:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending Changes is absolutely awesome[edit]

I just experimented with Pending Changes for a bit, and I'm really impressed. It seems like an amazing improvement with no downsides. Is there a catch? Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 20:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Right now it's just another tool that can be used to protect pages prone to vandalism - a level of protection somewhere between 'openly editable' and 'editable only by autoconfirmed users'. Being that it's a lighter-weight protection that has previously been available, there might be a tendency to apply it more widely than older, harsher potection methods which we'll have to watch out for. Otherwise, all good, yup. - TB (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Purely as an exercise in devil's advocacy (I actually think pending changes ("PC") is a great idea if applied well), some potential downsides:
  • 1) IP goes to an article and makes a constructive change, clicks save, but doesn't see his or her edit in the article. Figures, "doesn't work", or "too complicated to figure out", and never edits again. That IP was a great writer who would have many many great subsequent edits—maybe even would have signed up for an account and become a regular—but doesn't because of this initial frustration.
  • 2) Another IP actually knows about PC and would make constructive edits but, like many people, is addicted to instant gratification. The IP doesn't bother editing at all, because they know their immediacy tendencies will not be satisfied.
  • 3) Because PC stops IPs from seeing vandalism, perforce, they won't be helping out with reverting or fixing that vandalism. We thus relegate all vandalism fixing tasks and patrolling in PC articles to autoconfirmed users only, both increasing their workload and foiling all others' ability to assist.
  • 4) Whereas before PC there could be a BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, now we have an impotent-bold, behind-the-scenes revert, "you didn't even let most people see my change" discuss cycle.
  • 5) We will inevitably have far fewer users seeing a change in an article before it is reverted, and we will inevitably have people not accepting changes that probably should be accepted. The interplay between these is that some users who would have seen the good change, and questioned its removal, won't even know about it to go to bat for keeping it in.
This is just off the top of my head. I'm sure this list can be increased by a few yards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, FWIW, I notice some significant performance (server-wise) issues with viewing edits that are pending review. I hope that this can be ironed out by the devs ASAP. That's my main complaint with pending changes so far. –MuZemike 01:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Ad your point #3: I'm not sure how often this happens, but sometimes an anon tries to undo the vandalism manually (probably not knowing about undo) and just removes the vandalized content without putting original content back in. The best thing to do after that is to undo both edits, even though the second one was actually a made in a good faith. So preventing such vandalism fixing might be actually a good thing. Svick (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Dusty Articles (WP:DUSTY) needs to be updated[edit]

Hi everyone, I was just wondering why the Wikipedia:Dusty articles page hasn't been updated since 15 Feb 2010. I used to check that page all the time, and I found it a very useful function for cleaning up Wikipedia articles. (cross-posted from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)) --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 04:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The page transcludes Wikipedia:Dusty articles/List, which in turn was maintained by User:DustyBot which went down on February 15, 2010 as to all its tasks. Dustybot, in turn, was operated by User:Wronkiew, and that user abruptly stopped editing on July 4, 2009. It seems odd to me that dustybot was operating at all for such a long time after its operator had stopped editing, but it is unsurprising that it also ceased. I can only suggest that you head over to the bot projects and talk to them about having a bot assigned to the task, if possible. I think Wikipedia:Bot requests would be a good place to post about this. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm working on this, my bot is almost finished. Svick (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Done. Svick (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiFauna[edit]

In my opinion they should be humorous essays, not just humour - I for one take it seriously. Kayau Voting IS evil 05:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

HAPPY 3,333,333 ARTICLES!!! (almost)[edit]

Sometime while I'm sleeping tonight, we're going to hit 3,333,333 articles, so I'm saying congratulations a bit early.

I will now go to sleep, and hopefully have a dream about what the 3,333,333th article will be. Capture of Osama bin Laden, anyone? Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 09:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Only if he is a Pokemon character.—RJH (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
That's very funny :) Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 09:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Copying page content by using pywikipedia[edit]

I would like to know which function do we use when copying a content from a wikipage or from a textfile to a wikipage or a textfile. Thanks in advance, --Jagwar - (( talk )) 10:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Pokémon Black and White[edit]

Why does it have "pending changes protection"? --75.25.103.109 (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It was semi-protected in April and June because of vandalism. Such protection does not allow anonymous or newly-registered users to edit the article, instead requiring them to propose the change on the article's discussion page. Subsequently, the semi-protected article was selected to take part in the pending changes trial, which is now in progress. Under the trial, certain articles are subject to an experimental form of protection that does allow anonymous and newly-registered users to make changes, the changes subject to review before appearing on the site. PleaseStand (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not terribly that much vandalism, and it could be argued that it may not need to be protected at all. As I have noted several times before, this is one of the benefits of Pending Changes, is that we can gauge whether or not an article can be unprotected. –MuZemike 19:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Very small settlements[edit]

Need your opinions about large settlements and small settlements on Talk:Angeli Custodi. KzKrann (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a large recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 43#Notability of small settlements MBelgrano (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The Times paywall (update)[edit]

See earlier discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_26#The_Times_paywall. I've received an email from an assistant editor at The Times. The situation is that existing ("legacy") articles from The Times will remain free to view and keep their existing URLs (e.g. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article5288776.ece): "We have no plans to change this, but reserve the right to review our model." New content will go behind the paywall:

"New content published to thetimes.co.uk is only available to subscribers, but lives on normal URLs, i.e. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/obituaries/article2579471.ece If a reader clicks on this link, they'll be prompted to register/pay or login. This happens from the homepage, but readers ARE taken to the relevant page at the end of the payment journey."

Ty 17:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! This is fantastic news, right? Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 18:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, very good news - with over 21,000 links to The Times. Ty 19:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The Carbon Footprint of the inefficiencies of MediaWiki[edit]

Having deployed several wikis using Mediawiki software and found huge and glaring inefficiencies (one only has to look at the Job Queue and link refreshing, and no, I am not going to get technical here), has anyone done even a rudimentary analysis of the carbon footprint of the code as designed versus the code as it really ought to work basing the estimate on the Wikipedia family alone?

Just throwing hardware and charitable dollars at this thing is not going to be satisfactory, surely? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a large website but its carbon footprint is tiny beside that of a major data center, much less a power plant or other large facility. Additionally, I don't know what the bottlenecks are in their data center - they may be bandwidth or disk access, rather than CPU. In short, there are better places to invest your effort if you're worried about CO2. Dcoetzee 04:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, if you have some ideas how to make MediaWiki less CPU-intensive and are able and willing tom implement them, I'm sure that MediaWiki people will be glad to accept your fixes. Svick (talk) 09:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
That was not the point of the post. Much of the design smacks of incompetence of the highest order. And the quality of the pure software engineering is terrible. There are bottlenecks that are designed in. The study would be wholly valid. I, however, am not about to do it. My coding days were in ALGOL and RPL11M. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
What was the point of the post then? So its horrible and inefficient, but you're only going to provide vague examples and no suggestions. You do realize that MediaWiki is a Wikimedia community just like Wikipedia, right? Mr.Z-man 14:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
If you think that you can do a significantly better job in terms of improving MediaWiki, I would strongly suggest that you try to organize a team of developers to take on the problem and offer a solution. All of the data (at least the edit histories of articles, images, and other content) is certainly available for testing purposes in terms of setting up a development fork. Rather than being a critic of something that apparently you haven't been involved with, join in on the action and get involved with the development of MediaWiki or an alternative.
I'm quite certain that if you really did a good job, that the CPU usage was significantly less but also performed the current administrative and discussion functions at least as reliably with the scale of en.wikipedia.... that there would be a switch over in the software. MediaWiki software is open source and there are channels for developers to get involved in improving the software.... if you would rather work from within rather than on the outside too. Deploying a wiki isn't nearly the same thing as being involved in its development, and frankly I find it amazing what has been accomplished with MediaWiki and what it is expected to do. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh it is amazing what it does. Odd, isn't it, how everyone bleats when the thing is criticised. Can it really do no wrong? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The issue here is not criticism, its questionably constructive criticism. Imagine if someone went to a talk page of an article you were working on and said "This page contains major factual errors and it reads like it was written by a 9-year old" without providing any specifics or suggestions. How helpful is that? I really don't see how this is substantially different. Mr.Z-man 05:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why the question is shot down in a dogmatic manner. It's not only about carbon footprint, but also about what the community gets back for the money it donates. A more efficient software will provide better scalability and require fewer hardware upgrades. Just look what facebook did by developing their optimizing PHP compiler (HipHop) which resulted in 50% speedups in their setup (that means doubling the requests you can handle without any new hardware!). So there are options available, but like with all optimizations you first have to analyze the system. Which is why I find the question a good starting point for such ventures. 87.175.69.203 (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Improving performance of Wikipedia and Mediawiki software is a venture I obviously support. I just don't think it has anything do with CO2, realistically, which seems to be the main concern of the OP. The reason to improve it is, as you say, for better return on investment, faster page load times, that sort of thing. However, only the main developers have access to a lot of the stuff in the data center, and they do have to coordinate upgrades carefully - so most likely if you're interested you'll have to either submit a patch or post to the developer mailing list. Dcoetzee 05:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

In practical terms mediawiki isn't the driving factor in wikipedia's carbon footprint. Most wikipedia users see cached versions of articles that don't touch mediawiki.©Geni 22:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

How to contact some claiming to represent Wikipedia?[edit]

I received an accusatory message, dated 24 June 1010. It certainly seems to originate from someone formally associated with Wikipedia. I can't find a way to contact this person. How might I authenticate the authority of the person who sent me this message? How can I contact this person, if he or she is formally associated with Wikipedia, to discuss the matter? I prefer not to take the matter public, at the moment, as it may be a misunderstanding. I do not know my way around Wikipedia, other than as a reader, with a login. If you can help, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Drgeorgep (talk) 04:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)drgeorgep

See WP:PHISHING. Summary: It is entirely normal for malicious people to abuse the Internet by posting or emailing fake messages. Be very careful before clicking any "click here to confirm your details" links. Such links will probably take you to a website that distributes malware. Just delete and ignore inappropriate messages. Johnuniq (talk) 05:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps someone emailed you through wikipedia. If the email was abusive in nature, see WP:EMAILABUSE.Smallman12q (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Strange userpage - in scope ?[edit]

the only edits of user User:Kbouch91 ware made for his userpage, a fantasy about an own state. Is this acceptable here? (I think it is not, there were some other similar pages deleted as far as I see). I am interested in this case, because the files used are out of scope for the commons, if this page will be delted. Plehn (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this is not appropriate per WP:UPNOT and should be sent to Miscellany for deletion. Svick (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution - I will wait for a second statement and try to delete if, if the second vote agrees. Plehn (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
We're not voting, but I agree that MfD seems like a good idea. Fences&Windows 22:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting statement[edit]

Below the "Save page" button in small print it says

If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it.

The first statement says that If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here., yet the second one states that it must comply with Wikipedia's Terms of Use. Perhaps the 1st sentence should be removed?Smallman12q (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your interpretation. Dcoetzee 05:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I think you may have missed the "did not" part. The first sentence is about your own writing; the second is about other people's writing.—RJH (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus needed over title of Metal production in Ukraine[edit]

Yesterday I was bold and moved the article to this title. It is an imperfect title. The prior title may be seen in the move log and the article history. I made the bold move because I felt that the title reflected the content of the article better than the prior title. An editor has disagreed with my boldness, as is his right. I have no particular fondness for the new title nor for the old one, and ask editors to look at the article and to come to its talk page to determine what we might consider the correct title to be. Obviously this includes thoughts on old title, current title, and some new title that has not even been considered. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

As the article is about extractive metallurgy I think the previous title (Metallurgy of Ukraine) was fine. But this works just as well. A comparable article is Mining in Iran, which also covers metal processing.—RJH (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Since the consensus is to be developed on the article talk page, would you mind logging that opinion (or another opinion, all opinions are welcome) there, too, please? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Main page[edit]

The main page's history shows that it was created on January 26, 2002. Since Wikipedia was created over a year earlier, why does it only date back to 2002? What existed as Wikipedia's "home page" before this? SwarmTalk 04:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

HomePage. [7] You may want to look at the Nostalgia Wikipedia, which is a copy of Wikipedia from December 2001. PleaseStand (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
And before you draw the conclusion that it was created on November 22, 2001, it likely existed earlier than that. That was before we moved to our current software; back then old revisions were deleted. PleaseStand (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I've been curious for quite a while — in UseModWiki, was it possible to link to pages that weren't in CamelCase? I can't figure out how pages were linked except by typing CaPiTaLlEtTeRs. Nyttend (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikilinks were added in to the software after only its first month of use in Wikipedia. All CamelCase was gone by a year later. See Wikipedia:CamelCase and Wikipedia. Rmhermen (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

How many is too many images?[edit]

The Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex article has undergone some cleaning recently. Merged out of Kennedy Space Center and expanded and the Apollo/Saturn V Center article was merged in. Currently there are 18 images including a couple of galleries and the context of these images isnt clear in some cases. It seems to be getting a little travel guidish with all the images and this is being discussed on the article's talk page. I'd like to get some other opinions on the number and placement of images in this article.--RadioFan (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to have hard-and-fast rules for photos - this is a constant struggle at articles about places that are of interest to tourists; everybody wants to upload their photo of the Grand Canyon or whatever. You're right that this article is photo-heavy; I've removed a half dozen that were either tour-guide pointless (e.g., a picture of the entrance of the Hall of Fame) or poor quality (the moon rock display). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Eliakim?[edit]

Hello everyone, I am new to the web site and I am learning how it works but at this moment I need help. In another discussion group a question was asked: (see below) I have been searching and searching and still searching but what I found was the same answers.

Here's the question: Eliakim; Who is this biblical figure? What is his role in the end of time?

(the one who posed the question wrote this about it) A certain prophet claims that Eliakim not Jesus will be the one who will open the 7 seals. I have been researching this and was hoping somebody could shed some light on this. Daniel spoke of this and the prophet claims that Eliakim has been mistaken for Jesus and this among other details are errant in doctrine because satan deliberately altered some phrasing in some key scriptures that has caused some false teaching. He believes that the only bible that should be used is the authorized King James version. He believes that every translation after that has been altered.

(This is what I have found thus far) Eliakim son of Hilkiah the palace administrator or Eliakim son of Josiah king, whose name was changed or the priest—Eliakim or Eliakim the father of Azor who is in the blood line of JESUS in Matthew or Eliakim the son of Meleain in the blood line of JESUS in the book of Luke......

Village Community has anyone ever heard of this and if you have can you give more details so I can contiue to search this out? Thank you and be bless!

Vmallory1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by VMallory1 (talkcontribs) 15:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Try asking over at the Reference desk, that is where questions such as yours are handled. BTW please sign your posts with four tildes, like this ~~~~, that will automatically append your "signature" correctly formatted with links to your profile and talk pages. Roger (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Footnotes without square brackets[edit]

How can I create footnotes without the square brackets, like in the French WP? Thanks in advance Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

See Help:Reference display customization. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I want them to appear to all readers without brackets. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
You will have to make a proposal to change the MediaWiki system pages that make up the reference. See Help:Cite messages for the system pages. See previous discussion.---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Google Books reference, with or without highlighting?[edit]

When giving a reference to Google Books, it appears that some people give the URL that includes the search term that they used to find the entry. This causes the search terms to be highlighted. Is this prefered, discouraged or OK either way. For example, if I wanted to reference where Phoenix Life Insurance Company of Minot, North Dakota had it's principle office, I could give the url as either http://books.google.com/books?id=DCYbAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA237&dq="minot,+north+dakota"&hl=en&ei=5gAyTPjKD8GC8gbrg5DJCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22minot%2C%20north%20dakota%22&f=false which would cause Minot North Dakota to be highlighted when the URL is clicked on *or* I could simply have http://books.google.com/books?id=DCYbAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA237 which would go the same page without the highlighting. Is there a preference either way officially in Wikipedia?

(Note this is a copy of the question asked at the help desk, they suggesting asking here or the WT:V.) Naraht (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm not aware of any official guideline on this, but personally I'd go with the version that is not highlighted as it looks tidier (and the URL is shorter). — Cheers, JackLee talk 20:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I don't think there is any “official” preference on this particular issue, so you should do what you think is the best while having the readers in mind in the first place. My opinion is that if having the search term highlighted would help the readers, then keep it. If it's just an artifact of how you got there, then delete it. And BTW, you can shorten the URL and keep the search term: http://books.google.com/books?id=DCYbAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA237&dq=%22minot,+north+dakota%22 should work the same as the long URL. Actually, neither of the links shows the contents of the book for me, maybe because I'm in Europe. Svick (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • There are arguments in favour of hyperlinking to Google Books, which I'm sure others have expressed, but whilst they have some foundation they are not particularly strong ones outside of a limited set of circumstances. Giving a hyperlink to a Google Books search is giving one book source primacy over the others. Remember that a proper book citation identifies the book (author, title, publisher, year) and the page number(s) within it. Hyperlinks are an added convenience to a book citation, not a replacement for one. With a proper citation, a reader/editor can look up the cited source via whatever book source xe finds convenient, not just via Google Books. Also remember that, thanks to MediaWiki, the ISBN in a book citation itself acts as a convenience hyperlink, to manifold sources for the book as a whole at least. Uncle G (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • My thoughts, in no particular order: 1.) As Uncle G says, the principal method to identify a book should be an ISBN linked to Special:BookSources, with links to resources like Google Books (or Project Gutenburg, Wikisource, etc.) considered to be supplementary material. In particular, Google Books restricts the availability of material based on the reader's location, so it's no good as the primary identifier for a book resource. 2.) I personally really hate Google Books syntax highlighting. There are arguments for using it when the whole point of linking such a copy of the source is a dispute about its contents, but I don't think there are good arguments for using it otherwise. 3.) It is really best to try to use the shortest URL possible when making links like that, because long URLS are both difficult to work with and, especially, fragile. Look as Svick's shortened version above for what Google Books links should look like. Gavia immer (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Google Books is a search engine, so I don't look for e.g. Modern Zoology, I look for arthropod mollusc. If I'm lucky, GB shows extracts, and these just automatically highlight extracts. If I want to cite the book, I've already got the pp=nn, and GB's "details" pages shows publisher, IBSN, etc.

A bug (?)[edit]

In my post at the talk page of WikiProject Chemistry i tried to bring to notice an issue which in my view affects every WikiProject and is thus a serious bug. Please see the post for details. I hope someone has a solution. --Siddhant (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

No response? :-( --Siddhant (talk) 07:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
You've noticed a discrepancy in the way the Mediawiki software and a third party bot count the number of articles in a category. Both appear to be working as intended; use whichever one gives you the number you want and ignore the other, I'd say. - TB (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Mistake[edit]

Hi. Someone made a mistake with the article Carlo Mario Abate : it's Carlo Maria Abate. May someone rename the article ? I don't know how to do, I'm a contributor on the French Wikipédia. Ascaron (talk) 11:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait four days, make 10 edits, click on the move tab. Kayau Voting IS evil 11:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Or request it on WP:Requested moves... Mr.Z-man 17:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Or request it at Talk:Carlo Mario Abate. :-) Dcoetzee 00:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Or request it at User talk:Dcoetzee. Face-devil-grin.svg Kayau Voting IS evil 02:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
It's astounding how lazy you all are. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I thought the move should be reviewed by someone who has a clue about what the name of the subject should be. Dcoetzee 23:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
There aren't any high-quality sources that I can find, but the "best-of-the-rest" sources seem to indicate that his birth name was Carlo Maria Abate but that in adulthood he preferred to go by Carlo Mario Abate. Really, good sources would help a lot. Gavia immer (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Wikipedia, and when should you reference to Wikipedia or not?[edit]

There is an interesting article about Wikipedia and one editor's tale that decided to take this road to a more public place: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-trouble-with-wikipedia-a-cautionary-tale/?singlepage=true

For myself, I think this is some well formed opinion with some very specific examples that deserves some sort of reflection with the Wikipedia community, and some of this criticism is well founded. Some of it is also simply being critical of the medium and the fact that Wikipedia is a bunch of volunteers (and arguably "amateurs") that are involved in the editing process, but I do think there is some constructive criticism about Wikipedia as well here.

For myself, I like to use Wikipedia as a jumping off point, a place to get a quick overview of a topic. If it looks like there might be some bias in the article, I particularly like to read the talk pages to see just what might be up in terms of the more contentious parts and perhaps see what some not quite NPOV issues may be involved in the construction of that article. More importantly, as a jumping off point, I use the article as a place to find the real references to learn more about the topic.

From this article:

"The larger moral of this story is that Wikipedia itself is a fundamentally flawed and unreliable source. In fact, it is wrong even to describe — much less to use — Wikipedia as a source. Wikipedia is merely a platform."

I happen to agree with this sentiment too, and Wikipedia never really tried to lend itself as a primary source in the first place... nor does any other encyclopedia for that matter. I know this is old hat stuff for many Wikipedia editors, but it is something that perhaps does need some better "public relations" or at least letting other know what it is that is being built.

I use Wikipedia in hyperlinks on other websites (both wiki and non-wiki) as a sort of catch-all link for further information about a topic. For example, a discussion came up where I was referencing those countries who have used nuclear weapons so I made a hyperlink to Nuclear Club as a means to at least note other counties who have made this sort of weapon. Is this an inappropriate use of Wikipedia, and should I have used a more "reliable" reference? It was not a political science forum or website, so the reference was to give some credible tertiary reference to know what it was that I was talking about if you really wanted find more information about that topic. What other sorts of links to Wikipedia ought to be encouraged or discouraged in both casual and formal discussions on other websites? --Robert Horning (talk) 05:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

please see WP:CITEWIKI and move any further discussion to the talk page of that page. Kayau Voting IS evil 06:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
This is not asking how to cite Wikipedia, and I did not ask that question. The question is when, and if it is a valid medium to cite. And yes, I do think bringing this issue up on the Village Pump is very much appropriate as it a sort of meta question and not something about the raw mechanics of citing Wikipedia. If I were to be asking about how to make an APA reference to Wikipedia in a term paper (something I think would generally be a bad idea and deserving an automatic "F" grade by any instructor who saw it), then this page would be a good one to reference. It would be very much an inappropriate forum to discuss this topic in this manner, however. --Robert Horning (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps Kayau was referring to "Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia#A caution before citing Wikipedia", which addresses your concerns to some extent? — Cheers, JackLee talk 12:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
There is more to that, and actually reading the reference would help to understand my context here too. If nobody will bother with RTFA, then I am at a loss. --Robert Horning (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Well that's bit rude considering your long explanation is only tangentially related to the crux of the longer article; the replies linked a page that discussed the inherent unreliability, which is the sentiment that you mentioned and said that you support. Rather than asking people to read the article and guess what you liked, you may wish to more clearly explain the points that you want to discuss. I'll take a stab from what I read, since it sounds like the author is upset over potential WP:POV-pushing, WP:SYN, and WP:OWN. All of these can be taken care of by discussing the issue (instead of corroborating to restore the information every few days) and involving the broader community if necessary; Perhaps WP:FILMS would be able to help decide the dispute. However, the issue started because blogs are considered unreliable sources, which gave valid reason to remove the link. Perhaps PJM is an exception, but that needs to be established somewhere. Since the ref was being posted by someone that writes the blog, it is even more suspect and it's not surprising that it was deleted the first time. It seems like both sides are pushing a POV—either it is or isn't important to know if funds were provided by DFFF—and to use this example to illustrate unreliability is rash without exercising options for developing consensus. There is also the argument as to how the money is used, but that seems related. It may be true that the article is in a state of flux or even currently inaccurate, but that doesn't mean that it will stay that was once other editors are aware of the issue. Wikipedia may not be perfect, but I believe the community as a whole tries. The best advice is to always check that the references say what the editors claim; inappropriate synthesis certainly shouldn't be used for academic purposes and can be removed from the article, but the open nature of the project makes it difficult to confirm everything added—or removed—from an article. —Ost (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The fact is that even if a Wikipedia article was originally written by the world's leading expert on the topic, the last person to edit it may have been a drunken moron who could barely form coherent sentences, let alone include well-researched facts. Personally, I would say that Wikipedia should never be cited directly in any "serious" work other than as a source about itself or with some sort of caveat ("according to Wikipedia"). In other cases, it should be used with caution. A hard-and-fast rule would be hard to make, the reliability of Wikipedia probably differs greatly across topics. Mr.Z-man 23:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but the later is true of pretty much any general encyclopedia. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
What other general encyclopedias have such a breadth of coverage? Most will only have the major subjects in each topic; Wikipedia gets well into the obscure. Mr.Z-man 01:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I think quoting Wikipedia content, merely to borrow its phrasing, where you have independently done your own fact-checking of that content, can be a pretty good idea. In particular, if you already have the background, but just want a nicely-worded explanation, yanking WP content can be a great idea. Some courts have supported citing Wikipedia articles for "general background knowledge" but I'd assert that any material whatsoever that you cite should be cross-checked against other sources as well, or else you'll feel silly when you end up citing a hoax article. Dcoetzee 03:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that Wikipedia should be cited when it is relied upon, and not cited when it is not relied upon. The issue is that it generally shouldn't be used without double-checking its contents.
To give a specific context: I substantially expanded an article about a rare disease a couple of years ago. Last year, a world-renowned expert in the disease re-published a very lightly edited version on a charity website under his name. There is no mention of Wikipedia as the source, but there is absolutely no chance that it's anything other than a summary of what I added to the Wikipedia article. (In fact, I expect some day to be defending the article against claims that I've violated his copyright.)
I'm not at all unhappy about this. Honestly, his choice to use several paragraphs is gold-plated proof that what I wrote was accurate. But if he ever adds a list of references to that page, Wikipedia ought to be on the list. In that instance, it doesn't matter if he "should have" used the Wikipedia page; all that matters is that he did. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Notable people who edit Wikipedia: 2 essays[edit]

When notable people edit Wikipedia, to add detail or fix errors in articles on themselves or their work, they often do so in unawareness of our rules, and the end result is a lot of upset to them and others. And whenever situations like this aren't resolved amicably, it potentially leads to bad press for the project.

To help mitigate the problem, I've written a pair of essays, one addressed to Wikipedians, and one addressed to notable people coming here to edit Wikipedia articles related to them. They are

Please link to them in cases where you feel they might be helpful, and feel free to improve them or leave feedback on their talk pages. --JN466 14:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

First one already covered at Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. The second by our various welcome templates (I seem to recall a specific page as well but can't recall the name off the top of my head).©Geni 00:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Beautiful work. I can tell you put a lot of time and thought into it. I hope it catches on. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 07:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! --JN466 14:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"Above all, don't get into arguments on the article's talk page!" (original bolding) – this would appear to generally contravene the principles of discussion and consensus-building on which Wikipedia is founded. Why is it in there? ╟─TreasuryTagRegent─╢ 07:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TreasuryTag. Banning people from commenting about their own articles is obvious censorship. Kayau Voting IS evil 11:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Of course that's not what was meant. :) Re-worded. --JN466 13:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Saving space on Wikipedia[edit]

I'm sorry if this question has been answered before. Is it possible to delete old versions of articles on Wikipedia that are deemed as spam, vandalism, or redundant edits? I can imagine that it saves up space on Wikipedia by removing these extra articles that serve no purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.86.171 (talk) 09:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Revisions that are copyright violations are sometimes deleted. But even then, it means that most users won't see them, but they are still stored on the servers (and can be recovered, if that need arises). You shouldn't worry about such things, there are people at WMF whose work is to do that. Svick (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Requesting an Honest Opinion on Dr. Kenneth K. Kim's article[edit]

Hi, I am looking for members of the Wikipedia community who can come and give this article Dr. Kenneth K. Kim an honest opinion. Any feedback with suggestions on how to improve the article would also be greatly appreciated. I am really passionate about this cause because I have been hearing a lot on him lately and I've really come to admire who he is as a person. He is a plastic surgeon in the Los Angeles area, and he's been operating on older patients for free. There have been numerous articles, two of which were from notable sources, that claim this, but they are all in Korean. They are still reputable sources, but the fact that they are not understandable to many in the Wikipedia community is becoming an issue. Therefore, anyone who could also read Korean and/or provide a translation that is unbiased and neutral would also be greatly appreciated. I am genuinely looking for truth here, not promotion. Thank you in good faith.People bios (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Sorry, since I am new to Wikipedia my opinion doesn't seem to matter as much due to the fact that I haven't established myself an identity yet. Therefore, I would appreciate it if anyone could please just let me know what I can do to also improve the article, and if there is any hope of me saving it and getting it passed eventually, or if it is a lost cause. I found numerous sources on the doctor, but it remains contentious whether or not the ones I found were enough. People bios (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I would also greatly appreciate it if someone could teach me how to leave a signature without me having to remember it all the time. I keep forgetting to sign.People bios (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Type four tildes ("~~~~") after your messages. Or just click on the four tildes after the words "Sign your posts on talk pages" in the insertion template below the "Save page" button. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I guess I just have to remember to do it all the time. I was wondering if there was some auto setting for this (why isn't there one ?)People bios (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Guidance on personal accounts by editors[edit]

Is anyone aware of any specific policy, guidance or essay dealing specifically with the personal accounts of editors being used to alter article content? That is to say talk page comments of the form:

My name is ________ and I was deeply involved in project ________ and ________ is wrong/incomplete/whatever...

Now there are of course various policies that come in to play here - on conflicts of interest, verifiability and self published sources in particular. However there does not seem to be anything that pulls everything together into one document that you can simply point to. It can get quite difficult when their accounts contradict reliably sourced points, since we would naturally wish to avoid impugning the accuracy or integrity of a potentially valuable contributor, but at same time we have no way of knowing if the professed identity is even accurate. I'm involved in that kind of dispute now and while I'm sure we can sort it out such a thing would be handy since I've seen exactly the same situation happen before.

If there isn't I suspect I'll have to start drafting an essay myself once it has all blown over. What is the protocol to observe for essays, especially in the Wikipedia name space? Crispmuncher (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Three points:
  • The protocol for essays is that you write whatever you think is likely to be helpful, and if nobody strenuously objects, it can live in the Wikipedia namespace. (Keep that extremely low standard in mind whenever you see an essay cited as "proof" of the community's views.)
  • 100% of editors should be using their "personal accounts" for editing. Group accounts are strictly forbidden.
  • You might like to look at the pages linked by {{Connected contributor}}. In general, you seem to be aware of the biggest challenges (e.g., false self-identification, unverifiability [including unpublished information and honest mistakes/errors of memory], conflicts of interest). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's spy service[edit]

I was pondering unusual Wikipedia exploits (for educational purposes only, natch) and was considering the possibility of using a script to turn Wikipedia into a virtual file-sharing network. It would work like this: you UUencode a file into 7 bits, then upload it into a randomly-chosen file as 7 bit text in the middle of the article, then immediately revert it. The reversion with the UUencoded file will be there forever, and no one will be the wiser. With a script, you could automagically scrape such files from the article histories. Then it occured to me to wonder if this is already happening.

Most of you are probably already familiar with the phenomenon of numbers stations. Wikipedia can serve the same function a lot cheaper and easier, using the method I just described, especially since code words and numbers would be in plain text wouldn't need to be UUencoded -- although in a pinch you could transmit photos and such this way also, PGP-encoded for extra protection.

Does anyone care to venture a guess as to whether Wikipedia is used by the world's spook agencies and terrorist/freedom fighter claves to communicate with each other? -- SmashTheState (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been thought of before. Please don't try it though since Wikipedia is not a web host. Theoretically, admins could delete the revisions in question. As for use as a "numbers station", Wikipedia storage is subject to HTTP traffic analysis so it could not replace 100% of numbers station usage by spies. When you access Wikipedia, you are sending data and thus revealing your location; in contrast, shortwave radios are receive-only and you remain hidden (unless someone sees your radio). PleaseStand (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Aviable data suggests that intelligence agancies are way to paranoid to rely on third parties and terrorists have been known to piggyback on the networks pedophiles use.©Geni 22:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
What a fascinating article that numbers station piece is... Carrite (talk) 05:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

edit war at Ultrasonic flow meter[edit]

Ive been watching this little edit war for the past few days [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14], and I think i butted heads with User:Ursus.Bear before, so I felt I would keep out of it. Does someone want to step into the fray here? User A1 (talk) 09:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think Ursus.Bear is absolutely correct here, as the IP is a spammer. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Comic Sans font[edit]

Hey veryone! I'm using Google Chrome as my browser, and my Wikipedia is with the Comic Sans font. Well, that's really weird, cuz I've edited and visited Wikipedia in other computers with the same browser, and it's not in Comic Sans, but in Areal, or Verdana. Can anyone please tell me what I can do to turn Comic Sans off? Not only it is not as agreable as other fonts, it also causes be trouble when writing with the IPA.

Thanks a lot. JozePedro (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Click the screwdriver of the right of the screen, then select options. Click 'under the hood', then click 'change fonts and language settings' (it's an awfully long way down). A window will pop up and you can change the fonts there. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Useless trainwreck.[edit]

Hi there.

I remember a community discussion (i THINK it was an AFD) that was labeled (it was actually the given result as decided by the closing administrator) as a "useless train wreck from which no consensus can emerge", with an image of a train wreck put next to it. I thought it was funny and just now wanted to show it to someone, but i couldn't seem to find it. Tried googling, but had no luck. Does anyone remember it and can give me a hint? Thanks. 188.62.92.8 (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Somehow, google doesn't index that page. Other sites had links to it though, so i found it after widening my search to pages outside of Wikipedia. Thanks anyway. 188.62.92.8 (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Articles for Deletion discussions aren't indexed because they can contain frank discussions about, say, some guy who wrote an article on his new Blogspot blog that nobody cares about - it's possible and even likely that our discussion about how his blog sucks and he sucks would outrank his blog and even other searches on his own name forever, so we're nice and try to avoid that. If you want to search project pages (in the (Wikipedia: namespace), it may be worth it to create a user account, even if you rarely edit, because it's much easier to use our search outside the main encyclopedia articles that way. Gavia immer (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Specifically that "My preferences" allows the registered user to search all namespaces by default PleaseStand (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do people keep calling the English Wikipedia "wiki"?[edit]

Please, the proper name, if you're talking about the English Wikipedia, is "enwiki," not "wiki." E.g.:

Student 1: "Man, this homework assignment is killer, how are we going to find all this information on molecular biology?"
Student 2: "Dude, just enwiki it."
Student 1: "Yeah, but they want us to include info on the French and German advances in that field too."
Student 2: "Then frwiki and dewiki it too."

This nomenclature is backed up by both the download page and InitialiseSettings.php, so I hope this is the last time I hear people inappropriately shortening it to "wiki." Thanks for your cooperation. Tisane talk/stalk 16:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we still use it in everyday conversation? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I've never heard anybody refer to wikipedia as just wiki. The use of 'enwiki' seems awkward and we would also need to stop and explain the meaning.—RJH (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Apparently this is a pet peeve of yours, but humans regularly shorten names to the smallest name necessary in context. For example, students say that they are "going to school" each morning, not that they are "going to the John F. Kennedy Memorial High School", even though there are doubtless dozens of potential schools within a reasonable distance. Most adults say we're "going to work" or "going to the office" rather than saying that we're "going to <name of business>". Most humans are good at interpreting contextually dependent statements like that. Consequently, if a person says something (in English) about "the wiki", you can probably figure out when they probably mean en.wikipedia.org, rather than another Wikipedia, the wiki at their office, or their favorite Wikia site. If it's necessary to make it clear, they will provide you with the necessary contextual signals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, no it's not a pet peeve. I barely skimmed the remainder of your lecture because it came across as condescending. Please see WP:Civility.—RJH (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The correct name for the English Wikipedia, is, um, the English Wikipedia. 'enwiki' is derived from the database/technical backend (shorthand) name for the site. WP:NOTWIKI covers why just "wiki" is wrong/lazy in most cases. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 17:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
And the correct term for listening to novelty songs while editing the English wikipedia is enwicki-wacky-wu. Can we please start using that in everyday conversation. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't abbreviate Wikipedia as "wiki". This is because any wiki is run off wiki software, not just Wikipedia; in addition, we cannot think that the entire wiki-world revolves around en.wiki (Yes, that is a fine abbreviation IMO, along with enwiki and en-wiki, of which I use often on IRC.) but as a part of the bigger picture of an entire reference library (e.g. encyclopedias, dictionaries, etc.) of editable free content (as in not "free beer"). –MuZemike 21:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, enwiki is a good one but simply 'wiki' is not. Somebody on LeeDeeRadio used 'wiki' as a verb similar to 'google' as a verb. There was a time when somebody in my class abbreviated wikipedia as wiki. I printed out the entire WP:NOTWIKI page. :) Kayau Voting IS evil 13:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Really? I don't think I've ever heard anyone refer to it as anything other than "Wikipedia" outside of discussions with other Wikipedians. And I don't think I've ever really seen it as a verb. I would be surprised if very many people who aren't regular editors knew what you were talking about if you called it enwiki (at least not without contextual clues). And how do you pronounce "frwiki"? fra-wiki? eff-arr-wiki? Heaven forbid you ever need to talk about the Chavacano de Zamboanga Wikipedia Mr.Z-man 15:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
As an aside, I think one of the reasons I got involved in Wikipedia was a result of using other wikis while I was still in school; some of my professors used wikis for class notes, assignments, etc., due to the ease of formatting unlike HTML. At least, some 4-5 years ago, I learned that "wiki" wasn't "Wikipedia". Perhaps I am one of the fortunate few to have discovered wikis before Wikipedia. –MuZemike 13:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Where did the history go ?[edit]

I just discovered an oddity in WP's files and I am confused. Any help would be appreciated.

Article Brave New World's Discussion Page shows that this article used to be a "Good Article" but was reassessed and delisted on Jan 8, 2006.

Now I don't challenge the status change, I am not familiar with those rules much, but I am concerned that I can find no archive prior to Mar 2006 for the WP:Good_article_review process for ANY article, not just this one.

Furthermore, looking at the edits for the article in Jan 2006 and the talk page archive I find only a single edit that the article was being delisted. No discussion, just a summary declaration that the article is being delisted.

Is this how things were done in 2006? Why is there no archive of the WP:Good_article_review process before 3/06 ? Are there history files missing ? 66.102.198.62 (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

GA isn't really my area but from what I recall things were a yes a lot more informal back then. Of course this created it's own problems with a lot of people being afraid to promote because they had no idea what standards they should be working to.©Geni 19:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Author-links[edit]

How often should we link to one and the same author in the reference section? I am always tempted to link them more than once in longer sections: For example, at User:Gun Powder Ma/Roman economy Scheidel, Walter is listed under "Size and structure of the economy" as co-author, under "Demography" as sole author and again at "Further reading" as co-editor. Lo Cascio, Elio is one time co-author and another time sole editor (both under "Size and structure of the economy"). Should I put

  • still only one link to each of them
  • As many links as occurrences (Scheidel 3x, Lo Cascio 2x)
  • as many links as there are subsections or 'author functions' (author, editor)?

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There are no guidelines on this? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:OVERLINK is the relevant MOS page. Use your best judgment, it seems. –xenotalk 15:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

National Bridge Inventory inline citations[edit]

National Bridge Inventory search (by Alexander Svirsky) allows me to learn details about particular bridges, but there is no apparent way to create inline citations for this information. There are several Schuylkill River bridges without articles that I would like to create. I have photos available. I could look for Philadelphia Inquirer articles at the Free Library of Philadelphia, but I would welcome comments on whether to create the articles as stubs with photos, but no citations. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

See List of crossings of the Schuylkill River for specific bridges, such as JFK Boulevard bridge.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
There's no reason why you can't cite that web site by including the search arguments needed to get to the data. for example,

Svirsky, Alexander. National Bridge Inventory (search for state=Pennsylvania, feature intersected=Schuylkill). Retrieved on July 12, 2010.

Remember that clearly explaining to the reader what the source is is more important that following any strict citation format. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Freely-licensed video of Jimmy Wales ?[edit]

Hi everyone!

Is there a freely-licensed video of Jimmy Wales available somewhere? I would like to create a parody. Thank you for your help! --62.167.75.199 (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If you are creating a parody, you may use almost any video under fair use, depending on what legal jurisdictions are involved. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Medal of Honor[edit]

Editorial correction: The Medal of Honor is NEVER "won" or "earned." It is awarded! Every recommendation is very carefully evaluated at many levels in the chain-of-command, and an award is NOT automatic.

George Bleyle Hudson, Ohio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.9.87 (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Not only the MoH. No military medal of any kind is ever won - ony sports medals are won. Roger (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Isn't the Purple Heart more of an "entitlement" than something that you earn for being wounded in combat? –MuZemike 19:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
That may be so but it misses the point. No sane person goes into combat thinking "I'm gonna go earn myself a Purple Heart!" It's not something a person strives for like an Olympic medal. Roger (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

List of 1974 Macropædia articles[edit]

What the heck? List of 1974 Macropædia articles has been here for three years, and yet it only covers a list of articles starting with the letter "A"? Is this even a meaningful article for Wikipedia, could it be a copyright violation for listing the volume's table of contents? And the same copyright question and concern as to whether this violates Wikipedia is not a directory applies to its sister article, List of 2007 Macropædia articles. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Tables of contents are unusual in this regard, in that lists of facts are non-copyrightable, but their arrangement is, but only if said arrangement involves some form of artistic judgment. The common interpretation of this principle is that you can't copyright an alphabetical list or phonebook, but you can copyright a list that organizes by quality or whatever. (e.g. listing the names of the cars that were in "The Best Cars of 2008" alphabetically would not be copyvio, but listing them in the same order of rank as the publication could be.) That said, it's a rather pointless article that we probably shouldn't have. Take it to AfD. --erachima talk 23:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
More complex than that. You can't copyright the phone book because it's a complete list. You probably can copyright a list of encyclopedia articles because some creativity went into selecting which subset of posible eneclopedia articles should be written and included in the work.©Geni 01:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated both articles for AfD. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone patrolling NewPages?[edit]

I just checked Special:Newpages and they are a solid yellow all the way back to June. I have never seen this before. Not even one article patrolled. Does anyone know what is going on? Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you're worried about that, I'll start patrolling! Kayau Voting IS evil 03:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Great spirit! But that doesn't answer my question :) I just know that this solid yellow wall of unpatrolled articles can't be a job for one person. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Somehow the phenomenon is gone now. I hope it isn't the vector skin acting up. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I think there is just a big backlog. Last night there were some white lines where patrollers had ben picking out pages to patrol. There are indeed a lot though, and although I'm not a NPP I've been having a go at reducing the list a tiny bit, but new pages are coming in every couple of seconds.--Kudpung (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the update. The first time I saw Newpages they were a solid yellow for group of 500 after group of 500 from July all the way to June. But checking again after coming here they looked much better with many white patrolled articles. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"Spiritual Healing" redirects (here)...[edit]

Hello,

On Wikipedia a search for Spiritual Healing gets redirected to Faith Healing. Shamanism seems to be a much better redirect direction. I'm waiting for feedback on an article on Spiritual Healing but in the meantime I hope the redirect can be moved.

Thank you,

Adrian-from-london (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Shamanism is in the see also section. Either would be an acceptable redirect target, but Faith healing has the more similar name and is therefore the more obvious thing for a searcher for Spiritual healing to be looking for (that wasn't the album). --erachima talk 21:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I accept your point about Shamanism being in the see also section but I'd like to include some sort of reference in the context of Spiritual Healing. As there is already a section on Spiritualism could a reference to Shamanism be included there rather than having the term "Shamanism" in the see also section? Perhaps the phrase "Spiritualists may combine faith healing with ..." could be expressed better as "Spiritualists may combine Shamanic healing with ..."? Adrian-from-london (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm really not the one to ask about that (though it strikes me as an unusual phrasing to introduce, since Faith healing and Shamanism are overlapping but independent subjects that should not be conflated). You should use Talk:Faith healing to discuss it with other editors. --erachima talk 21:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The abundance of also, in Wikipedia.[edit]

First off, let me say sorry if this has been brought up before or if it doesn't belong here. As I look through Wikipedia one thing I am noticing is the over use of the word also, in most cases it can be deleted and still get the same point across as in the the case of my edits in the Eddie Murphy [15] article. I do realize this is a common article to add additional information in a sentence, but it seems to be used too frequently, by editors, to add more information. I am sure there are other cases of extra wordage, this happens to be the one I noticed, more so as a disruption to reading of an article. I am going to try and clear up the ones I notice and thought it may be best to bring it to the attention of some others, to keep an eye out for it.

I doubt we could do anything about it permanently, but more just wanted to get this off my chest and see if I was the only one noticing this. - Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 14:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I've noticed that too, and cleaned up some excessive uses where I've seen them. Perhaps we can get a report generated listing pages which have a high proportion of the word "also" relative to the amount of text on the page? bd2412 T 19:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't that be "I've noticed that also"? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I catch myself using also too many times in my edits, also :) I also notice that a lot of people tend to overuse however for everything, and that can also cause some problems as far as inadvertent editorialization of content is concerned, not just increased wordiness of sentences. –MuZemike 21:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm looking into creating the report. When I looked for a few pages that have also-frequency greater than 1%, I noticed that many of those are either disambiguations (like Alph or Hebrew mythology) or sub-stubs (like DASS1) that don't need to be fixed. What do you think, should I specifically exclude stubs and DABs? Or pages that are smaller than n bytes? Svick (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Excluding pages with <100 words would make sense. --erachima talk 22:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Although there's always copyediting to be done, it seems to me that this particular copyediting problem is acute because of the way that many articles develop. Facts are added in dribs and drabs, with no real overall narrative structure in mind. I wouldn't be surprised if, were you to look at the histories of some of the articles you find where this is a problem, you were to discover that most such paragraphs were written sentence-by-sentence, with little common authorship. That's how a lot of our content is written. As such, this is probably not a problem that is going to go away. If you create such a report, letting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors know about it is a good idea. They might have further ideas on patterns and articles to exclude, erm … also. Uncle G (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The report is at User:SvickBOT/Alsos. Svick (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I am looking for some advice on the care and feeding of essays[edit]

I am looking for some advice on the care and feeding of essays.

When we have an essay in a subpage, under our main User page, do we have an obligation to place a __NOINDEX__ directive on it? The directive is to prevent search engines from finding rough drafts, or pages of notes, that aren't wikipedia articles, and presenting them to web searchers in a way that might fool them into thinking they were going to a wikipedia article, that met our standard for notability, reliability, etc.

But we want our essags to be read widely, so perhaps the {{noindex}} directive is not appropriate?

How does an essay get promoted from being a User-space essay to a wikipedia-space essay? Is there some kind of review, prior to moving it the wikipedia name space? Is there a template to add to an essay, requesting comments, or requesting review, prior to moving it to the wikipedia name space?

I have encountered a disturbing phenomenon -- some contributors have drafted essays, placed them in the wikipedia hame space, and then routinely cite them in ways that imply the essay is an actual wikipedia policy, and without acknowledging that they were the essays authors. What response do others recommend when one notices a contributor citing their own essay as if it were a policy?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't think one has to actually get an essay under review before moving to the project namespace. There's an awesome one about citing but Uncle G but he never moved it to the project-space. On the other hand, a lot of project-space essays like don't leave giant gaps between sections are not of particularly high quality but still managed to stay in the project-space. Kayau Voting IS evil 14:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
    • (You're thinking of User:Uncle G/On sources and content, yes?) There are lots of useful pages in user space that aren't in project space ranging from User:Dpbsmith/BEEFSTEW to User:Raul654/Raul's laws. By concidence, I was reading User:Tony1/How to improve your writing just now (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fashion faux pas for why). It's not just me alone. It's far from just me. (BEEFSTEW, for example, was the focus of much attention some years ago when there was massive factionalism over articles on schools. It's an example of this situation in action, indeed. People linked to it as a shorthand.) It's worth remembering, by the way, that the project namespace is not the policy namespace. Uncle G (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
      • One can write an essay directly in Wikipedia space if one wants to. It had better be fairly good, or all it'll do is make oneself look stupid. As to "What response do others recommend when one notices a contributor citing their own essay as if it were a policy?" - public ridicule works sometimes. You can nominate any essay for deletion via WP:MFD if you want to; if someone is being annoying with it, or if it's just substandard, you probably should. Herostratus (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
        • If someone is "being annoying" by linking to a page that xe wrote as an explanation for and expansion upon xyr discussion contributions, nominating it for deletion has proven, time and again, to be a particularly foolish, childish, and petty thing to do. See Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet (MfD discussion) for a far better approach to that sort of thing, in action. Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
          • I'm not talking about essays in user space, but in Wikipedia space. I do not agree that one should be able to place an essay in Wikipedia space and have it not eligible to be challenged. The MfD and following discussion that you cite does not at all strike me as any of foolish, childish, or petty. Are we not allowed to have these discussions? Herostratus (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
            • Read again. The page that I pointed to was an example of how to address essays in a way that isn't foolish, childish, and petty. Look closely at what actually happened in that case. There are, of course, many cases in MFD of people nominating pages for deletion solely because they disagree with the contents, and many MFD discussions full of "speedy keep" arguments as a result. Did you not realize that there's a long history behind the advice at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Before nominating a page for deletion? It's the fact that people tried to abuse MFD as a big hammer for forcibly winning arguments about guidelines, policies, and essays. It's happened again and again, and it's been an example of such foolishness and pettiness time after time. MFD is no more a hammer than AFD is. Uncle G (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Good place to discuss usage question?[edit]

Hi. This isn't the question, it's the meta-question! I didn't want to ask it till I was sure I was in the right place, so I'd appreciate your advice. I want to ask a question about a usage, almost a spelling thing really. Suppose (bad example coming up) there were hundreds of pages on Wikipedia that referred to "ice creme" and I was pretty sure it should be "ice cream". Not sure enough just to be completely bold and do them all - if I were 100% sure then yes, I would just get stuck into it. It's not as far as I know an AmE/BrE thing - I mean, to be honest, I think it's just a right/wrong thing but I do want to check what others think before I launch into some kind of crusade. It's not specific to one article so I can't ask there - it's scattered all over the encyclopaedia. It's also not a word that is always wrong - just usually, or in my view anyway! Where, do you think, is the best place - Pump or otherwise - to ask this question? Thanks in advance for your help, and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If it were a question not related to Wikipedia editing, I'd point you to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language, which may not be a bad idea anyway. But for an on-wiki issue of that nature, this is as good a place as any. Anomie 00:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much DBaK (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
So what's the word? Puggery? Cantiflas? Aglet? I'm dying to know. There must be a bot for simple word replacement, right? Herostratus (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Please see below: Usage: "habitants" vs "inhabitants". Thanks! (PS Sorry to disappoint with less interesting words than puggery, cantiflas and aglet.) DBaK (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The "ice creme/cream" example is exactly what's going on with capitalization in bird, dog, and horse articles. Some editors insist on capitalizing every single goddamn breed name. The ornithologists are the worst, but the other two aren't going down without a fight. I'm trying to help out with the dog articles; I at least know some about what names to capitalize. The MoS guidelines aren't clear on that, although English (outside of ornithologists, kennel clubs, and equestrian clubs (whatever the hell they're called, I honestly don't give a damn)) would not capitalize non-proper noun breed names (Jack Russell terrier, but not bloodhound), and a few proper nouns aren't even capitalized (chihuahua). I know this is correct, and I'm not the only one; however, the people at these articles attempt to (and in the bird articles have succeeded so far) in forcing their colloquial capitalization on here.
This seems as good a place as any to have that sort of discussion, especially if it doesn't fit into a specific guideline (my example would fall under MoS, except that they are intent on handwringing; however, I want this discussion to stick with the original question). It's a high-visibility place, and it could bring out change quicker and end up generating fewer entries on WP:LAME. But that's just my thought. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your thought, and sorry to hear of your Woes With Capitalization. I hate Excessive Capitalization, which I think Makes Everything Look like a Victorian Concert Programme. Good luck. For my query, please see Usage: "habitants" vs "inhabitants" below. Thanks! DBaK (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Read WP:MODLANG; it's primary author makes the exact same point you do about Victorian-style capitalization. I find it exceedingly annoying. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Wikipedia[edit]

Is there any place were you can express some kind of criticism of Wikipedia with some chance of being read ? Ericd (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

We have an article, Criticism of Wikipedia, but that is obviously for criticism from the academic community and media, not individual editors. If you have an issue with a specific article or practice here, then the best place to discuss it would be the article's talk page or a relevant project page (e.g. WP:VPP). --erachima talk 18:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Read by whom? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
A large audience of Wikipedians willing to improve Wikipedia. Ericd (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I suppose the one of the pumps is as good a place as any. –xenotalk 18:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
As a note, the more general your criticism, the less anybody will pay attention to it: It's too easy to say "wikipedia should do X and stop doing Y" - opinions like that are a dime a dozen. Be as specific as possible concerning what you think is wrong and how it could be improved; if possible, lead by example. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
More discussion and less deletion for instance : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_speed_record Ericd (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Read references before deleting allegedly unreferenced content. For instance again : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_speed_record Ericd (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Less stupid bots : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ericd#File_source_problem_with_File:Test_Black.jpg
Are user pages under the personal responsibility of the user ?

I've been there for long. I've been among the first to provide extensive image credits, I played a major rule in enforcing copyrights and licences here. Is it possible to express some views about the evolution of Wikipedia somewhere ? Ericd (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, if you have a complaint about a guideline/policy the place to talk about it is either the relevant talk page (e.g. this one for the image page rules) or the general policy discussion forum. --erachima talk 21:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
You could try Wikipedia Review. –MuZemike 22:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if you'll find "a large audience of Wikipedians willing to improve Wikipedia" there. Herostratus (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Apart from the occasional mollycoddled wiki-harasser, what you'd actually find at the WR are people that actually do care far more than most here, and have a better handle on what areas need addressing. Tarc (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Usage: "habitants" vs "inhabitants"[edit]

I believe that most (though not all) uses of the word "habitants" on Wikipedia are wrong, and that it should usually be "inhabitants".

See this for a search.

I'm not talking about specialist uses like Habitants, obviously, nor where it pops up in, say, Victorin Lurel to tell us that he was "born 20 August 1951 in Vieux-Habitants". clearly those are fair enough anyway and I wouldn't be going near them.

My concern is with places such as Safané Department where we read that Safané has 7,502 habitants, Banga has 374 and so on. To me this just sounds wrong and I think it should be "inhabitants". What do you think?

I went through something similar - though not exactly the same - over "habited" and "inhabited" and there was able to consult my favourite linguist who assured me that my view was OK whether you're working in AmE or BrE. (She's an AmE speaker living in the UK!) However I don't feel I can impose on her goodwill for a second doubt-bout. I do not think that this is an AmE/BrE issue, but could of course be wrong. I am tempted to simply be bold and just get on with it, but it would be a bit embarrassing if I were missing the point. If it were a real point, anyway ...

What I think might be clouding the situation is that "habitants" is fine in French and that some, at least, of the articles that concern me are I believe of Francophone origin. What I am interested in is getting a clear view (if possible) of what people think the mainstream current usage is. I am wildly uninterested in hearing about what was current in 1783 or what might be argued under some circumstances to be an appropriate specialized usage: I just want what people - native-fluency English-speakers - normally say and sounds right to them. Certainly from my own experience of speaking and writing English for a few decades "habitants" simply sounds wrong ... I'd be very pleased to hear others' views, especially supported by evidence, were that possible. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree with you; outside of quotes and other specific-type situations, usually you'd say something like, "Barentsburg has approximately 900 inhabitants", not "Barentsberg has 900 habitants". Habitants is not a commonly used word outside of domestic situations (a married couple would usually be "co-habitants", and other such things), so inhabitants would seem to be the right word. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I've never even heard of the word "habitants". Thenormal English word is "inhabitants", period, and if you made this change I can't imagine any serious opposition. (Incidentally, according to Wiktionary], the word "habitant" is pejorative, in Quebec, which would be another reason not to use that word.) Herostratus (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you both very much for the replies. They are pretty much in line with what I have thought and I am relieved that (so far) no-one has emerged to say "Good Heavens man, how can you possibly have reached your great age without encountering this utterly common usage and here are 73 credible examples, to boot." On the French-Canadian usage, Habitants is certainly interesting but of course not directly relevant to this question. I feel increasingly certain that it's an error in the particular cases which I'm addressing. Interestingly some of them are demonstrably translations of articles from other-language wikipedias (for example, a place where [other] French text actually survived untranslated into the English version) and on many of the pages of concern if you click the interlanguage links you find that in the other languages "habitants", or something very close to it, is normal - that is, English is unusual in having the "in-". I know from my other researches that this "in-" can cause confusion (habited, inhabited, uninhabited) and I suspect that this, coupled with with a non-English-first-language editor having a valiant go, may lead to this usage which I increasingly feel is less likely to be interesting, unusual, a different dialect etc and more likely to be, er, wrong. I'll give it a few days before I really try to draw a conclusion but that's the way I feel things are looking right now. Thanks again, best wishes, DBaK (talk) 09:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
See wikt:habitant. This word can be used to mean inhabitant, but is rarely encountered compared to the latter. I'd prefer to stick with the far more common inhabitant. Dcoetzee 12:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and thank you very much. DBaK (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

However, if the article is about the Montreal Canadians, all bets are off! [16] - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and thank you, but it does mention legitimate uses, and my obvious intent to go nowhere near them, several times above. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Call for applications for Checkuser or Oversight permissions[edit]

The Arbitration Committee invites applications for Checkuser or Oversight permissions effective with the posting of this motion. The application period will close at 2359 hours UTC on 1 August 2010. For this round of appointments, only administrators will be considered. Candidates who ran in the May 2010 elections are encouraged to apply for consideration in this round of appointments. Administrators who applied for permissions in the round leading to the May 2010 election may email the Committee at arbcom.privileges@wikipedia.org by the close of the application period, expressing continued interest and updating their prior responses or providing additional information. New applicants must email the Committee at arbcom.privileges@wikipedia.org by 30 July 2010 to obtain a questionnaire to complete; this questionnaire must be returned by the close of the application period on 1 August 2010. The Arbitration Committee will review the applications and, on 13 August 2010, the names of all candidates being actively considered for appointment will be posted on-wiki in advance of any selection. The community may comment on these candidates until 2359 on 22 August 2010.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 17:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

New chart tool on toolserver[edit]

Hi,

The Visualizer for Wikimedia projects is in production on the toolserver. It generates a chart with the data published on a wikipage. See also this diff for a concrete Wikimedian usage. Cheers, --almaghi (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Could not get contents from MediaWiki api on secure.wikimedia.org/w/api.php.. –xenotalk 19:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
How did you get this? Could you eventually retry? Thanks, --almaghi (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC) What url
It is because when logged into the secure server {{visualizer}} passes "&project={{SERVERNAME}}"</tt> (resulting in "&project=secure.wikimedia.org") when it should (probably?) pass "&project=en.wikipedia.org"xenotalk 19:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok thank you very much for your report, you're right it should pass "&project=en.wikipedia.org" . Is secure.wikimedia.org an alias of en.wikipedia.org ? How to handle this with other projects secure servers? --almaghi (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
secure.wikimedia.org is the secure server for all Wikipedia projects. {{SCRIPTPATH}} distinguishes... There doesn't appear to be any kindof magic word that would return just the language code or project code, which would be ideal. –xenotalk 19:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
FIXED. Thank you Xeno. Yeah this magic word would have been usefull. --almaghi (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

How do I this?[edit]

How do I do this? Will this post somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonnaWood (talkcontribs) 19:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you succeeded! :) If you have a look at your Talk page you'll see that the welcome someone added there contains a load of stuff on Wikipedia, how to ask for help, how to edit pages, and so on. Also, it looks like your edit to List of festivals in the United States has worked just fine. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking for a kind Wikipedian[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Matter has been dealt with at the Commons.

I live in China where the powers that be block me from uploading images greater than .5 MB. Is there a kind soul out there to whom I can email an image for upload to commons? I would be very grateful. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Suicide - too much information?[edit]

Moved to Talk:Suicide

17:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Online Ambassadors program now accepting applications[edit]

The Wikipedia Online Ambassadors program is looking for volunteers. Its main focus is a concerted effort to do mentorship with students who are assigned to edit Wikipedia in their courses; it's part of the Wikimedia Foundation's Public Policy Initiative right now (see Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Signpost article about it), and will hopefully be the basis for a longer-term effort at improving the way we nurture newbies.--Sross (Public Policy) (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject template frame[edit]

I recently saw a template that wraps WikiProject templates on Talk pages, so a reader knows if more templates apply below the top (and perhaps long) template. However, I can't find the wrapping template with a search or remember where I saw it. Point me to it? ENeville (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean {{WPBS}} a.k.a. {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}? Svick (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, "banner shell" is the name. That's the one. Thx! ENeville (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Contributing - From your own knowledge, or lots of research?[edit]

I don't know if this is the place to put this, it seemed like the nearest thing to a message board... I was just wondering how much research people do when they're contributing to articles? I've just started properly contributing, and I've been trying to think about topics that I know enough about to contribute to. Unfortunately, everything I can think of seems to already have more detail that I can come up with, so anything more would mean me going away and learning about something before I edited an article. It's not like I'm against this, I think it might actually help me to learn, but I was just wondering whether most of the contributions people make are from stuff they know by heart, or whether most editors work with the internet/a text book next to them? I'm also partly worried that if I have to learn something before I put it in an article, I'll get it wrong...Keepstherainoff (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collection of contributors one person will start an article and give it a good start and then you will have other contributors which will begin to expand on what the last person has put in. All information in Wikipedia should follow the manual of style as well as all information added should be verifiable to source which reliable, respectable and published(Book,periodical,some websites). Original research should not be used, unless it has been published and then you can source to a verifiable source. So in short if you see information missing feel free to add but don't forget to find the information first to confirm you remember correctly and so you have a source to reference. - Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 13:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I know that information I add has to be sourced, maybe talking about information you just 'know' was misleading. I was more wondering whether people mostly added (sourced) information that they knew was missing, or whether they liked to find a topic they were interested in and read about it with the intention of editing the wiki article?. EDIT: I guess http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contribute_what_you_know_or_are_willing_to_learn_more_about applies. I have a feeling "learning stuff to put it on to wikipedia" is going to be a new procrastination. Hopefully I can channel it into something useful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepstherainoff (talkcontribs) 13:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Well when I first started, I would hit the random page link until I saw an article I was familiar with and read it. If I noticed something missing or incorrect with the information I would then go look for a source to confirm the information and make any necessary changes. I also began helping on the recent changes patrol and Counter vandal Unit these tasks introduced even more pages I could offer help on and become a contributor to some. - Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 13:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well-written articles require research. In order to get articles to Good or Featured status, I've often had to pop down to a library to look up articles and books for information. And, yes, editing Wikipedia does lead to a lot of procrastination on other matters, so beware ... — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I echo Jacklee. Writing requires reading beforehand. And you'll be surprised at the simple things that aren't written about yet, or whose articles are stubs. So don't worry too much about finding simple things that aren't already covered in depth. I've covered all sorts of things myself, from loyalty through loony left, Tampa General Hospital, and exploding tree to forehead. North Asia was a two-sentence stub for almost five years, and it isn't an exception.

    Here are two suggestions to consider:

    You mention Wikipedia:WikiProject Sheffield on your user page. Since Sheffield University has St George's, how about improving our article on branch campuses so that it's as good as other encyclopaedias' coverages of the subject?

    You mention Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience and Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology on your user page. So how about all of those redlinks on neuropsychology topics to be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Typoglycemia (2nd nomination)?

    As you can see, there's even lots of content in your favourite areas yet to be written. Uncle G (talk) 02:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

  • My editing sometimes depends on whether I've read something particularly interesting online or in a book or newspaper, or seen something at an art gallery or museum. I often look up the corresponding article on Wikipedia, and if I discover that article is a stub or needs work, that becomes a project. — Cheers, JackLee talk 04:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I think it depends on the subject. There are pages that I can contribute to without referring to any sources, and others that I'd have to spend a long while reading first. As an example, I can tell you, off the top of my head, a fair bit about some immune-related diseases, but I can't tell you what kind of engine is in our car. I suspect that the sales staff at the car dealership could tell you offhand what kinds of engines were available in that line of cars -- but probably couldn't name the primary antigen in ulcerative colitis. If you really know a subject, you can often contribute details without reading extensively; if you don't, then you probably need to read.

      It also depends on the state of the article and your goals for it. It's not usually hard to expand a stub, but taking an article past B-class usually requires research, even if you're a near-expert on the subject.

      At the moment, I'm reading about traditional black gospel music. I know a bit, but not enough to finish fixing the mess we have (so that urban contemporary gospel can actually be about urban/contemporary gospel (e.g., Kirk Franklin and Christian hip hop instead of almost entirely about traditional black gospel music). I've got another 150 pages to go in my current book before I want to even attempt anything further, and even after all this reading, there are things I don't understand. (Speaking of which, if anyone knows what a 'non-functional bass voice part' is, please let me know: it's apparently one of the characteristic difference between the folk-style black gospel quartets and the jubilee-style black gospel quartets). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

      • Even if one knows a subject, the Wikipedia:Amnesia test is an effective way of ensuring that content is verifiable and part of a complete overall picture. You'll probably want chapter 29 ("Nonfunctional harmony") of ISBN 9780131826601, by the way. Or, if a different approach explanation is required, chapter 7 of ISBN 9780970981134. Which will lead you to functional tonality as yet another area of the encyclopaedia that probably requires attention … Uncle G (talk) 09:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts?[edit]

It's more than a week since I created Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/Creation with the following post, & there's been no response, so I repost it here.

In the section Wikilawyering, it says "The community generally believes that the Wikipedia method works". Really? I've discussed this in quite a number of different fora as occasion arose over the last couple of years, & I haven't yet come across anyone who, when pinned down to concrete detail rather than vague abstractions, claimed it worked. For example, not long ago I asked RSN whether they regularly reached consensus, & whether that would be enforced by admin. The answer was basically "Often, no". Peter jackson (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the so-called Zeroth Law of Wikipedia: "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work". Needless to say, the fact that we actually have the largest encyclopedia ever created sitting around here is evidence that our goal of creating an encyclopedia has worked - and that's much more concrete that any bulletproof argument that it can't possibly have done so. Gavia immer (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Quantity & quality are quite different things. A lot of Wikipedia is very good, but a lot of it is very bad. In particular, a lot of it is either biased or an endless battleground, & Wikipedia hasn't got an effective procedure for dealing with this. Peter jackson (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Changed layout for Blocked Members[edit]

I feel as though this probably still isn't the right place, but I'm not sure where else to go.

My Wikipedia layout was altered upon my banning from Wikipedia so as to make it almost entirely unusable. Since I have been unbanned, can I expect Wikipedia to return to it's default layout when I am logged in, or do I have to change this myself somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boromadloon (talkcontribs) 12:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, never mind. Returning all setting to default has fixed the problem Boromadloon (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There was a change of the user interface recently, which has met with mixed opinions. You can read about it by clicking "New features" at the top of the page, and you have the option of reverting to the old interface by clicking "Take me back". JohnCD (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

B of the Bang[edit]

Hello, I'm french. In this article, we may find that "B of the Bang was Britain's tallest sculpture at twice the height of the Angel of the North,[14] which stands at 66 feet (20 m).". We may also find that "B of the Bang originally stood 56 metres". But 20*2 is not equal to 56. Where is the solution please ? 95.176.45.246 (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved to article talk space - Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 14:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Added "Well over" but gone off to comment there. DBaK (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much :) 95.176.45.246 (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
De rien :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talkcontribs) 14:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The use of Zogby Interactive as a polling source[edit]

A quick look at this article by Nate Silver (well respected statistician famous for correctly predicting 49 out of 50 of the states in the 2008 presidential elections) as well as the score he gave Zogby Interactive compared to the scores he gave others should be enough of a warning for us to introduce a general policy of not to incorporating their polling in articles on Wikipedia(as they currently are being added). Note: I am talking about Zogby Interactive whose online polling only polls members of its own community(not randomly done samples of the general population as is the standard in the field) as opposed to Zogby International(of which Zogby Interactive is a subset) whose polling is done randomly by telephone and is much more respected.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit: Here's a critical Wall Street Journal article one of the polls done by Zogby.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Seems nobody really cares, so I went ahead and removed all polls by them that I could find on Wikipedia.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Support MOTD![edit]

Hi, everyone! The Motto of the day WikiProject is now running better than it has ever done before. At the beginning of the year we were still running out of mottos on a regular basis, so that we often have emergency situations where we display low-quality mottos. But not anymore! Now we have mottos all the way to September. We have even made a lot of suggested changes to try to boost the project's effectiveness. Please discuss them here! Now, for the really great bit: We have started a Motto Shop! Details on WP:MOTD/MS. Those who read this, please comment on WT:MOTD/N#Suggested Changes, make a request on WP:MOTD/MS/R, or both! Kayau Voting IS evil 02:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC) (P.S. this is not WP:canvassing.)

Michael Dini[edit]

Doesn't Michael Dini deserve an article? Enough coverage can be found with a quick Google search, referring to the DoJ investigation after he required his students to take a loyalty oath to Darwinisim. --138.110.206.101 (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite possibly, however if the article is in the namespace with no references or does not establishe notability. I did not see the article prior to deletion, but I would suggest making it in first in the userspace get it peer reviewed, when it passes peer review then move it to the namespace. - Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 00:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
No, not unless he meets WP:PROF. As far as I can see he is only known for one event. Fences&Windows 23:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and read WP:SOAPBOX. Fences&Windows 23:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Recruiting support for a WikiProject[edit]

How should I go about drumming up interest and support for the recently created WikiProject Disability? Roger (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The community portal should do the trick. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Roger (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
This was discussed once Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Disability, it's been a year maybe things have changed, but if a project is already covering this do we need another? - Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 14:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
After a bit more research I do see they don't quite cover the same things, however a merger of the two might be good. - Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 14:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I absolutely disagree. WikiProject Accessibility is about making Wikipedia itself accessible to users with disabilities; its about the technicalities of WP itself as a website. On the other hand WikiProject Disability is about covering the full variety of disability related topics on Wikipedia; its about article content related to Disability such as biography, politics, engineering, human rights, medicine, sport, culture, law, etc. Please take a look at the project pages (and their talk pages) the difference is clear cut. Roger (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Links to educational video podcasts being flagged as "spam"[edit]

I was recently warned for posting "disruptive edits" regarding the posting of links to video podcasts. The Hammer Museum has several video podcasts that enhance the viewers knowledge and understanding of the speaker, usually artists or others who drive contemporary culture. These consist of lectures, readings, forums, and other scholarly forms of communicating information. After posting relevant links to people or topics discussed in the podcasts, I was warned for adding what was referred to as "inappropriate external links to Wikipedia". These links are not spam or promotional materials as we merely include the Hammer name to properly cite the lecture; we are not posting them to promote ourselves. Rather we think they are so interesting that the content will be of use as supplemental information for Wikipedia users who are trying to learn more about a specific person or topic. We see ourselves rather as providing links that "contains further research that is accurate and on-topic" The Wikipedia guidelines encourage the posting of "sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail or other reasons." These video podcasts are a free, educational public service that we provide. I then received a final warning stating that: "The next time you insert a spam link, you may be blocked from editing without further notice." I posted a message on the user's talk page explaining that the materials were educational and supplemental, not spam. I was instructed to post here and "try to attract a consensus there that the links add value to the articles". My intention is not to be disruptive, but to provide information that I feel adds great value to the articles. What could be more supplemental to an article on an artist than that artist speaking about themselves on video? If the issue is including the name of the museum, I am more than happy not to include that. I was under the impression that external links needed to be properly sited, and was only trying to do so. Any support or suggestions on this matter is greatly appreciated! MelissaYvonne (talk) 01:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Spam or not, we're not a link farm, so we can't link to every possible link on the Internet. Besides, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and you don't see encyclopaedias linking to education videos very often. Education is covered by our sister projects Wikibooks and Wikiversity. Wikipedia is not for learning, but for reference. Kayau Voting IS evil 02:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
That's totally understandable. I just thought that maybe the links could be of helpful for people trying to find out more about a particular person or topic that has been covered in the videos. If external links is not the right place for this, is there another section that it can be added to where it would still be useful? MelissaYvonne (talk) 02:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Probably not. External links can only be added to the external links section or the reference sections, except when one uses embedded citations, which is strongly discouraged. If you use that video as a reference and the video is a reliable source, then you can cite that in an article, though. Kayau Voting IS evil 02:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
You might like to read both WP:PROMO and WP:GLAM. People who only add links (especially to the same website) often get complaints; we sometimes call them "spam-only accounts". Since some editors look for patterns of behavior in people who are suspected of promoting a website (rather than individually evaluating each and every link independently), even people who do everything perfectly can get complaints.
As a rule of thumb, video is generally discouraged (it's primarily useful to the technology "haves", and Wikipedia gets a lot of developing-world readers), and each external link needs to provide a unique resource that goes beyond what is (or should be) in the article and/or the other external links. Consequently, you'll need to read each article and look at all the other links before you'll be able to tell whether adding yours is a good idea.
If you need help with a specific article, the External links noticeboard is often the best place to ask questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit]

How may it be said that this file is in low resolution? It is in SVG! Is it just to justify the use of a non-free media? --Tonyjeff (talk) 03:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that's anything but low resolution! However, I know nothing about fair use. Kayau Voting IS evil 03:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
It also doesn't "appear only on the article on Brazil national under-20 football team" (emphasis original). OrangeDog (τε) 22:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Tagged for speedy. WackyWace converse | contribs 11:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
There was a previous discussion on .SVG logos where it was decided they could be kept. In actual practice organisations with logos want the logo to be used at high quality when representing their org, rather than the lowest possible. Of course FUR is needed, but absence of FUR is not a reason to speedy delete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 45#SVG conversions and non-free content, again. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"I release my contributions under X..."[edit]

There is one thing I don't get. There are users who declare in their user space: "I release all of my contributions in the public domain", "I licence my contributions to articles of X type under Creative Commons, and all other contributions to GFDL" (example) and so on. Yet, Wikipedia clearly says, just above the "Save page" button, "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. See the Terms of Use for details." (MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning). Does this mean that all of these users make these declarations in vain? --Brainmachine (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It's my understand that in the case of the work being released into the public domain, it may be used in a larger body of work licensed by cc-by-sa, but the portion that was released into the public domain would remain in the public domain (so not require attribution, and the like). –xenotalk 17:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I see. But, by pressing the "Save page" button, don't you agree (like signing a contract) that this contribution is CC-BY-SA 3.0 + GFDL, regardless of what you've said on your userpage? --Brainmachine (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes. If you tried to use a stricter license, then there might be an issue. But public domain is less strict. For example, consider an article built from public domain text taken from the Encyclopedia Britannica. We can license the entire article with cc-by-sa, but the portion of it that is taken from the public domain remains in the public domain [IANAL]. –xenotalk 17:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Hm, I get the Britannica example. So, that means those user declarations are valid? Someone says on his userpage that all of his contributions are public domain. He makes an edit: adds a portion of text to an article and clicks the "Save page" button above which it states "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL". What is the copyright status of that portion? Public domain? --Brainmachine (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Probably (IANAL). –xenotalk 18:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Just as normal edits may be used under your choice of the terms of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 or the GFDL (or both), that particular edit could be used under any of the CC-BY-SA 3.0, GFDL, or public domain. Of course, it may be prohibitively difficult to separate the public domain portion from the rest to actually make use of that extra possibility. Anomie 01:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
My guess is, most of those declaration predate the switch from GFDL to CC. --Golbez (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

A related question: What is the status of an edit if I as the writer don't care what happens to it except that nobody should be allowed to claim it as their own work and/or profit from it? Roger (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The former, no problem. Our licenses cover that. With the latter, I'm afraid that Wikipedia's licenses both permit commercial reuse. Hence, I'm afraid that others may profit from it, even though they cannot claim it as their own work (legally, anyway) and they cannot prevent others from using the content, too. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
You surrender the right to dictate that it cannot be used commercially when you click Save. If you disagree, do not click Save. --Golbez (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
That explains how people can reproduce WP articles in books sold for profit. What would happen if such a publisher failed to properly attribute the copied material? Could WMF sue for damages based on the profits made from the sale of unattributed material? Roger (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I beleive that would be the responsibility of the individual author(s) since you merely licence your work rather than transfer the rights to it. It is your responsibilty to enforce the licence conditions associated with your material. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, even if you have irrevocably released your work under a particular license, you still own the copyright, and are free to release it under different licenses (or into the public domain) should you wish. You could release it under a stricter license if you wish, but there would be no point, as the work is already released under CC-BY-SA, and people are free to use it under the terms of that license. OrangeDog (τε) 21:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Henrik's traffic counter[edit]

The page view statistics show nothing from 28th onwards, which happens to be the day when an article I created got to DYK. Can someone fix it? Please! (or, if there were another count, that would be great too.) Kayau Voting IS evil 12:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Will someone PLEASE fix it? It's always been an important part of DYK *SOB* Kayau Voting IS evil 01:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
You might get a better response at WP:VPT. Fences&Windows 16:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Usage of Credo Reference[edit]

Back in March of 2010, Credo Reference graciously gave out 100 user accounts to the first 100 Wikipedians who signed up. The list was filled up within several hours. However, a linksearch shows less than 86 links in mainspace to credo...yet 100 accounts were given out. Perhaps some of those accounts ought to be redistributed?Smallman12q (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of references found using a Credo account would be to the reference works that Credo provides access to, not to the credoreference.com web site. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
But these reference works are hosted at Credo...wouldn't people create links to them?Smallman12q (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Why? These sources are available from all kinds of places. If you cite The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy for something, there's really no need to tell the reader (or future editors) that you were behind the paywall at Credo instead of in a bookstore, or at a public library, or at your neighbor's house, or any of the other ways that a person might get access to that book. It's the source itself that matters, not your method for accessing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I was under the impression that if an online version was available, that it should be linked to...even if it is with {{subscription required}}...at least that's what I did with The Cambridge Guide to Children's Books in English in FA Edmund Evans. Is it suggested that we not link to an online source if a subscription is required?Smallman12q (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
It's up to the editor: links are not required, and not prohibited.
For (modern) books, the ISBN is often preferable, since it allows readers to pick their own favorite source, rather than driving all the readers to one editor's favorite website. For example, if an old book is available at Gutenberg Press, a couple of fansites, Google Books, Amazon.com, and several others, then why would you favor one site over the other? Why not let the reader see the whole list, or do his own search?
If, on the other hand, the source is only available through a single website, then that might be a particularly good candidate for providing a convenience link. A lot of citations to peer-reviewed academic journal articles include a Digital object identifier, because there's usually only the one online source. There are other reasons to include links; e.g., a URL to Google Books might let you send the reader directly to the relevant page, with the referenced text highlighted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
That's true...though most of the books/sources available on credo aren't available on google books/amazon/etc. I was just a bit surprised and dismayed at the lack of link usage...Smallman12q (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Climategate name change RfC[edit]

Would editors, particularly uninvolved ones, please consider commenting at this RfC—Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/RFC Climategate rename policy query.

It is a discussion about whether to rename Climatic Research Unit email controversy, and call it Climategate. Many thanks, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

" Lupaavat artikkelit ", promising articles[edit]

Hello, how can I mark Finnish wikipedia " Lupaavat artikkelit " in English wikipedia interwikis ? is there any similar in enwiki? please see : fi:Wikipedia:Lupaavat_artikkelit the symbol is Artículo bueno-blue.svg--Olli (talk) 12:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:FA or WP:GA. I think they are what you're trying to look for. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
hello, I am sorry but none of them are what arere i'mm looking for. FA is suositellut artikkelit and GA is hyvät artikkelit, but what is lupaavat artikkelit? fi:Wikipedia:Lupaavat_artikkelit please see, and you can use google translator to understand better. thank you!! --Olli (talk) 07:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean WP:PR? Kayau Voting IS evil 07:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello i am not meaning PR , PR is in fi wiki Vertaisarviointi, but i am meaning fi:Wikipedia:Lupaavat artikkelit they are not good, and not featured but they are articles what CAN come good / featured articles. do you understand ? please also check da:Wikipedia:Lovende_artikler and sv:Wikipedia:Rekommenderade_artiklar thnaks--Olli (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"Lupaavat artikkelit" translates to something like "Promising articles". The English Wikipedia does not have a classification exactly like this. The grading scheme on the English Wikipedia can be found at WP:ASSESS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What about Wikipedia:Vital articles? Fences&Windows 00:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I've read it on Google translate - sounds like B class. Fences&Windows 00:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Love Parade disaster#Fatalities[edit]

I would like to express concern about the wikitable in this section of this article. Personally I would not wish to see tables such as this in articles as I think that this level of analysis frankly makes us all look like a bunch of insensitive anoraks. Or it will when certain people in the media who are not keen on Wikipedia to start with get wind of it. I think we should think very deeply about whether we need these tables and what they say about us before they proliferate. Britmax (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no emotion or POV in that table, only what you bring to it. It is purely factual data. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 21:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say there was, but do we need all these facts, delivered in such a clinical way? Britmax (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the encyclopedic information in the table could be converted to prose, but I'd rather have this age/nationality table than a list of the names, ages, and nationalities of the victims. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the text next to the table presents exactly the same information already. This makes the table entirely redundant (besides looking like the score card of a rather bizarre competition between countries). --Latebird (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, there it is, in the brackets. Thank you for putting one of my more abstract concerns into words. Britmax (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

pressure on school kids.[edit]

hey wiki's. im worried that the kids in high school these days are getting too much of a work load so early on in life?? am i the only one who thinks so? 07:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC) twiggie tall tail07:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twiggie Tall Tails (talkcontribs)

This page is for posting messages related to Wikipedia, not high school. You may want to start an internet forum instead. Kayau Voting IS evil 07:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you, but apparently they haven't come up with a better way to teach people. If you can think of a way to improve learning outcomes without such a large workload, then please write about it. 69.251.180.224 (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Companies make money off of Wikipedia.[edit]

I saw this in an airplane magazine yesterday. Is the foundation/Wikipedia aware of this? Are they following the copyleft rules of our site? Has legal looked into it? [17].

ScienceApologist (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This should allay your concerns (it is the same product - compare the picture in your link with this one). And I don't understand the relevance of making money - our licence allows commercial use. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Your subject is a little alarmist; there's nothing that prevents anyone from making money off Wikipedia, in fact the CC-BY-SA, by which all submissions are licensed, allows commercial use, so long as proper attribution is given. --Golbez (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Making money is not a concern of mine, it's just an interesting fact. The question I have is, though, how are they handling copyleft acknowledgment and proper attribution of content contributors? ScienceApologist (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, okay, sorry, I thought you were saying "Someone's making money off us! How awful!" when really you were saying, "Someone's making money off us! Neat! But is it legal?" --Golbez (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Buying Wikipedia articles in print or another form. Whether they are properly attributing isn't a concern of WMF's legal department; licensors are responsible for enforcing the terms of the material they release to the Foundation. –xenotalk 13:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec) In the blog that I linked above Erik Möller said on behalf of the WMF, "We welcome it as a creative new distribution method for Wikipedia content. Congratulations to Om for launching this product; we wish them the best of luck in the marketplace." I doubt that he would have said that if they had not been giving proper attribution. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I see that there is a history tab, so that may cover the attribution issue. But what xeno says is interesting to me. For example, if a contributor to Wikipedia sues the company in question for being in violation of the terms of CC-BY-SA by including content in their product without proper attribution to the contributor, the foundation will not get involved? ScienceApologist (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
So far as I know, it's a long-standing thing that protection of your copyright is your job and yours alone; the foundation doesn't get involved. It's not their IP, it's yours, so it's your responsibility. --Golbez (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
We should push these companies to donate some of their proceeds to Wikipedia. bd2412 T 14:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't the German Wikipedia selling a CD/DVD version? The Portable Wikipedia is a neat device— I do wonder about their use of the Wikipedia name. Much better than the AlphaScript crap. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
The device isn't actually named the "Portable Wikipedia", it's called the "WikiReader", which doesn't infringe on Wikipedia's trademarked name. This "SkyMall" appears to have decided to rebrand it on their website, probably to make its nature more obvious and appealing. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|}} 02:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's license is CC-BY-SA. It does not prevent persons from using stuff licensed as such for commercial purposes, provided the provisions of the license (i.e. attribution and identical licensing) are followed. This license doesn't include the non-commercial (NC) option, which would prohibit such licensed stuff from being used commercially. I believe there have been discussions from time to time, mostly on Commons, about the inclusion of media tagged as NC but to no avail, primarily because it would restrict the level of freedom of usage of such media in general. –MuZemike 23:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Templates:POV-check and POV-check-section[edit]

I suggest changing the orange color of the stripe on the left side of the POV-check and POV-check-section templates to yellow, to reflect the idea that a {{POV-check}} is less severe than a {{NPOV}} dispute.

Unarchived to generate a more thorough discussion so that new or broader consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments at Template talk:POV-check or at Template talk:POV-check-section. Thanks, 69.251.180.224 (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Redirects and article count[edit]

Are redirects included in the Wikipedia article count? Do you have any idea if this might differ for other language Wikipedias? Where can I find out more about the article count? Thank you. --85.122.2.98 (talk) 06:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What is an article? Rmhermen (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Village Pump Category[edit]

Can anyone explain to me why the all page is categorized under 'List of people by cause of death'? Its pretty unneccesary. :D Aeno (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Fixed. 69.251.180.224 (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Current squad[edit]

I doubt that I will find much support for my position, but I want to throw it out for discussion anyway... On nearly all sporting club articles, the "current squad" or "current team roster" is included. However, we are an encyclopedia, not a current events website. There is not a single reason I can imagine why the current squad would be more important than any of the previous squads, which aren't included. So why do we include these? (Note: We also have season-per-sport-club articles, where the inclusion of the squad for that season is of course perfectly acceptable, just like on sport-club-on-tournament articles) Fram (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

To give an idea of one of the results of such "current squads": one many, many smaller articles on less notable clubs, these squads take up about half the page, giving them way too much weight compared to the rest of the history and achievements of the club. See e.g. F.C. Verbroedering Dender E.H., VC Universitet-Tekhnolog Belgorod, Hannover Indians, GC Biaschesi, BC Gladiator Cluj-Napoca, ... Take e.g. Terenure College RFC, a second division Irish rugby league club with a stadium with a capacity of 200. Why are the current players all listed? They are for the most part not notable, are not the reason that the club is notable, and are of no more importance than the squads of the 70 previous seasons. But if I were to remove the squad, I would probably be swiftly reverted because "every sports club article has those" (see e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs). It's one of these things that everyone does, but nobody seems to wonder why and if it is the correct thing to do. Fram (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the best place to discuss this issue is WikiProject Sports talk page. Roger (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll take it there if no more reactions come here, but I fear that the chances of a one-sided discussion are greater there than on a more general discussion board like this one. Fram (talk) 07:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
And indeed, as soon as it was listed on that talk page, a flood of opposers appeared. So now we have the opinion of a lot of Wikiproject sports people (include it!), and a few non-Wikiproject sports people (don't include it!). What a surprise... Fram (talk) 07:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree. I should note that I found this discussion because I watch the WikiProject sports page. It's hard for people to get used to something like this. Similar example: we shouldn't list grids of stats for players, as numerous other sites do this (and in real time!). But it's a tough sell to people on the sports project. What to do? — Timneu22 · talk 11:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
So the people who actually use this information want to keep it because it is valuable. Who woulda guessed? Resolute 16:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
"Because it is valuable"? No, because it is current. People like current things, but we are not a news site, we are an encyclopedia, which doesn't put emphasis on the current situation over the history. Fram (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Why do you focus on undeveloped articles to forumlate an argument against such sections? Calgary Flames, Derry City F.C. and France national rugby union team are three FAs that show that in a fully developed article the roster takes up only a small segment of the article. Resolute 16:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • This is something that I have have wondered about too, and would support the removal of this information. Listing the current squad gives undue weight to recent events. An additional problem with this that articles on lower-level teams and those outside the anglosphere don't always get updated when squads change, so in many cases we are presenting outdated, inaccurate, information. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I support the removal of this information as well. No reason to put the Baltimore Orioles roster if 2010 Baltimore Orioles season has this information, and as you suggest, this is the correct place to put it. — Timneu22 · talk 12:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The current roster is listed on team articles because that is the roster the average reader would be most interested in. For top level teams, historical rosters are (or should be) available on the season article for that team. The section is neither undue weight nor recentism as it comprises only one part of an article that is overwhelmingly historical information. In many cases, it is the only part of a team article that discusses the team in the present tense. Resolute 16:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I can buy, perhaps, that the current roster should display on teams without season-by-season articles. But for other articles, why not (if you must have the section) just link to the current season article? — Timneu22 · talk 16:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Most articles do both, and I don't see an issue with that. Resolute 16:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that prominently displaying the current roster is undue and recentism -- but I probably wouldn't remove it unless another article contains that information. Frankly, if I'm looking up a sports team, it's not because I want to know who the current players are; I'm probably looking for history, or the reputation they've built over the long-term. That is, I care about Navy Midshipmen football#Rivalries, not "list of current players". A prominent list of current players seems more like a fansite than an encyclopedia entry. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Different readers will have different desires, and I think many do find the rosters valuable. Certainly I find the roster useful as a reader. And, if you look at any FA, the roster his hardly prominent. Resolute 16:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal on three grounds. Firstly, because Wikipedia isn't just an encyclopedia, it also has aspects of an almanac. The latest edition of any sports almanac is going to include the most recent roster for a sports team. That Wikipedia is not paper allows us the luxury of including the most up-to-date roster in a way that a print sports almanac cannot. Doing away with that advantage is a bad idea.
Secondly, keeping the current roster on the main article page is a reader-friendly benefit. A reader wanting to find information on a team is most likely going to search for the main team page, not a subpage on a single season. To keep a single, central location where readers can find this info is of benefit to these readers. Remember, Wikipedia is written for the reader, not the editor.
Thirdly, and most importantly, the inclusion of current rosters across thousands of pages covering a wide variety of team sports that have been written and edited by thousands of users tells me one thing. The consensus already exists to include them, and that consensus has wide support. Any decision here to remove them would necessarily suffer from a case of WP:CONLIMITED, and any attempt to enforce that decision would be against the wide consensus to include rosters.
And before someone demands a link to the discussion, remember not all consensuses are the product of specific talk page discussions. And the idea that somehow a single talk page discussion between a few editors automatically trumps the common practice of thousands of editors is a ridiculous notion that I reject. In short, what a large group do far outweighs what a small group says when it comes to determining actual common practice. oknazevad (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I would have to oppose this. I would say the average reader if they are doing a search on a team are looking for information on the current version of the team. As such the current roster should be on the first page they hit. It is far from recentism because on most developed articles, the Calgary Flames article pointed to above for example, shows that it only takes a small portion of the article and if anything it balances out the historical information. -DJSasso (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Readers of Wikipedia, according to the most used searchs and most visited articles, are looking mostly for news, porn, and pop culture trivia, which are three things Wikipedia is not meant to be used for. What the readers want is not the guiding principle behind what we offer. Yes, obviously on larger articles it takes up a smaller portion, but there it isn't needed since usually we have a season article as well, for many seasons, so people can see the roster for every (or many) seasons, not just the current one. But on the many smaller articles, they are a case of undue weight and recentism, but many sports projects and editors insist that they must be added to articles. There is no reason to do this. People used the "almanac" element, but an almanac is published for a specific year (and yearly): we don't include high water tables for sea port cities either, even though these could (can?) be found in almanacs as well. We don't include the best period to plant your tomatoes in your country, even though that as well was included in farmer almanacs.

The argument is also given that because it has been done like this in the past, and because many articles follow the example and rule presented by the projects, this means that the consensus is clear. This is obviously a fallacy, we have to continue this because we always did it before. Using that argument, nothing will ever change. Of course this won't be decided with some small discussion here, this was just a way to check whether I was the only one who felt this way or not. It is clear that that isn't the case, although more people who have reacted here support the inclusion. Fram (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are mixing up a sports almanac with a farmers almanac which is not the same thing. SPorts almanacs focuses on both current and past information. One of the most important attributes of a sports team is its players, listing its current players is not recentism, its called being up to date. Just like you would list the current head of state on a country article etc. -DJSasso (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The argument was given that the current squad is acceptable because we have elements of an almanac as well, in addition to being an encyclopedia. I gave examples of typical almanac entries, which are not and should not be included on Wikipedia. What does it matter that it is a different almanac? Or are only elements from sporting almanacs allowed for some reason? And I think that the current head of state for any state is a notable person, the current squad for many team articles here is a list of non notable persons. The sports article guidelines for many sports, and current practice, doesn't even make the distinction between a list of notable current players, and a list of non notable persons (e.g. for teams that used to play at the highest level, but are currently far down the leagues). What is the prupose of the list of eternal redlinks at K. Racing Waregem? Those at Buckie Thistle F.C. or ARC (football club)? Fram (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like your issue is with WP:NSPORTS, not the current squad lists.oknazevad (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I did oppose NSports (and have improved it as well, as it had some improbably broad criteria), but in this case, it is not really a problem with NSports I have. I believe that often the clubs should have an article, but that the current squad shouldn't be included: in general, they are giving too much weight to the current situation for no good encyclopedic (i.e. permanent) reason; and for the more minor teams, they are a list of (mainly) non notable persons, so they don't even serve a navigational purpose. Fram (talk) 07:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
No, but so long as they are being maintained, they serve an informational purpose, and last I checked, that was the point of Wikipedia. The roster is a notable aspect of a team - one of the most notable, in fact. Your entire argument of undue weight is a complete waste - you solve that by expanding the article, not deleting content. Resolute 14:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
We could hardly include 50 or 100 squads for those teams, could we? Just try it one article, and look how long it takes before it gets removed. Fram (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Irrelevant argument. We are discussing the value of current rosters, and you are not so dense as not to understand what I am referring to by the need to expand such articles. Resolute 18:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Not an irrelevant argument at all. You claimed that "The roster is a notable aspect of a team - one of the most notable, in fact." Apparently, you mean that only the current roster is a notable aspect, but a former roster isn't. If that is indeed your argument, then that goes against Wikipedia policies: notability, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is not temporary, so what is notable now is notable next year and next decade just as much. Fram (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding and disruptive editing?[edit]

Crossposted to WP:AN/I

  • I collapsed this, it's at ANI and ArbCom. Fences&Windows 00:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyrights are harmful to Wikipedia[edit]

Resolved

The government has greatly hindered our encyclopedia. Because of them, millions of useful images have to be deleted from the encyclopedia, and we have to always be careful not to quote too much text from any source, except for those that have agreed to copyleft their stuff, or are so old that the copyright has expired. Pure wiki deletion was rejected largely because of concerns about copyvios and libel lawsuits, and Inclupedia is probably going to be rejected for the same reason. Fuck the government. Isn't there some way to escape the long arm of the law, much as The Pirate Bay did? Tisane talk/stalk 04:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. Law is law. Failing to comply with the law is failing to comply with the law. Breaching the law is breaching the law. Breaching the law only get wmf in trouble. Also, please be civil. Kayau Voting IS evil 04:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Theoretically, the law can't be broken with impunity. In practice, I just downloaded a free copy of Windows XP yesterday from my peers and suffered no repercussions, which proves it can be done. And not only can I do it, but it's going on all over the world on a massive scale, and the authorities haven't been able to stop it. Warez-sharing used to be somewhat centralized, in that you had to find a pirate BBS, get access to it, and download their stuff, and one snitch could bring the whole thing down, because the owner's house could easily be located via a reverse lookup on his BBS's phone number. Then we switched to Napster, but that got shut down. So now we just use torrents, and we're untouchable. There must be a way to decentralize encyclopedia-building without sacrificing the benefits of centralization; it will just take some creativity. Don't feel confined by manmade statutes whose enforcement conflicts with sound ethical principles. Think outside the box; it's the only way to defeat the State. Tisane talk/stalk 05:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me, Tisane, but don't forget about internet censorship. If WP breaches the law, the government would just block it. Kayau Voting IS evil 05:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Which government? Roger (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Whichever government whose law WP breaks, obviously. :) Kayau Voting IS evil 12:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Most probably this one LMAO! Roger (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure there's a story behind this, so what is it? --Golbez (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Not all of the laws that we have to follow here conflict with ethical principles, unless of course your ethical system includes almost no personal rights. Personally, I think that people who have not tried to publicize themselves should have some right to privacy, and all people should have the right to not be defamed in public, regardless of whether or not libel laws exist. Intellectual property laws are supposed to be a compromise between the good of society and the protection of creative enterprise (though ATM, its not very well balanced in the US). Why should people/companies bother to do work to make something new, when they can just wait for someone else to do it, then copy it for free? Before the internet became widely used, did you shoplift software disks or music tapes? Why is it only okay if you're not stealing a physical object? Not everything can be done well through the crowdsourcing method.
Just because you got away with it on one occasion doesn't mean that everyone does and always will. Most people can get away with speeding on a regular basis too, that doesn't mean you're never going to drive by the cop who's having a bad day and decides to take it out on you or that your city won't start putting up speed cameras. It is naïve to think that enforcement will never catch up.
As to the question, I don't really think there is a way to decentralize Wikipedia without losing the benefits of centralization. The main benefit is that there is a center. The WMF does all the behind-the-scenes work and provides the authoritative version of the project. Mr.Z-man 01:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I've actually thought about this quite a bit, and the "authoritative version" is the biggest thing that we as a project offer. A decentralized effort to write an encyclopedia couldn't prevent vandalism, because the vandals could promulgate their vandalized version as easily as the unvandalized version - never mind things like nationalist faultlines that could develop into two competing versions of the article on, say, Gibraltar. What we offer over a theoretical decentralized project is, essentially, an anti-badness filter. That's not an attempt to crap on the actual writing of the actual encyclopedia - if we didn't have one, there would be nothing to vandalize, so the matter would be moot - but my point is that a centralized project can offer reduced badness and a decentralized project will never be able to do so. Gavia immer (talk) 01:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
@Mr.Z-Man: One of the problems with intellectual property is that it interferes with one's rights over one's physical property. For instance, suppose I own a factory, and you patent a certain production method. I would have had a right to use that method until you patented it, but now I must use a potentially suboptimal method until I either get you to license me your method, or your patent expires. Further, I can't create derivative works of your process unless you either give me permission or your patent runs out, which can hinder technological advancement. The same problems associated with derivative works apply to copyright. We had to suffer with Windows Vista's bugs because no one was allowed to fix the bugs on their own and distribute their modified copies. The copylefted Ubuntu Linux blows Microsoft's products out of the water, which I think is empirical evidence of the superiority of anti-copyright as a policy.
Wikia differed from Ubuntu in that it didn't try hard enough to produce a quality product. They had every incentive to; even without copyright, they have the ability to make money off their centralized wiki system. But incompetence and bad decisions can occur under any economic system. Actually, though, I think Wikia's main problem is its failure to integrate adequately with Wikipedia. They just haven't had the strategic vision to see why it's necessary and implement it. Tisane talk/stalk 19:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
You do realize that Wikia has nothing to do with the Wikimedia foundation, right?oknazevad (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
That's kind of the point of intellectual property. Why should I potentially spend millions of dollars developing some advanced method, just to allow everyone else to use it for free? Lack of IP laws is a much bigger disincentive to development than the existence of them. Novelty requirements prevent people from patenting things that they didn't actually invent. The alternative to patents is trade secrets. And as companies like Coca-Cola show, secrets can be kept for much longer than patents last. As for copyrights and software, not all software companies can operate under the Linux/MySQL model, where the software is free, but people (mainly companies) can buy service (though Canonical Ltd. isn't actually profitable right now). If there's no way you can sell support (pretty much anything that isn't targeted at companies or rich people), then you have to rely solely on donations or sneak advertising in your product (Mozilla gets 85% of its funding by making Google the default search engine in Firefox). Mr.Z-man 22:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
You may have a point about trade secrets. Even the radical libertarian community hasn't figured out whether and how trade secrets should be protected. Tisane talk/stalk 04:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why the Inclupedia proposal will be refused due to copyright concerns, unless you're planning to systematically use copyrighted material with no fair use justification. So that's a red herring. And if your proposal ignores the risk of libelling people, it deserves to fail. Don't just rant and complain because people have raised objections. If you want to set up another project to create an encyclopedia that doesn't operate according to US law, then the Internet is that way -->. Fences&Windows 16:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't rant and complain because people have raised objections; I rant and complain because the government forcibly imposes unjust laws that then interfere with encyclopedia-building. In such situations, some options include taking it up with the government, evading the law ("If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it" applied to meatspace laws), and complying with the law. Sometimes evading an unjust law is viable and preferable to other options, and sometimes it isn't. Copyright has been a steady nuisance to me for as long as I've been on Wikipedia (scores of perfectly good "fair use" images, mostly screenshots, that I uploaded were tagged by BetacommandBot and removed, not because they were illegal but because people were afraid they might be illegal), and BLP occasionally so. The encyclopedia is probably not as good as it would be if we operated in a totally free market, but it will have to do for now, I guess. I'm done venting for the moment. In retrospect, VPM probably isn't the best place to vent about public policy, as if affects Wikipedia. I probably should have taken it to the Mises blog. Mainstream society still overwhelmingly supports intellectual property. Tisane talk/stalk 04:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I think "unjust" is in the eye of the beholder. To begin with, the requirement for copyright is enshrined in the US Constitution. It's not something just arbitrarily decided on by a whim. Secondly, why should anyone bother to create any work, such as a photograph, a film, or a book, if they know that they won't get compensation for it? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that modern copyright, particularly its outrageous term length, does substantially stifle our efforts to construct a free encyclopedia. However, even if we could find a location where we could violate copyright with impunity, there would be little value in building a "free" encyclopedia that no other party but WMF can legally distribute. Moreover, it is in the interest of our reputation to avoid damaging the income of authors and artists by freely distributing that work while they are still trying to effectively monetize it. Dcoetzee 02:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Placque on bridge as a source?[edit]

Schuylkill Permanent Bridge, (1801-1875).

This placque on the current Market Street Bridge (Philadelphia) illustrates the first bridge on Market Street (Philadelphia) over the Schuylkill River, and gives the history of subsequent bridges. Can the plaque be used as a source? If so, how do I provide an inline citation? This is just one instance of places where placques on bridges or other structures provide historical information difficult to locate elsewhere. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Plaque. No "c". It's a source, seems OK to use though using a more recent source might be better. You could cite it like this:<ref>[[:File:Phila Market Street Bridge00.png|Plaque on the Market Street Bridge]], [http://www.philart.net/content.php?id=11 Philadelphia Public Art]</ref>, linking to both the image and a website that also carries the inscription. Fences&Windows 00:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
See Template:Cite signGeni 11:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, whaddya know. Fences&Windows 21:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
See User:Gadget850/Citation templates. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Template is very helpful, but what about copyright? Perhaps I just cite the sign, without actually providing a photo of it. Specifically, there is a very informative sign under the Columbia Railroad Bridge which provides just about all I know about the bridge, or the two earlier bridges at the same location.

Example:Columbia Bridge (Sign). Under the bridge along West River Drive, near Montgomery Drive: Fairmount Park Commission. 07-01-2006.  Unknown parameter |distributor= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)

White or Caucasian?[edit]

White or Caucasian? when both descriptive adjectives are used by sources in an article. Is there a reason to choose one over the other? patsw (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Is the term used to describe the person's skin colour, or their race? –xenotalk 16:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not a medical article on skin, if that's the point of your question. The context is race. patsw (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Then I would probably say "Caucasian" because "white" is not a race. However, there are caveats at the article as to the evolution and current status of the term. –xenotalk 18:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The term Caucasian is not used in Britain very much at all. "White" (eg. White-British) is considered an ethnicity in some contexts. So WP:ENGVAR has a little sway here - I think there was something on the Ref Desk about the use of the term. Of course, we could use it if we wanted to, if there were some point to be made (eg. below) on the implications. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 18:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
My opinion is that if the context is more narrowly racial/biological/genetic, we should use "Caucasian", whereas if the context is culture, and/or socially constructed race (or, inevitably, a mix of those two and also some biology) you should go with "white". I.e., we should prefer "white culture", "white supremacy", "white guilt" to "Caucasian-". I would also suggest that if a source self-defines one way or the other, that is at least some small reason to use the same nomenclature. -Leonard (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes it's probably better to use "Caucasian" to distinguish from other ethnic groups of fair skinned peoples, such as the Ainu people.—RJH (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)