Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board

Click here to add a new request.

Wikipedia talk:Persons known for one higher profile event

Almost weekly, there are AFDs about a person known for only one event but that event receives much coverage. The RS and BLP1E rules conflict. Clearer direction as to what should be included is discussed.

DYK Nomination Criteria

Recently, due to a considerably large amount of DYK submissions and differing views on a particular criteria for exclusion, a discussion has begun regarding ways to alleviate these issues, located in the Discussion page of DYK. Currently, the time DYK's appear on the main page has been reduced from 6 hours to 4 hours, and I believe at one point there were 9 DYK's in the main page box (please remove if this was not true). Solutions have ranged from the method of counting the characters for a new article (which is currently 1500), filtering out "boring" hooks, imposing stricter limitations on the use of fiction-related articles, as well as some other ideas. It seems nothing has been definitively decided at this point, and as a larger group (some Wikiproject members these changes would affect may have been asked to give input) discusses these issues, I believe we needed to move the conversation out of the talk page and into a larger area, as well as receive input from users who are not working the DYK switches. - Theornamentalist (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC for Talk:Ugg boots

I am requesting comment from the Wikipedia community on how to proceed. I suggest that it is a violation of WP:WEIGHT (and, therefore, WP:NPOV) to cite a newspaper article strongly biased in favor of Australian manufacturers 11 times in the mainspace, while excluding or minimizing content based on several other reliable sources that are more neutral. We have a unique legal question regarding intellectual property law: whether a generic term, used to overturn established trademarks in one or two countries, can not only have its own WP article but exclude material about trademark disputes and counterfeiting in other countries, where the generic term itself has been unsuccessfully used as a defense by trademark infringers and counterfeiters. The motive appears to be removal of material that is inconvenient for Australian manufacturers.

I have compared the Budweiser series of articles. The term "Budweiser" referred to someone or something that came from Budweis, a city that was then German (now part of the Czech Republic, České Budějovice). Like "ugg boots," the generic term existed long before the brand had been registered as a trademark by Anheuser-Busch. Over half of that article is devoted to trademark disputes. Yes, Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch), as well as Anheuser-Busch, are separate articles and there's a disambiguation hatnote at Budweiser. But this is a precedent that should be used to guide us in shaping this article. Regarding the lede, when a brand of boot goes from $14.5 million a year in 1995 to $100 million a year in 2004, that is very noteworthy. It belongs in the lede and it doesn't take up a lot of space. The federal judge's description of this growth as "exponential" is colorful language not normally used by a judge; I think that should be used in the lede as well.

There's a large number of neutral reliable sources that have been excluded entirely, while sources favorable to the Australians take up the first 2/3 of this article.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] There are also abundant decisions in arbitration.Australian Aura[10][11][12][13][14][15] In "depth of detail, quantity of text, [and] prominence of placement," a WP:WEIGHT violation is clear.

I am also concerned about the possible WP:COI of the many Australian and New Zealander editors here and at Deckers Outdoor Corporation. One of them, an Australian WP administrator, has admitted direct contact with the lead Australian manufacturer in litigation to cancel the "UGG" trademark in an Australian court decision. This admin contacted the company directly, entered the factory, took photographs of their products and production facilities, and put them into this article. The possibility that one or more of these editors is a paid marketing employee of one (or more) of the Australian manufacturers cannot be ignored. Their actions, in contacting the manufacturers and editing this mainspace, speak louder than words on the article's Talk page. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Environment and sexual orientation - Family influences

There is a dispute whether to observe the rules of Wikipedia recommendations such as WP:MEDRS requiring to respect secondary sources, summarize scientific consensus, use up-to-date evidence. These recommendations are undisputed by owerhelming majority of Wikipedians and I see now reason why need to wait for editorial consensus on Talk page on self-evident issue just because there are intentional POV of one or two editors. --Destinero (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)