Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss existing and proposed policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new other than a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.

« Archives, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195

Sexual orientation of non-heterosexual celebrities

Apparently, Wikipedia has a policy of mentioning the sexual orientation of celebrities who are known to be non-heterosexual. But celebrities known to be heterosexual/straight do not appear to have this information included.

While I can understand that heterosexuality is of little interest to anyone — what makes the other sexualities more interesting and more worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia?

There are many personal details about celebrities that most people would surely consider irrelevant to their public status, and unnecessary of inclusion in Wikipedia, such as their shoe size, hair colour, left-handedness, weight, race, etc. I don't see why their sexual preferences are any more relevant.

It may be relevant if the celebrity's sex life, or sexuality itself, are of particular relevance to their celebrity status or somehow feature in their work. In which case, the disclosure of their sexuality should surely be mentioned in relation to that, rather than in isolation.

So, rather than saying:

"Sarah is openly gay."

The article should say:

"Sarah is openly gay, her homosexuality playing a large part of her humour and often being the subject of public attention."

If the celebrity's homosexuality (or bisexuality) isn't actually relevant to their fame at all, it surely need not be specifically mentioned:

"Sarah has had numerous girlfriends, some of whom have appeared on the show with her." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grand Dizzy (talk • contribs) 22:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've always found this interesting, especially since there are no categories for straight people, but there are GLBTs. Perhaps its because heterosexuality is deemed "the norm", and not being "normal" is notable enough to discuss. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 22:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. How one perceives the whole issue aside, "I'm gay" simply carries more notability than "I'm straight" in most cases (a gay man suddenly saying the latter might be an exception). It might be a different story when the media dismisses it as commonplace. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We make mentions of people who were adopted (Category:Adoptees and its well-populated sub-categories) even when that fact has little signifiance to the subject's notability. We don't make mention of people who were not adopted, nor do we say that a politician won the majority of votes in their district, etc. In these cases, we are making a note when someone deviates from the norm. Most people are not adopted. Most politicans get a majority of votes. It's the case where there's an exception (e.g. Bush 2000) where it becomes of note. No value judgement is made. We aren't saying Adopted people are better or worse, and nor does the placement of someoe in a category imply much of anything. Yes, heterosexuality is considered the norm. But that's just the defintion of normal. 90-99% of the population (depending on where you take your figures. Demographics of sexual orientation notes that range, saying that there's a mean of about 95-96%) is heterosexual. That's the norm. Without having to make any value judgements at all, an attribute of someone who lies two standard deviations from the mean is generally worth mention. Heterosexuality is the norm. We can go for ages about why that is (i.e. biological or cognative), but at the end of the day, it is "normal" or "typical" to be heterosexual. --Ybbor^Talk 03:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

BLP's for heterosexuals often note that they are married, have children (and sometimes give ages and even names of issue) which rarely has any impact on the subjects notability. Obviously the phrase "heterosexual" itself doesn't appear, but the orientation is obvious - and as irrelevant. LessHeard vanU 12:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Dude, Oscar Wilde was married and had children... SamBC(talk) 16:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

We have no such policy that strictly forbids or allows it. Its just standard practice combined with a few other policies. If a celebrity comes out as being gay, that fact would probably make the cover of every celebrity magazine and would be widely circulated on the internet. If a celebrity issues a press release saying that they are straight, the media is going to say "Who cares?" There just really aren't any sources that specifically mention things about celebrities that are considered "normal" - people wouldn't pay to read it so People isn't going to report it. If there are almost no sources saying something about someone, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to mention it in their article. If there are a lot of sources, then apparently people consider that to be a significant fact and we should probably include it. Mr.Z-man 18:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

To Sambc, indeed - but it isn't relevant to Wildes notability other than an example of Victorian morality, whereas his homosexuality did effect both his work and his life. To Mr.Z-man, but the same celebrity lifestyle magazines are full of straight celebrities personal lives regarding girl/boyfriends, engagements and marriages; it is simply an assumption of heterosexuality rather than the publicising of it.LessHeard vanU 21:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

But we can't use info like X is married to Y to source statements like X and Y are heterosexual. That would be synthesis. Mr.Z-man 05:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't synthesies, we often simply state that X is/was married to Y - and allow the reader to draw the conclusions. That said, X being married to Y is rarely of any consequence to the notability of the parties concerned. LessHeard vanU 12:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the determination to mention someone's sexual orientation should be made on a case-by-case basis. For celebrities, public figures, and historical figures, their sexual orientation could well be relevant, particularly if they are LGBT in an oppressive era or geographic location, or if they were closeted. If a public or historical figure was hiding something, that's usually interesting. It's also interesting if they are a role model because of their sexuality, or if they themselves have spoken about their sexuality. Like it or not, LGBT identity is more notable than straight identity, because we're in a historic period where LGBT issues are controversial and widely talked about. Plus, (1) LGBT people want LGBT role models, and (2) straight people are fascinated with LGBT identity.

For some people, however, it's just not really germane to the article. For example, who cares if an obscure Nobel Prize winner in physics or chemistry is gay? They are only notable because of the prize they won and for their scientific work. How is their sexual orientation relevant or even interesting? Another example might be authors who are not public figures. If someone is otherwise obscure and private, and is known only for their work or some notable event that has nothing to do with LGBT issues, I don't see how sexual orientation or identity is relevant or interesting.

On another point, I've always been bothered by statements that so-and-so are "openly gay", since we would never say someone is "openly straight". If the subject of an article is gay, and that fact is worth noting for some reason, then let's just say that they are "gay", "lesbian", "bisexual", or "asexual", etc. In the case of closeted living people, we can't comment on their sexuality, so for any mention of sexuality of living people, "openly" is a given, so why say it? For dead people, it may very well be relevant that a person was closeted, since that fact and their sexuality was likely very important to that person and those around him or her. But while we might comment that a dead person was in the closet, I don't see any need to ever use the term "openly gay", as if being open about your sexuality is something unusual. COGDEN 18:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As has been said before - part of the opportunity is that in other areas we mention that someone is or is not something, and expect the reader to conclude if we don't mention that they are either the other way inclined or of no public position on the issue - we don't for instance have many white people categories, but we are pretty equal on male/female cats. I think part of the advantage of using the category is that in part it is driven by the GLBT editors and community itself to recognise how normal the whole issue is, and that its OK to be gay - lets be honest, there is still unfortunatly homophobia in the world. Part of the brief of Wikipedia is to educate, and for that reason in this case I don't think we need a tag which relates to some form of openly hetrosexual - the tags and volumes of diverse people within the GLBT cats highlight just how normal the whole issue is. On your second (implied) point of how we write the sexuality in to the article, I think its best left to an article by article conclusion/debate - but unless the subject has said "hey, I'm openly gay" then using such a term in their article would seem NPOV. Rgds, - Trident13 23:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

So we say that Dumbledore is simply "a closeted gay", rather than making a big, perverted fuss about it. Right?~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 23:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"Names and titles" out of sync with our normal naming conventions

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) advises editors to:

“ Pre-emptively disambiguate the names of monarchs, of modern countries in the format "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". Examples: Edward I of England; Alfonso XII of Spain; Henry I of France. ”

This runs counter to our basic naming conventions, namely "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". I've seen no argument as to why this special style is necessary, and it produces silliness such as Victoria of the United Kingdom instead of Queen Victoria, William I, German Emperor instead of Kaiser Wilhelm I, Mary I of Scotland instead of Mary, Queen of Scots, and so on. Where there is no "common name", using this system might be reasonable, but the way it is enforced right now defies common sense. Separately, it disregards our normal style of disambiguation; even John (King of England) is a person I can more readily identify than John of England, which sounds like some kind of loo.--Father Goose 21:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Create redirects from the name you think they should have. That should solve your problems. Corvus cornix 21:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The redirects are already there. The point is, why do we call Queen Victoria "Victoria of the United Kingdom"? We don't have Tony Blair point to Tony Blair, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; Queen Victoria should simply be Queen Victoria.--Father Goose 22:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Queen", "King", "Kaiser", etc. are not part of a person's proper name, but the title of their office; thus, not used per WP:NAMEPEOPLE. The current system may not result in the most common names applied to some monarchs, but it is a standard that can be applied to all articles on monarchs and provides the least confusing way to disambiguate (for example, between "Queen Victoria" of the UK and the former and future "Queen Victoria" of Sweden). It is also the closest approximation to the usual form of <First name><Last name> for monarchs (most of whom do not have commonly used surnames). --BlueMoonlet 22:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Nearly all monarchs are known as "King", "Queen", "Empress", etc. That is the name by which they are most widely known. To say "it isn't part of the person's proper name" is to miss the point of our naming conventions: to place the article where most people will look. --Tony Sidaway 22:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the present naming convention seems a bit daft. Nobody in the world talks of "Victoria of the United Kingdom". You'll find Victoria; Queen Victoria; Victoria, Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (etc etc). Without wanting to jump on BlueMoonlet, I must say that "Queen" "King" etc are not titles of office, they are hereditary titles, and as much their name as anyone else's surnames. Lord Peter Wimsey is just that, and cannot be correctly or politely called something else. Kings and queens, like dukes and earls, can have their title follow their name, so we can have "John, King of England", as well as "King John" or "King John of England". Secondly, Wikipedia's inconsistency is displayed in your example ofVictoria, Crown Princess of Sweden. Why will she become Victoria of Sweden rather than Victoria, Queen of Sweden? Gwinva 23:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The general naming convention is to use a non-disambiguated page name for subjects that are very strongly associated with that name, even when there are other subjects associated with it -- thus, Moon belongs to Luna, not Moon (disambiguation) (with a hatnote provided at the top of the "main" article). And even Queen Victoria right now goes to Victoria of the United Kingdom, not Queen Victoria (disambiguation). We have existing, sensible, working standards for naming and disambiguation, and WP:NCNT ignores them.

The instruction in WP:NAMEPEOPLE is "don't add qualifiers (such as "King", "Saint", "Dr.", "(person)", "(ship)"), except when this is the simplest and most NPOV way to deal with disambiguation". I'd say Queen Victoria matches that exception perfectly. We have perfectly good existing standards for naming and disambiguation, and WP:NCNT should not undercut them.--Father Goose 23:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. And what's wrong with normal Wikipedia style Queen Victoria (United Kingdom) or Queen Victoria (Sweden) when disambiguation is required? --207.176.159.90 01:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me take the other side of this debate for a moment. The idea of this style seems to make sense, for example you would never use the name Dr. Robert Jarvik for the guy that invented the Artificial Heart, you use Robert Jarvik; titles should not be used like that. Secondly, and more importantly, preemptively disambiguating a name in certain cases, such as monarch names, is an expediant and a GOOD use of WP:IAR if there ever was one. Like, for example, cities in the U.S., where there may be dozens of each name, and so the articles always include the State name as a matter of course, there are likely to be many monarchs with the same name. Take for example King Henry IV, there have been no less than 3 Henry IV's which I can count among the best known monarchs of their office; The English, French, and Holy Roman Emporer are all exceedingly well known as to be equal in stature, as well there are multiple lesser Henry IV's, some of which have articles already, while some may not. Indeed, there are often so many monarchs of a name, that it seems to require more work to "undisambiguate" those few cases where a single monarch has that name. The naming convention works, it allows for the entire class of articles to use the same naming convention, which seems logical to me; why do we need half a dozen or so monarchs with a differently named article from the other hundred? For the sake of consistency, why not let ALL have the same style name of "Name # of Country" and let that be it. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The basic naming convention dictates Robert Jarvik not Dr. Robert Jarvik because the "Dr." is unnecessary. The exact same thing is true of "of England" in most cases.

Just "Victoria", however, is ambiguous; that's why she's referred to in the real world as "Queen Victoria" -- and if you say that name, people will generally think of the UK queen, not the Swedish one. Now, as you point out, there's multiple well-known kings by the name Henry IV as well as a Shakespeare two-parter, which is why Henry IV goes to a disambiguation page. The basic policy is we only disambiguate when we have to. What WP:NCNT has created instead is Henry VIII, Richard the Lionheart (aka Richard I), Edward VII, Louis XIV, Elizabeth II, and dozens more not needing disambiguation being redirected to "pre-emptively disambiguated" page titles. It is WP:NCNT that needs to be ignored, and in fact dethroned, because it ignores the basic naming policy, which works much better.--Father Goose 04:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Presumably you mean Henry VIII of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, Richard I of Aquila, and Elizabeth II of Bohemia? ;-) Kirill 05:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Consistancy would seem to trump the basic naming convention hear, and that is the MAIN part of my arguement. MOST monarch articles will need disambiguation, and thus to have undisambiguated titles for the small minority that need them seems to be unnecessary. We should not be blindly adhering to a guideline against common sense, and that is why the most important guideline, in this one case, is WP:IAR. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Back up that claim that "most monarch titles will need disambiguation". Looking through the lists of monarchs, I'm seeing more monarch pages that are needlessly disambiguated than ones that need it. We have absurdities like William I of England instead of William the Conqueror and hundreds of examples of Isabella II of Spain and Ivan III of Russia when we could just have Isabella II or Ivan III. Regarding IAR and common sense, I don't know if we're in disagreement or not. Calling the Queen Victoria article Queen Victoria is common sense, isn't it? And even more so if most monarchs do not need disambiguated names? I fear the person who came up with WP:NCNT had porphyria. Let's end this madness already.--Father Goose 08:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it was actually Richard I of Capua. And not everyone knows that the English kings in question were called "Conqueror" and "Lionheart". There is a case for titles being descriptive enough to tell people what is being referred to. Thus you have William I of England instead of William the Conqueror of England. Similarly, 1356 Basel earthquake, as opposed to Basel earthquake. Sometimes it is OK to have a little redundancy in the title at the expense of being informative. Carcharoth 15:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

William I lists 36 different articles. Though the English king MAY BE the best known, he has some good company near the top of this list, including the prominent Dutch king and the equally prominent German Emperor. Isabella II may be a notable exception, as I cannot find another Isabella II, but there are enough Isabellas that may indicate that one of these may be a II or that an Isabella II is out there and just doesn't have an article yet. There are at least 2 Ivan III's, one of Russia being the better known, but also one of Bulgaria as well as several dozen other Ivan monarchs out there. Again, while you CAN find RARE cases where a single name, such as Isabella II might NOT need disambiguation, consistancy would dictate that since MOST prominent monarchs appear to have duplicate names, it makes sense to have the SAME NAMING CONVENTION for all of them. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ivan Asen III is Ivan Asen III. Ivan III is Ivan III. No ambiguity there. If you're looking for other monarchic Ivans, you should be looking at Ivan (name); who the heck looks up Ivan via Emperor John?

You claim that most prominent monarchs have duplicate names. In my survey of Wikipedia's monarch articles, I have found the opposite to be true. Rare cases where monarch names don't need disambiguation? There are hundreds. The need to disambiguate royal names is overstated, and this "pre-emptive" disambiguation approach is based on a fallacy. The end result is, yes, consistent -- consistently bad.--Father Goose 21:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is this discussion going on here instead of at the appropriate Talk page of the MoS? Corvus cornix 17:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess it was to gain wider interest. It could be continued there. Is it the done thing to copy this discussion across, so it remains accessible? Gwinva 22:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It was indeed to gain wider interest. Discussing it at WP:NCNT I imagine it would only attract the attention of those who maintain monarch articles, and my contention is that they created a naming scheme for their own convenience that goes against our general naming conventions, which favor ease of use for readers, not editors.--Father Goose 22:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the argument of titles in the article name, I would never say, "Dr. Richard Jarvik invented the artificial heart", I'd say "Richard Jarvik invented the artificial heart". However, if someone asked me who the Victorian age was named after, I'd say, "Queen Victoria", not "Victoria of the United Kingdom". Charles 04:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Portals

Is there a standard about how important a topic should be to have its own portal? The one I am concerned about is Portal:Scientology. Thanks.Steve Dufour 22:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The information you seek can be found at Wikipedia:Portal. As for the Scientology portal itself, I'd be willing to say that it's a significant enough topic that it could easily support its own portal. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I did check that out. I didn't see anything like a clear standard of what is important enough for its own portal. I disagree about Scientology. It only has about 100,000 members in the world and a history of about 50 years. Steve Dufour 22:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Counted among those 100k members are some very, very prominent members of Hollywood. I'd say that Scientology, though it may lack in numbers, is certainly not suffering from an abundance of reliable coverage in the media, which is more important than raw (and relatively arbitrary) numbers. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of that coverage is a mile wide and an inch deep. :-) Steve Dufour 01:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as the portal isn't being used for propaganda (and it doesn't look like it is), I suggest dropping the matter; we really have better things to do here than to debate what level of media coverage is (somehow) "deep" enough to meet Wikipedia's criteria. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the portal probably doesn't do any harm. I won't bring it up again. However, I think the shallowness of media coverage shows that there is not all that much to say about the topic. Steve Dufour 02:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Because the media is well known for giving deep coverage to ideas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Required registration?

Denise Anthony, Sean Smith, and Tim Williamson's Explaining quality in internet collective goods: zealots and good Samaritans in the case of Wikipedia, page 18: "To deal with the negative impact of this group of contributors Wikipedia has instituted a policy that requires contributors to register after some number of anonymous contributions."

I found this after a post on Slashdot which also linked to a Dartmouth press release: "According to Anthony, Wikipedia now requires that anonymous contributors who make numerous edits must register."

I've never heard of this requirement, and WP:REG and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ#Do I have to register to edit pages? says the opposite. Is this a policy in another language Wikipedia? -- Jeandré, 2007-10-18t11:54z

You might want to post this question at the Wikipedia-wide equivalent of the village pump: m:Metapub. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I know of several anon editors who have made thousands of article edits and have never registered. Everyone can edit is taken seriously. Certain tasks, such as article creation requires a username, and articles may be semi-protected to block vandalism from anonymous sources; however I have never seen or heard of such a policy. The policy at Wikipedia has always been, and hopefully always will be, that "anyone can edit and we mean it." --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have been involved in the things that media reports on you will soon realize they are often wrong. In this case they are wrong, anons do not need to register to continue editing, they are welcome if they behave. I often consider becoming an IP sometime. 1 != 2 18:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Grr, what's the IP of the editor who's made thousands of edits and his talk page is really funny with all of the people begging them to create an account? I can never remember. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And Google comes through: User talk:68.39.174.238. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There are dozens more. There is one guy who has a dynamic IP address in the 150s somewhere who is a very good editor. There are probably a dozen or so IP addresses that are ALL his, and they all have hundreds, if not thousands of contribs on it. There are probably a few hundred dedicated and good users who edit solely by IP address.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the authors are aware of the mistake and have edited the press release (and assumedly will fix the paper in the next go-round). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The overhaul of UC (FD) - Do we need them?

Recently, I nominated Category:Wikipedians for deletion on UCFD, proposing the following rationale:

Nominator's rationale - The test tube nomination - This is no doubt going to raise a few alarms. After all, it would seem unthinkable, frivolous, and perhaps in bad faith to delete the core user category of Wikipedia, and thus throw all forms of self-categorization as comprehended by the Wikipedia community. Yet, this outrageous action does not come with no rationale.

• User categories are redundant - First, the prospect of the user category - in theory - is a fairly versatile and collective idealism. Users group together into a single category with their given knowledge or interest and this will be used to further the collaboration effort on Wikipedia. However, this is redundant to the Wikiproject. User categories are passive while Wikiprojects are active, and people who wish to seek collaboration on interests on an active scale can easily join a Wikiproject. Furthermore, any means of self-identification of interests can be done via userbox or identification on a userpage. If a Wikipedian is actively posting, he or she must therefore sign his or her signature, and a person who wishes to understand the position of this Wikipedian may merely click to the userpage and gather any information, or inquire as such.
• User categories are divisive - Wikipedians are, in fact, divided by user categories. Tensions regarding self-identification with political, religious, social, and sexual issues occur as a result, as previous debates on UCFD have shown in the past. The persistent roundabouts of the deletions of frivolous and potentially heated categories are a testament to this rationale. WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and such. In addition, there are categories present that indicate "notable" or "fantastic" Wikipedians, or those with community valor. There are alternate methods to present these symbols of status than through the user category system.
• User categories are staggering - ...and as a result, their purpose is lost. When you have an intensely large number of user categories in divisions such as Wikipedians by language, Wikipedians by ethnicity, or Wikipedians by location, one can see that it may seem far better to overhaul the user category system or merely provide sufficient indication by userbox/user page notice as a result.
• User categories are red tape - Really, would one actively search through user categories for a Wikipedian skilled in "foo" profession to aid in the construction or improvement of an article? It is more likely than not that the Wikipedian is already working actively on such an article, or it is already part of a Wikiproject.
• Conclusion: User categories need an overhaul, for better or for worse - Let's bring this to light. We need to do something to the user category system. Either an outright deletion, a depopulation, or a compression to something that we can make sense of. You may call me crazy, but I truly believe that something needs to be done to reshape this category.

I withdrew the UCFD later at the request of an administrator, who stated that he was currently in the process of overhauling the system, and that if any deletion was to be done at this level, it would be prudent to do so in a month. Yet consider my above statements; what has the user category system done for us that can be achieved more efficiently and satisfactorily with Wikiprojects, userboxes, user pages, and other Wikipedia think tanks?--WaltCip 22:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, you can share your abilities and knowledge on your userpage, but putting them in categories (which incidentally is automated when you use a userbox), makes it searchable. Having the ubercategory Wikipedians allows us to have a complete list to see what categories are available and deleting that would make the whole thing fall apart. I totally agree that categorization by political preference can be divisive, but that is hardly a reason to delete the top category. Category:Wikipedians itself is not divisive. If this really needs an overhaul, try to get an alternative started, before deleting the current system. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Searchable? In all of my experience on Wikipedia, I have never found myself requiring the user categories. They should be used for strictly administrative purposes. There are people who are proposing the rationale that user categories are for self-identification, and that they are "harmless." If you look at a majority of the user categories that are kept for "collaborative purposes", you will find that the editors inhabiting those categories are in there because it "seems to fit my interests", not because they are a ready source of encyclopedic information. We have active editors for this purpose.
• It's going to take a LONG time to get an effective overhaul started by deleting the categories that identify these Wikipedians by game preference, interest, philosophy, religion, etc., through the UCFD system, because there are no doubt groups of Inclusionists who feel like their personal freedoms are being detached from them. So instead we have to delete everything at once, and start all over again. It's the only way to restore its intended path of efficiency.
• I may be alone in this, but I don't think that just deleting the categories one-by-one is going to work. Look at the recent UCFDs here attempted by jc37 if you don't believe me.--WaltCip 23:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Last time I checked, whatlinkshere was incredibly messy and I'd rather have a alphabetized list, than a haphazard random one. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I was restrained from calling a man a racist

I made a comment regarding American author James A. Michener and his racism. I flat out called him a racist in his wiki article, which last time I checked is accurate, so even if it is incendiary why should the truth be blocked? why should my IP address by flagged for conduct? The man made repeated comments in his own books regarding the inferiority of the black basketball player and their negative impact on the game. What is wrong for calling him out for what he is? If this is somehow wrong please let me know how....yaogrady@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.68.230 (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the circumstances surrounding your block, but Wikipedia has fundamental policies regarding verifiability, reliable sources, and original research. Basically, identifying someone as racist would have to be confirmed by (multiple) reliable, secondary sources and the article would have to reflect a neutral point of view. An editor adding their own opinion to an article calling someone a racist would be reverted on sight. I would hope that our policies would have been explained to you before or after your block, but in case they haven't, there they are. If you'd like to read more, you can take a look at Wikipedia's five pillars. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 06:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The term is generally derogatory, and has become so loaded as to be meaningless.I'd almost entirely avoid using it to label someone on Wikipedia. If they have been widely accused of racism, by all means include that with verifiable sources etc, but Wikipedia should not be a medium with which to actually label people as racists. --Breadandcheese 07:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It's much more useful to actually quote someone, or add text describing their acts (in a neutral way - refused to let blacks eat at their restaurant, charged them twice as much for X, whatever), plus text saying that Z (a reputable person or source) said that they'd been accused (or were) racist, and let the reader decide for him/herself. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The user was warned, not blocked. The comment he/she added is unsourced and utterly without context - basically "is a racist" to the first sentence of the article lead. Michener plunged head first into matters of race in his writings, and did so from the point of view of a mainstream white American male who was trying to be fair. As far as I'm aware he succeeded for the most part. Not everything he wrote in his 50-odd year writing career would be the way people say things today. That's hardly racist. By that standard nearly everyone who wrote anything 50 years ago is a racist. Although it might be worthy of an article somewhere on the changing norms and attitudes about race, we can't have editors going about slapping unsourced "is a racist" comments to the opening lines of biography articles. That is, or is very close to, the Wikipedia definition of vandalism, and the warning is in my opinion correct. Keep doing that and you shoudl be blocked from editing until you understand the policies. However, if there is truly a well-documented controversy about his comments on race, that might warrant a short mention, properly researched and cited, somewhere near the end of the article. Wikidemo 14:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, a former Indian foreign minister thought he was. Relata refero 18:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

At which point the verified quote can be attributed to that person within the article, but not as a blanket statement in the lead in sentance.144.15.255.227 21:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, 50 years ago, thinks were really different from know, and so were the people's opinions. As it is such an old case, I think you should not worry about it so much. If only it would have been recent, aye, but it wasn't. -The Bold Guy- 14:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Changing a guideline to a policy

Hello everyone! How does one (or in this case a group) go about trying to change a guideline into a policy? We at WikiProject Accessibility are using the guideline laid down at WP:ACCESS as our basis for making articles more accessible, but individual editors have reported problems with other users reverting their edits and claiming they need to be discussed on the talk page because WP:ACCESS is a guideline. Only in very rare cases are we actually removing content, so obviously this is getting to be a hindrance. Do you folks have any suggestions? Thanks, L'Aquatique ^talktome 18:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)!

Could you give us some examples of these reverts? I'd like to know the nature of the problem.--Father Goose 22:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it hasn't happened to me, I'm just the temp spokesperson. I'll see if I can get one of the editors who've reported it to drop by here and give details. L'Aquatique ^talktome 05:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sometimes I encounter opposition from some editors wrt my accessibility changes. But it must be said that I usually fix the accessibility problems of any page I read, therefore, although in some cases I return to consult that article again discovering that somebody has reverted my changes, I don't usually monitor my edits so I don't really know whether they survive. Some reverts I remember are [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. It seems that not every edits were caused by a direct disagreement with the WP:ACCESS, but sometimes they are, see the follwing discussion: [10]. Cheers —surueña 11:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I see two issues here. The first is that the edits you link to were not discussed on the various article talk pages... so simply reverting them is a natural reaction to what is seen as "fly-by" editing. When editors who regularly work on a given article see sudden undiscussed structural changes, there is a natural tendancy to revert the change back to what is familiar. The solution to this is to first raise the issues of accessability on the talk page, and then conform the page to WP:ACCESS. If that is too cumbersome, at least you could reply to the revert on the talk page and explain why you made the edit. You may find that editors are more receptive to your edits if you give some explanation of why the edits are needed and what WP:ACCESS is all about. The second issue is whether the pages needed to be conformed at all... I don't really see any reason to force articles into conformity with WP:ACCESS, which is what making it a policy would do. As I see it, WP:ACCESS is great as a guideline, but it doesn't need to be policy. Blueboar 13:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand those reactions, in fact I always write onto the edit log the rationale behind those changes pointing to a specific section of the accessibility guidelines [11] [12] [13] [14] to explain why we are making those changes. But sometimes that's not enough and that's our point in asking how to convert WP:ACCESS into an official Wikipedia policy. And we really believe enforcing the accessibility rules are very important in the Wikipedia. As can be read in the mission statements of the World Wide Web Consortium [15] [16] the Universal access to the web is listed as the first goal of the organization, and namely accessibility is in addition listed as the first point of that point. If W3C recommendations have to consider accessibility before being approved, we do believe it is important enough to be a policy. Nonetheless, Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone may edit, including people with disabilities. Best regards —surueña 19:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for accessibility, but looking at the examples you provided, many seem to be of the nature "this works better here than there when accessed through a text reader". That's fine, but where such changes make the layout work worse when accessed by a traditional browser, the changes should not be forced. For those cases, can you find other solutions that improve accessibility without negatively impacting the normal formatting?--Father Goose 19:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The second issue is whether the pages needed to be conformed at all... I don't really see any reason to force articles into conformity with WP:ACCESS, which is what making it a policy would do. Okay, this really bothers me. Are you actually saying that you don't think articles should be made accessible when these edits make a page "look worse"?! May I remind you that point of this encyclopedia is about sharing information, not creating a pretty user interface. If there is a problem with a page that makes it so even one person cannot access that information, we as an encyclopedia have failed- it is just that simple. If we must "force" changes, then we must. L'Aquatique ^talktome 20:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with L'Antique. If in fact, conformity would make a page look significantly worse, one could invoke WP:IAR. However, I can not think of a single page which would lose content due to this.Smartyllama 20:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't say that I think that accessibility should be an overriding concern that trumps everything. However, I will say that it should definitely trump fine points of cosmetics/aesthetics. This is about letting people use the site properly, fergoodnessakes. SamBC(talk) 21:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Changing a guideline to a policy is a big change, so probably we must give a better explanation about our proposal. We are a small group with only a few members. But even if we were a large team, simply we can fix the accessibility problems of all the 2,000,000 articles (and counting) of the Wikipedia, moreover if we must discuss them at the talk pages before. If editors create new contents with accessibility in mind, that would be a real difference, that's the reason we are interested in a policy about universal access. We only want to have the needed tools to make our work. Of course we know that the current guideline will probably be modified, it is not perfect and consensus will improve it. But I would like to remark that accessibility doesn't mean wikipedians without disabilities will end with articles having less rich content or presentation (there is a common myth that a plain text page is more accessible, and that's false). As I said above, modern web standards are built with accessibility in mind, so an article can be very rich and visually pleasant but without accessibility problems. The main point is not if the current guidelines are good enough to be a policy, but if universal access should be considered a Wikipedia policy. Thanks —surueña 21:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Reading through WP:ACCESS, it looks like most of the layout changes it recommends improve the formatting of the site on screen readers by arranging templates and other elements in a more logical sequence. Are there cases where material is completely inaccessible if certain changes are not made?--Father Goose 23:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not an easy question, because it depends on the disability (a blind wikipedian has different requirements than a user with motor dysfunction due to cerebral palsy), but in the case of blind users which probably is the group most considered in the current guideline, the answer is yes: besides extensions like EasyTimeline, floating the table of contents can completely hide complete paragraphs, or links in headings can also suppress a part of it. Anyway, the point is not only avoiding these more visible problems, but also enhancing navigation to all users, because in some cases can be a complete nightmare even if in theory no contents are totally lost (like a logical order of the cells inside some layout tables). Universal design is beneficial not only for people with disabilities, but also for all wikipedians browsing through non-conventional browsers, like through a PDA or an iPhone. —surueña 07:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. And things like floating the TOC and putting links in headings are discouraged for other reasons anyway. As for the policy aspects, I'll reply below.--Father Goose 20:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As the writer of the first substantial text that was on Wikipedia:Accessibility, I feel I need to comment here. The great value for almost all people about Wikipedia is its consistent interface across millions of articles. However if someone decided to revert my change of the order of final section headings for a good reason related to their article, I wouldn't revert them because I don't think it's a huge thing to worry about. Wikipedia:Accessibility is not a stick to bludgeon people with - it's just a set of style guidelines akin to the Manual of Style. Of course there are things in there I consider are fairly high priority, like spelling fixes and abuse of CSS as in hidden structure. I think the discussion at Talk:Pulp Fiction (film) #RfC: Ellipses was worth it to provide an alternative to inconsistent formatting that didn't work in all browsers. I also think the table of contents shouldn't be moved from its default position below an article's lead section without a very good reason. I do support the idea of accessibility for Wikipedia - but the way I see it, the only thing that could be codified into policy is "Wikipedia should strive to be accessible to as many users as possible." Graham87 00:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

While I also think that some parts of the current accessibility guideline should not be policy and moved to the manual of style instead, I'm disagree with you with respect that nothing can stand as a official policy. Some of those changes are only under the hood, so they can and should be enforced without any problems, like those concerning with data and layout tables or some XHTML attributes. But others are beyond the scope of the current guidelines, like not accepting a new non-accessible Wikipedia extension if it can be made accessible. For example, nowadays the EasyTimeline extension is completely non-accessible to some types of users, although it can be easily modified to be fully accessible. Even fancy AJAX and Web 2.0 pages can be made fully accessible (i.e. rich web applications [17]), this will not be a disruptive policy at all for the rest of wikipedians, or a burden to MediaWiki developers. —surueña 07:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd support a policy that compelled accessibility in any case where there was no loss of functionality for the non-disabled. WP:ACCESS in its present form is a formatting guideline, not that policy -- it should be supplemented by an accessibility policy that outlines general princples and practices.--Father Goose 20:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with FG. --Kevin Murray 20:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

admin creating a page

I’ve been tagging bad pages for CSD for a while now with no problems. Then I came on to Cars.com which i believe falls under A7 guide lines for CSD. Well it seem that the person that created it was an Admin. My question is does this fall under A7 for CSD and is the creator of that page allowed to remove the tag (and say it’s not a CSD) or is there some other process that needs to be done. I personally fell this admin is kind of abusing his powers and not going by policy, because he is the creator of the page. (look at the comments made on the history part of the page). So again does this fall und CSD A7 and is the creator of the page who is an admin allowed to remove the delete tag, or does he have to do the same thing as anyone else who creates a possibly bad page? Yourname 00:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• You've asked this several places... why didn't you just ask me (the admin in question)? A7 applies when there is not an assertion of importance, the article in question asserts importance... trying to speedy delete it is a bit rude when it's been explained why speedy deletion doesn't apply. This seems to be over the technicality of someone not being allowed to remove a CSD tag from an article they created... but rules like that are not very rigid, and what ultimately matters is who has the more correct argument with respect to policy. At any rate, if you really want to follow rules, WP:CSD#A7 says "If controversial, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." There's little chance that this would be deleted at AFD, but you're free to try to prove me wrong. --W.marsh 00:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

alrigh here my problem right now first off i only posted this once 2nd you are stalking me now, I don't see your name in the history of this page in the last 20 edits so how just out of the clear bule you happen to stumble on the same exact place where i asked a question. Just by even finding and responding to this question should shoould be a red flag. Yourname 01:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This page has been on my watchlist for a long time, and I've made around 100 comments here over the years. I'm not stalking you. At any rate, not all articles about websites are created as spam... sometimes someone just sees a redlink on a notable topic, and creates an article to fill in the gap. It's important to learn the difference if you're doing speedy deletion work. --W.marsh 01:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yourname - Technically, you did post a comment to WP:VPA as well as to here (see this edit), though you did remove the posting two minutes later.

More to the point, if you disagree with W. Marsh's assessment of WP:CSD#A7, you should state that, not switch to discussing your suspicions of wikistalking. If you don't disagree with W. Marsh regarding A7, then you should (gracefully, ideally) concede the point. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

W. Marsh should not have removed the tag himself. He should have done what every other editor is supposed to do if their article is tagged for speedy deletion. Put {{hangon}} on it and make a comment on the talk page. I can see where Yourname is coming from - the assertion of notability is a bit weak. Also, W. Marsh could have left a message on Yourname's talk page just as Yourname could have left a message on W. Marsh's; edit summaries are a very poor venue for discussion. Mr.Z-man 05:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A7 just doesn't cover this article... if you really think it does, delete it and inflict an annoying DRV on us all. But if you don't think A7 covers it... we're just arguing about process for the sake of process. This is an article on an obviously notable website/business venture... there are 200 news results in the past month, and tens of thousands in the Google News archives. There are 400 results in printed books. That people are trying to conjure up some way to delete the article on a technicality is an example of a lot of what's wrong with deletion today. --W.marsh 13:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is not A7: "two thirds of US car buyers use its service in some way". Plus it's a paragon of citations used to prove notability: CNN and New York Times both devoting full articles to its new advertising campaign. Why are we even talking about this? I would have removed the speedy tag too. I might add a bit to the article so thanks for bringing it up. And BTW, I think we should give some extra deference to admins and other experienced users on faith that they probably know what they're doing. But even Jimbo's new page got deleted [18] so I don't think we have to worry about undue influence around here. Wikidemo 14:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Of course they're going to devote full pages to its advertising campaign. The site pays for those pages. I think it's definitely worth a discussion, but discussions are for AFD, not CSD. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Look, this entire thread is now a self-defeating proposition: ALL CSD categories are by definition for non-controversial deletions. Articles should only be speedied where there is likely to be no defense at ALL of the move. Even hoax articles that make bogus claims to notability are specically exempt from CSD. The fact that this article has attracted a discussion makes CSD moot; the existance of said discussion leaves ONLY afd as a reasonable means to deal with it. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Government Phone/Email lists also Homeland Security Issue?

Is there any section for how to: deal with Government? Frequently the inner workings of government are arcane. Much of this information, could be provided by Government "Users" in much more concise form than the government's own web sites. Some examples are who to contact for parade permits, where to file to pay sales tax, what process to follow with HANO (Housing Authority of New Orleans) for transferring Section 8 property to a new owner. On a national level, how do I file for a grant for bike paths? How do I lobby a congressman? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boathead (talk • contribs) 03:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Boathead 03:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a neat idea, but would require continual updating as offices are reorganized, phone numbers change, and so on. For that reason it may be impractical. Raymond Arritt 04:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Even outdated it would be far better than the current city of New Orleans web site

People were so desperate for information for a while there. It seems that Wiki should be an amazing resource in the immediate aftermath of a Katrina for instance. I'd wager that in that circumstance Wiki would be very up to date. Boathead 04:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A wiki could, indeed, be a valuable tool for that type of information—especially with the cooperation and support of government agencies. This particular wiki, however, isn't really intended or designed to be a directory of services. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, and we're not really in the business of branching out into other functions. Perhaps there already exists a wiki that provides something of the service that you describe; failing that, perhaps you could start one...? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As part of the sources for an article on a national or local government department there should be a link to the department; this should provide the first link for anyone wanting information from that body. Also, WP would be limited to the information available from the said link only and will therefore only be as accurate as that source. As TenOfAllTrades comments, this falls outside of the remit of WP. LessHeard vanU 10:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an EXCELLENT idea for Wikia, Jimbo's other major venture, the commercial equivalent of Wikimedia. It is designed to make and hosts wiki-style websites for purposes OTHER than writing an encyclopedia. Wikipedia really is a narrowly defined concept: It is an encyclopedia. While Wikis can and should be used for excellent ideas such as this, Wikipedia is NOT the specific wiki to use. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia:Userbox migration a guideline or merely a "be bold" essay?

For those blissfully unaware Wikipedia:Userbox migration was created over a year ago to solve the then escalating "userbox conflict". It proposed that most userboxes were moved to userspace and thus be protected from the extensive CSD:T1 "divisive and/or inflammatory template" deletions (Examples for T1 deleted templates included "This user is an atheist", "This user is Furry" and "This user supports recycling").
At that time it explicitly stated it was not a new policy nor would a new policy be necessary (as any attempts to resolve the userbox dispute by introducing new policies lead to a deadlock due to lack of consensus) and in a sense, it retains it's be bold roots.
Still WP:UBM has become a de-facto standard when it comes to the question of userboxes in templatespace, in TfD debates (Userfy by WP:UBM), and because of this I and several others believe that it has become a de-facto guideline and should be labeled as such.
Another user however believes that it is superfluous to WP:UBX, "essentially a statement to Be bold", and as such not a guideline. Discussion with him has been exhausted, and now goes in circles.
So I'd like to gather some outside input on the issue - what are your thoughts? CharonX/talk 13:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's the current best practice, right? Who cares what tag the page has? :-P --Kim Bruning 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Some folks will Wikilawyer that it's "not a guideline" when their favorite Userbox is moved. On the flip side, if it's the current best practice, why not make it a guideline? -- Kesh 21:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Because fixing things that ain't broke is a recipe for creating unnecessary controversy. Why encourage the idea that pages in the project space need some official designation? The best thing about the migration, IMO, is its lack of formal status. As soon as that page was created with "this is not a policy proposal..." at the top, I knew the end of the userbox wars was in sight. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The last guy that made a request for comment on this issue withdrew his request, because the overall reaction was overly negative. The community is sick of arguing such a trivial matter, and things are just fine the way they are now. So why not make the Userbox Migration a guideline? Well, like GTBacchus said, if it ain't broke, don't bother fixing it. I assure you that simple brining up this issue will reignite a fervor of pointless debates. So don't go there. The Userboxer^Complain/_ubx 00:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. schools)

Following a discussion at WT:NC(S), a new proposal has been created for naming conventions applying purely to United States school articles, in a attempt to more easily gain consensus for adoption. Some input from the community at WT:NC(USS) would be great. Camaron1 | Chris 17:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources quoting anonymous comments

If a source that is considered reliable, such as an established newspaper or television news organisation includes a report in an article attributing a comment anonymously, eg in a newspaper article that mentions the "lunar college of vacuum technology", text such as "consumer advocates referred to the lunar college of vacuum technology as a diploma mill" appeared, would it be appropriate to cite the newspaper as a reference for the statement "consumer advocates consider the lunar college of vacuum technology to be a diploma mill" in a WP article? I don't believe there's verifiable reliable sources for the statement from WPs viewpoint. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 14:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia considers the publication as being the source, not the person making the statement. In this case there may be several publications which state similar things even if some don't identify exactly what their experts are (or in the case of Deep Throat sometimes the sources are intentionally hidden). If President Bush says something we don't use him as the source but we use what is printed about him in newspapers, TV news, or White House publications. (SEWilco 15:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

First, you're not referring to a "anonymous" sources, you're referring to unnamed sources. Anonymous sources are those who have asked that their names not be revealed; unnamed sources are often unnamed simply because the newspaper or television station doesn't want to take the extra time to list them (or, if you want to be cynical, to defend their choice of spokespeople.)

Second, Wikipedia articles would be much less readable if, instead of saying "Consumer advocates said X", we had to say "Persons A, B, and C, who are considered consumer advocates by newspaper Y, said X". Third, if we say "Consumer advocates said X" in the article, and provide a footnoted source, then readers can decide how likely it is that the newspaper would have picked non-representative people to use as opinion-makers.

Finally, if consumer advocates disagree, then the right way to handle the matter is to say that "ABC newspaper reported that consumer advocates said X, but MNZ newspaper reported that other consumer advocates disagreed, saying Y". But until there is evidence of disagreement, there is no reason (other than perhaps a desire to suppress negative comments) why "consumer advocates said X" needs to be qualified in the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to show the lack of specific attribution is in the original source through direct quote? "Consumer advocates claim X"[footnote] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.231.11 (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What John wrote makes sense to me. But why is this discussed here, and not on WT:RS? — Sebastian 00:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we need deletion request notification?

Currently, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion states:

It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion.

If this should be changed or deleted is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Guide to deletion#Deletion request notification. — Sebastian 20:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Content of Navigation Templates

A subject has a number of related articles in Wikipedia and has a navigation template that helps to categorize them. Is it considered proper Wikipedia form to include links to outside sites (in this case - fan sites) within such a navigation template? I can't find any official policies or recommendations that would help stop an edit war.144.15.255.227 20:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say no. Navigation templates are simply that... aids to Wikipedia navigation. External links could be added to the highest level article that connects all of the subjects in the navigation template, but not to the template itself. I don't think there is policy on this, but I came to this through my impression after reading WP:EL. It lists two places for external links: in an external links section of an article, or as references. Sancho 20:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree... navigation templates should be for linking related Wikipedia articles, not external links such as fan sites. Blueboar 21:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL - under Links to be avoided lists: Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. - What qualifies as a 'substantial history of stability' and 'substantial number of editors'?144.15.255.227 21:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a point that is to be discussed by participating editors on a case-by-case basis. As examples of some extreme cases: one wiki widely considered acceptable is the Memory Alpha Star Trek wiki; one that I think does not have "substantial history of stability and substantial number of editors" is the Men Going Their Own Way wiki. Most other wikis will fall somewhere between these two. However, as this relates to your original question, even if an external link meets these criteria, I don't think it should be used in a navigation template. Sancho 18:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I too cannot imagine any case where a link to a fansite would be appropriate in a navigation template. If the fan site is notable enough to have a WP article about it, then of course linking to that article would be acceptable; if justified, I think that would be the way to go. 01:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen at least one case where a fansite was the best available external resource for a subject (Theme Hospital, if you're curious). But normally I'd agree that external links shouldn't be embedded in templates for "spammy" reasons. If the sites in question are good resources, they should be in the external links section of the games themselves and not in the template (Template:EverQuest, I gather]]) used on dozens of subpages relating to game content.--Father Goose 02:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Having devolved to something close to an edit war over the issue, I would like something closer to a WP or guideline before I revisit the issue on the template page. 207.69.137.11 02:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Scroll bars

Something like [19] is bad, right? Anyone care to revert? --NE2 21:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would not say that scroll bars are bad, but that application of them certainly seems inappropriate. I don't see what you buy by scrolling 98% of the article text in a small window. Vegaswikian 05:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Scroll bars are not inherently bad, but they are almost always used badly, and very seldom have a place on Wikipedia. They can hinder accessibility by breaking screen readers; they make printing articles difficult; they can screw up formatting in some browsers; they take up valuable screen real estate; and long articles get scroll bars on their window anyway. Concur with removing them in this instance and most instances. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Quotes outside article space, a violation of NFCC

See: Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Non-free_text

At present the non-free content criteria prohibits any "non-free content" outside of article space. It has been pointed out that technically the current language also prohibits users from using non-free text (i.e. quotes) outside of article space. As that's probably not the intention, the criterion probably need to be adjusted. Please join that discussion. Dragons flight 21:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

My User Page User:Rodhullandemu

User:Professional Deletionist has just deleted the following: University Challenge from my userpage, leaving the note: "this category is not for user space". No reference to the applicable policy, and in any event, where else would this category go but user space?? Can anyone point me to policy and whether it's changed recently, or can I just revert it as vandalism? While I WP:AGF, just to do this without leaving anything on my talk page referring to policy seems a breach of WP:Civil. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 17:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

While it would have been best for the other editor to have left a message on your talk page (s)he does not appear to have violated policy. The category guidelines says that you can add categories to user pages that are not used in the article namespace. If you look at the definition for the category that was removed (Category:Notable_Wikipedians), it says "Wikipedia editors who also have Wikipedia articles about their notable activities outside of Wikipedia." All of the pages that are in the category are in the article namespace, so a userpage should not be in there. Karanacs 17:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Have left comments here[20]. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 18:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about sourcing

I do not know where to ask this question. If this is the wrong place, please let me know.

Is it Wikipedia policy or guideline that in order to use a third party source for citing material in an article, you have to consult that source yourself? Or is it O.K. to copy the source from another article and used it without consulting it directly? Thanks! --Mattisse 19:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Does the essay Wikipedia:Convenience links answer your question? GRBerry 19:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No. My question has to do with referencing a book. There is no link to it that I know of. --Mattisse 19:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The question is if it is O.K. to use a book reference obtained from another article without actually reading the book but accepting that the other editor was correct in using it and that it will apply to my article? --Mattisse 20:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, some of the logic of that essay still applies. If the source they actually used is reliable, they should cite the source they actually used in the citation, but need not in the article text. (If the citation were accompanied by a quotation the citation would resemble Used Source, Secondary Author 19xy "In Ultimate Source, Initial Author says 'Whatever the heck they said'.") If the source they actually used is not reliable, they should not use it at all, and the third party source material would not currently be supported by a reliable source, and ultimately needs to be sourced or removed, possibly immediately removed pending sourcing depending on topic and other issues.

See more specifically the guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources#Say where you got it. GRBerry 20:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes— per that guideline, you would have to quote the article as the source, not the reference you grabbed from the article, but you can't use one Wikipedia article as a reference within another article. If you want to use a book as a source, go to the library and read it, or buy it. Or, contact the editor who added the initial source and see if they will verify the validity and add it to the article in question. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That specifically answers my question. Where is this written so that I can provide this information to another editor who is using sources he has not personally accessed taken from another wikipedia article ? --Mattisse 22:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link above. I didn't see it at first. Thank you so much. --Mattisse 22:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification re: above thread

Hi there, I'm involved in a current dispute with User:Mattisse, and I'd like to ask for a clarification of the above thread with regard to the precise situation in the dispute.

I know Mattisse asked whether you have to consult a source before citing it - I know the answer is yes. That's all fine. However, the situation in our dispute is a little different. To be precise, User:Mattisse wrote a properly sourced statement in one article. I took the statement, along with the source, into another article. Is that allowed, given that Mattisse presumably checked the source himself? The crucial distinction with what Mattisse is asking, in case it is not clear, is that what is copied is not just the source itself, but the statement, supported by the source. For example, if I write "Tiananmen Square is 500 metres across [cite some book]" in Tiananmen Square, would another editor be able to copy that statement, source and all, into Tiananmen Square massacre?

My view is that this is in accordance with policy, since the statement, in its new location, is still just as supported by the source cited as it was when it was at its old location. It is only a change of location, not a substantive change to the statement.

I just find Mattisse's contention (that you can't copy a statement with its source from one article to another) a little bizzare, since it implies that:

• Every time an editor synthesises a paragraph in a branch article (say Mongol empire) along with its sources into a summary article (say History of Mongolia), that editor will have to personally check every single source for every statement in that paragraph, even though that paragraph is standing without challenge in the branch article.
• Every time an article gets moved, merged, undeleted, or otherwise changed in location, the editor making the move/merge will have to check every source in the article.
• Given that some sources are not widely available (and not available online), the above two points imply that often only the original contributor, and no-one else, can move material into/out of branch articles/main articles, or move/merge/undelete the article?
  • At least I find that implication a little bizarre, given the collaborationist nature of Wikipedia and the GFDL licence - although if I understand Mattisse's argument correctly, that implication is exactly what he is pushing for on my talk page.

Your help is greatly appreciated. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Taking a properly sourced statement from one article and copying it into another (along with the citation to the source) is perfectly fine... with a caution: if you are going to change the context of the statement, make sure that the source supports the new context. If the statement is a simple statement of fact like "Joe Blow was born in 1925 <cite to a biography of Joe Blow>" then I don't think there is any problem copying the statement with its source. If the statement you are copying is something more complex (and especially if it is controvercial), then there is a good chance that context will have to be considered ... In which case, be more hesitant to simply copy the statement and source... you should get a copy of the source to make sure it says what you think it says. Blueboar 15:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, what he said. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Expansion of A7

I've started a discussion here on adding literary works and films to the list of items that can be deleted per WP:CSD#A7. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 01:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hello. User:Caroig's {{Geobox}} template shows up technical categories in all articles which use it, see e.g. Warta Bolesławiecka and Category:Geobox City, Poland which shows up. Caroig said he didn't find any official policy saying that such categories in the article namespace are prohibited. I asked him to alter the Geobox code but he don't want to do that. I can't recall any Infobox which have such categories in article namespace. Caroig insists it is the same as categories regarding cleanup or wikification but I suppose it is not. Can you point me to proper policy or advise what to do, please? Thank you. - Darwinek 15:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Category:Geobox City, Poland doesn't exist (it is a redlink currently). You should be able to remove a non-existing category from a template that is intended to be used in the main namespace, per Wikipedia:Use common sense, which is covered by the policy WP:IAR.
2. If User:Caroig behaves as if (s)he owns the {{Geobox}} template, or if this user made that template too complex for anyone else to understand how to edit it, there is a WP:OWN infringement (we're talking about main namespace content here). WP:OWN is policy.
3. "Geobox" is a kind of self-reference: the word "Geobox" is relevant for those building the encyclopedia, but it has virtually no relevance in the general categorisation schemes for main namespace articles, e.g. it's not as if this category would belong in any subcategory of Category:Boxes (which doesn't even exist). Although this specific case isn't mentioned in WP:ASR, it falls under that guideline. It is also inappropriate to categorise cities as a kind of "box". "Geobox" is also singular, while Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) specifies to put (main namespace) categories in plural. So if Category:Geobox City, Poland (or any similar) were created it would be up for WP:CfD in no time. After its removal we're back at the first step above for removing the category name from any template that is intended to be used in main namespace.
4. Why don't you use {{Infobox Settlement}} in the Warta Bolesławiecka and similar articles? Compare the article on Sejny where that infobox is used. --Francis Schonken 17:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• There are many such categories created by User:Caroig, e.g. Category:Geobox Settlement, Slovakia and Category:Geobox Building, Slovakia. Do you think I should nominate all categories of this kind to WP:CFD? - Darwinek 17:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• The more common format for categories seems to be something like "Category:Wikipedia Geobox Settlement in Slovakia". See the list of categories starting with "Wikipedia". (SEWilco 17:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC))