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 that is not 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, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192

What is an SPS?

I think I'm beginning to see the problem. You think that the NYTimes is not an SPS, right? Paradoctor (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I think if the source is clearly an SPS, then an example like say WS's example would not hold weight at all ("Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer"; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources). If Joe is a living person, then whether or not Mary is a reliable SPS, we simply cannot use the source. But in case the source is an NY Times article written by a journalist, then we could use the source. Now, we come to the point that's been argued for a long time. If a reliable SPS makes a statement (about an organisation) that is exceptional/controversial in its claim, then one should clearly attribute that statement to the reliable SPS rather than just treating it like a normal reliable source. :) ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 11:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So how do I distinguish an SPS from a non-SPS? In case you wonder: I'm serious. Paradoctor (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to provide a better example so there's no BLP confusion in the mix, let's assume Joe says "Bach was the greatest composer ever." WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't help me distinguishing between SPS and non-SPS, I'm afraid. Paradoctor (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

My apologies; I was just trying to provide a better example for Wifione so the BLP issue isn't part of the question. I wasn't really attempting to answer your question. However, I will: My answer to how you tell whether it's an SPS or not is through consensus. Does the publisher or owner of a newspaper writing an editorial count as a SPS? What about a staff-owned newspaper? These are questions for consensus, either on an article talk page or WP:RSN. I'm not trying to cop out of answering; I'm trying to acknowledge that we can't make a hard and fast "bright line" rule that will work for every circumstance. We have to leave the opportunity for process and consensus to do what they do. Wifione, what do you think? How do you tell the difference? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In general, the way the policy currently defines it. (Might I suggest that the change that I am suggesting in this whole discussion is not particularly related to how sps is defined, but how controversial statements made by sps are attributed). ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 05:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In that case, the NYTimes is an SPS. The only criterion mentioned is (after a trivial abstraction): The author of the content is the one paying for publication. The NYT fits the bill. Paradoctor (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not. When a journalist of NYT writes an article and prints it after an editorial review, the publication (which is not owned by the journalist) prints the news item. Therefore, NYTimes might not at all be an sps. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 07:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Then again, who is paying the journalist to create the content? Paradoctor (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually you're looking at it from top down. Look at it in reverse. As long as an employee (journalist) is writing the article, it becomes clear that her/his article would be published in a source that is not owned by her/him and would be subject to more editorial scrutiny than would be an article of a journalist who herself/himself owns the newspaper. The one step of difference between ownership-operational management, in this case, is what defines the critical difference between sps and non-sps. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 15:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's invoke Godwin for a good cause. Assume a Nazi newspaper publishes something. They will of course exert editorial control. Would you say such a publication is reliable non-SPS? If not, then "editorial scrutiny" is not a sufficient criterion to establish reliability. So what is it that makes the difference? Paradoctor (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies always are made for the general cases and not the exceptions. (For example, ip-blocks are made in general on vandals, knowing very well that there would be cases when non vandals get caught as collateral damage). For exceptions, like the Nazi case you mention, talk page discussions, the RS noticeboard, and consensus are the critical factors (in the same way as the ip-block exempt is provided on a case by case basis). ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 03:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What makes the Nazi newspaper an exception? How can I distinguish it from a reliable source? It can't be my (or your, or anyone's) personal opinion about the editorial policy. It isn't the mere existence of editorial control. What are the objective criteria that allow me to rule the NY Times ok, and the NS Times not? Paradoctor (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia provide custom keyboard layouts?

I was typing a little bit of German for Wikisource recently, and so far as I could tell, neither the list of special characters nor the standard Windows keyboard options were really usable for the task. It would take far too long to cut-and-paste every umlaut character, but the only alternative provided by Windows is a German keyboard layout with four separate keys dedicated to ä, ö, ü, and ß -- a keyboard which is altogether maddening to use even before one discovers that the Y and Z have swapped positions...

Now there is a fix for this, which is to download a free program Windows Keyboard Layout Creator[1] and generate a custom keyboard. It offers a single-level system of "dead keys" that change the next character typed. This allowed me to define the character "`" so that `a becomes ä, `E = Ë, `s = ß, `n = ñ, `t = þ `+ = ±, `- = — and so on. (Unfortunately it does not seem to allow for double redirects like ``a = à, `'a = á, etc. (nor conditional dead keys like a3 = ǎ but an = an) or you could use one convenient keyboard for German, French, Norwegian and pinyin)

Still, the keyboard setup file it generated could be installed on any Windows machine and would allow people to use an "umlaut key" immediately, without the bother of setting up the file or the privacy issues involved with the Windows validation demanded by the download. So far as I know the keyboard files are freely distributable data files, though the point may not be settled.

Because of the limitation of the program, several different keyboard setup files would be needed for different languages, and of course other operating systems would need their own files. It would be nice to arrange this as a limited-purpose download page linked from the vicinity of the special characters at the bottom of the edit page.

Would Wikipedia allow for this? Mike Serfas (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, Windows already provides a layout that does that. By default I have United Kingdom Extended which is pretty good for most European languages (for example, ü is created by typing AltGr+2 then u). I also know the alt-codes for most of the other special characters, such as ß (Alt+0223) and ø (Alt+0248). If I didn't then I could look them up in the character map or any unicode table. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Scrambling to press control, alt, shift, and 2 at the same time to add an umlaut embodies an almost comical degree of user hostility. Nor is holding down alt while trying to remember four numbers really an optimal method either, even if you have a numeric keypad. It is much easier to type two keys: the unshifted ` followed by the key to be modified. Mike Serfas (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Make a set of hotstrings in AutoHotKey, and all your typing woes are gone. Paradoctor (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

For German the solution is simple: Use the variant US International of the US keyboard mapping. It makes '"~` dead keys which you can use for creating most French, German or Spanish characters, and you can reach more using the right Alt key together with another character, e.g. Right-Alt + s = ß, Right-Alt + , = ç.

I'm a German and I use this mapping exclusively, even for typing German text with a German keyboard. The only inconvenience when writing English text is that you have dead keys, so e.g. you have to create " by typing " followed by space. Hans Adler 13:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

A request for consistent application of NPOV and BLP

I've recently run across a problem on talk-pages with about four or five editors who insist that BLP/NPOV prohibits the use of the sources in the left-hand column. Now, I realize that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an excuse, but it's hard for me to look at the sources used in BLPs in the right-hand column and understand why WP:BLP prohibits the use of the sources in the left-hand column--especially since some of the articles in the right-hand column are even starred as "featured articles" as the epitome of Wikipedia standards.

In my mind, NPOV requires the inclusion of notable points of view about the subject: that would include all of the sources in the left-hand column, and most of the sources in the right-hand column. BLP just requires fastidious observation of NPOV to avoid COATRACK, and the requirement of strong sources for potentially libelous claims; it doesn't require censorship of anything negative said about a living person--certainly that's the way it's observed in the articles in the right-hand column, but BLP was used as a rationale for eliminating notable points of view that were critical of the subjects in the left-hand column.

I can understand (though I would disagree with) prohibiting the sources in both columns; I can see permitting the sources in both columns; if pressed to make a decision, I would permit the sources in the left column, and prohibit a handful of the sources in the right-hand column; but what I cannot for the life of me understand is the status quo.

Were the editors on Bill Moyers and Nina Totenberg wrong, or is there a failure to enforce WP:BLP on pages of the more politically unpopular? I could just remove the sources in the right-hand column, but I'd surely get accused of violating WP:POINT. So I'd like to get consensus. Can someone help me understand what the rules are here, so I don't cross the line mistakenly again? Many thanks.

Judged unacceptable source in liberal BLPs and repeatedly deleted and accusing me of being WP:TEDIOUS	Seemingly acceptable source in center-right BLPs (incomplete list of examples)
L. Brent Bozell III (head of Media Research Center, conservative media analysis group) in Nina Totenberg (liberal NPR analyst): source was critical of purported liberal bias	Media Matters for America (liberal media analysis group) in Rush Limbaugh (conservative talk-show host) Media Matters for America in Ann Coulter (conservative author) Media Matters for America in John Stossel (libertarian journalist) Media Matters for America in Anne Applebaum (center-right author) Media Matters for America in Stephen F. Hayes (conservative journalist) Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (liberal media analysis group) in Rush Limbaugh Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting in Clarence Thomas (conservative Supreme Court justice) Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting in John Stossel Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting in George Will (conservative columnist) Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting in Christina Hoff Sommers (conservative academic) Eric Alterman (liberal media critic) in Bill Kristol (conservative journalist) Eric Alterman in Elliott Abrams (Reagan-administration attorney)
Washington Post column by Charles Krauthammer (Pulitzer Prize-winning conservative columnist) in Bill Moyers (liberal PBS journalist): source singled out Moyers's rhetoric as basis for notable neologism Bush Derangement Syndrome	Bill Moyers in Karl Rove (conservative politician) George Monbiot blog post in George Will Adam Cohen op-ed in Clarence Thomas Neva Chonin (who?) in L. Brent Bozell III Roger Axtell ("an expert on body language") in Antonin Scalia (conservative Supreme Court justice) Timothy Noah's "Chris DeMuth, Hack Extraordinare" in Christopher DeMuth (conservative academic) Timothy Noah in Sarah Palin Andrew Sullivan blog post in Sarah Palin Scott Horton and Glenn Greenwald podcast in Sarah Palin
Weekly Standard (2d-largest American conservative magazine) report by Stephen F. Hayes in Bill Moyers; source (along with the Philadelphia Inquirer) examined conflict-of-interest issues in Moyers's reporting	The Nation (left-of-Democratic Party magazine) in Ron Paul (libertarian politician) The Nation in Bernard Lewis (academic) The Nation in Daniel Pipes The Nation in Bill Kristol (conservative journalist, EIC of Weekly Standard) The Nation in Elliott Abrams Scott Horton blog post in Bill Kristol South Florida Gay News in Arthur A. Goldberg (anti-gay activist and felon)
David Limbaugh (best-selling conservative author) in Bill Moyers; source (essentially parroting Krauthammer, supra) criticized Moyers's rhetoric	Al Franken (liberal author) in Rush Limbaugh Al Franken in Dennis Hopper Al Franken in Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) Keith Olbermann in David Addington (Bush administration attorney) Maureen Dowd (liberal NY Times columnist) in Antonin Scalia Maureen Dowd in John McCain

COI Disclosure: I worked for the McCain-Palin campaign for two months, and volunteered for McCain before that; Chris DeMuth was once my boss; I was a lawyer for Palin in 2008 and for the Weekly Standard in 1997; Scalia and Thomas turned me down for a clerkship, but I have friends who clerked for each of them; a former co-worker was a research assistant for Franken; I've met Kristol and Krauthammer; Applebaum and I once worked for the same employer, though I never met her; Sommers and I once worked for the same employer, and we've dined together; I sat next to Stossel at a lunch, and was on a panel with him another time; Coulter used to work for a friend; a friend works for Palin's PAC; Totenberg interviewed a partner I worked for in 2003, and I declined his suggestion that I also talk to her about the brief I wrote; Sullivan sometimes blogs from a coffeehouse I frequent; Greenwald has blogged negatively about me; Sullivan has blogged neutrally about me; I subscribed to the Weekly Standard, the Nation, the Washington Post, and FAIR's newsletter at one time or another. It's a small world here in DC.

THF (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Well, the thing that jumps out at me here is the idea of using opinion writers to diagnose psychiatric conditions (even if they are made-up ones). Seems like a pretty serious BLP problem. Guettarda (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

But it is a notable fact that Person A's comments led to notable Person B creating a notable term. Nobody claims (yet, anyway) that the Bush Derangement Syndrome article violates BLP; if the term violates BLP in one article, then it's verboten in all. BLPs are any articles that refer to living people, not just articles that have living people in the title. THF (talk) 06:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I also fail to see how the humorless epithet "hack" is any less violative of BLP than the humorous "Bush Derangement Syndrome." THF (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Because it's problematic to accuse someone of having a mental condition, even a poorly-defined one. I can't wrap my mind around how that could possibly be acceptable. We don't repeat unfounded accusations of mental illness. Guettarda (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

For one thing, no one reasonable thinks that "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is actually a mental condition (even if Krauthammer has psychological training). You still haven't responded to my argument: if the very term Bush Derangement Syndrome violates BLP, why does the article exist? THF (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You're missing my point. We have articles about all sorts of things. We have articles about things like schizophrenia and depression, but we can't say someone suffers from one of these conditions on the say-so of a newspaper columnist. Quite frankly, it would be problematic even to quote a qualified psychiatrist if they were simply speculating. Guettarda (talk) 07:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

First, even accepting the questionable premise that "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is a medical condition rather than a joke, notwithstanding the fact that the BDS article clearly states otherwise, the proposed text does not say "X suffers from BDS" or even "Y says X suffers from BDS" but the indisputable fact that "CK created the term BDS in response to statements made by Moyers." (Statements, which I might add, already make up five paragraphs in the Moyers article, including a POV quote from an entirely insignificant book that the speech was "inspiring.") If BDS is sufficiently notable to have its own article, and the Moyers speech to which CK is responding is sufficiently notable enough to be in the Moyers article, how is it the case that notable commentary from a notable columnist about a notable speech that resulted in a notable neologism violates BLP?

Second, if you are going to say that a joke about a medical condition still violates BLP, it doesn't change that Al Franken's non-medical diagnosis of Rush Limbaugh as an "idiot" is in that BLP, without any evidence that Franken is qualified to judge a mental state with legal implications. We are presumably okay with the existence of this article, notwithstanding the BLP implications, because it's understood to be a joke. I fail to see how BLP permits at least a dozen articles to repeat Franken's joke about Limbaugh, but does not permit Krauthammer's joke about Moyers to be repeated. Again: where is the consistency? THF (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Your argument fails when you try to equate calling someone an "idiot" (not used in its old-fashioned medical meaning anywhere in the world today) with the term "Bush derangement syndrome", which most definitely does contain medical terms and implies real mental disease. ► RATEL ◄ 11:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

First, you've ignored that I didn't make one argument, I made two, and you ignored the first one. As for the second one, please find me one example of someone using "Bush Derangement Syndrome" to "imply real mental disease." The wiki article on the subject certainly never comes close to asserting that it is anything of the sort. The sort of lexicographical hoops you're jumping through to distinguish what is very self-evidently a joke from equivalent jokes in other BLPs is not unlike claiming someone can't be called an anti-Semite because they only hate Jews, and not all Semites. Everywhere else, we trust readers to understand what words mean. THF (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course there are people who take it to mean a real mental disease! Take this for example (one of many): Question: And we all know where Chris Matthews works, right? Answer from Bernard Goldberg: (Laughs) That’s right. By the way, I was asked by Bill O’Reilly a week ago, “Do you think it’s a mental disease or do you think it’s business?” He was actually talking about the general Bush-hating. I immediately said, “It’s a mental disorder, because don’t underestimate the power of insanity. ‘Bush-derangement syndrome’ is for real.” [2] So please, your argument is totally baseless. ► RATEL ◄ 15:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think it is very difficult to judge the validity of your complaint based solely on this table. What we all want are sources that are authoritative for the purposes of the reference. We don't want secondary sources when we have a primary source, either. There may be invalid uses in the right-hand column; but I don't see how that can be used to justify the sources in the left-hand column. Are your sources witnesses, or commentators? Are they commenting themselves, or repeating other's coments? Also, you are interacting with different editors on the various articles, too, so there will not be identical responses to your edits. I would seek a discussion in the appropriate Wiki project for the articles. Your comments seem directed at the American liberal/right divide; I'm not American, but from what I've seen, using the terms liberal and conservative can be used as insults. The use of the word liberal especially in the phrase 'liberal bias'; so there could be objections on that basis too. Someone can be liberal; but stating that that person has a liberal bias may be beyond what a particular source can show. This whole argument of course can apply from the other point of view; sources have to be able to show the point; the source should illustrate and not be biased itself. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "Bozell says that X has a bias as demonstrated by her reporting on Y" is indistinguishable from the article that says "Franken says Z distorts the facts to serve his own political biases"--with the exception that Bozell holds himself out (and is treated by reliable sources) as an expert on media bias, while Franken was a comedy writer. THF (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No comment about which opinion writers are allowed to comment on each other, or which of these comments are Wikipedia-worthy, but I agree that using FAIR or Media Matters for America in the manner of a neutral source on conservative pundits' BLPs is a big problem (likewise for, say, Focus on the Family on left-leaning or irreligious pundits' BLPs). The real problem, though, is that on many political topics our current format emphasizes "responses" in the name of neutrality (e.g., "...which Group That Doesn't Like Things has criticized as being exactly the sort of thing that they don't like", etc. ,etc.), and the responses tend to get the last word because they are responses. I've more or less come around to the position that neutrality requires stating political positions baldly, without responses or criticism, and just linking to some article that treats all sides of the issue in full. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters is not a reliable source. I can't believe that wasn't established long ago. Maybe we should do an RfC and propose deleting it across the encyclopedia whenever it is used to establish a fact in an article. Even their quotes are unreliable. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

JohnWBarber, you're quite right. I don't thik it can be cured, though. The preponderance of Wikipedia editors, and the overwhelming majority of admins, are liberal/leftist, antd their idea of "NPOV" is well to the left of center. We're just going to have to resign ourselves to Wikipedia being considered to be a source as biased as, say, the New York Times. I just hope we can keep it from becoming as thoroughly discredied as Media Matters and DailyKos: a compendium of left-wing spin and conservative-bashing. I long ago gave up on any attempt to reform the hatchet-job bio pages on climate scientists who dissent from AGW orthodoxy ( clear violations of this bio:livingpersons policy): the unlamented WilliamConnolley may be gone but his acolytes are still in charge. Solicitr (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability requirements along with condensation of articles is killing Wikipedia

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's said this before, but the constant notability requirements as well as condensation of highly detailed pages about certain things into a few lines of a compound page (see the Pokemon pages incident) is driving many previous people away, and this issue needs to be dealt with sooner, rather than later. My specific gripe is with an AfD delete about a Castlevania soundtrack producer's page, but there are plenty of articles that have been deleted over the years because of notability along with issues with sources also not being "notable enough" While removing notability requirements would not be good, making them so tight that they cause many users to abandon the site from frustration does no good, and needs to be dealt with yesterday. --Pichu0102 (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I had to Wikisearch to find out what Castlevania was. And you haven't linked the AfD you're referencing either. So we're talking about a producer of a piece of music that appears on the soundtrack to a video game? If that's his only claim to fame, there is a policy against creating biographies whose subject is notable for only one thing, as you've no doubt read in those AfDs. Had that one thing been a major hit or a critically acclaimed work on its own merits, I would argue in your favor, but if that's the most notable thing he's done so far, I'd have to say the most appropriate place at Wikipedia for a mention is at the article for the soundtrack.

I'm peripherally aware, however, that there are fan-oriented Wikis that focus on a particular "world". Wikipedia's article on Muppet, for example, includes a link to Muppetpedia, a fan-generated wiki which has the leeway to give a great deal more detail such as is interesting primarily to ardent fans. I just ducked in there (for only the second time in my life, swear!) and noted that for each episode there are several photographs, a description of each segment, links to articles about the songs that are sung, and lists of every Muppet that appears, even esoteric Muppets that are only in the background. In turn, each of these esoteric Muppets has his own article. By now you're probably saying what the hell is he going on about Muppets for, but that's partly the point.

I don't really know how you go about doing this, but perhaps for somewhat esoteric but wildly popular (I'm presuming) video game details such as you're talking about, getting together a group of devoted fans to start a genre-specific wiki might be your best route? Best wishes, Abrazame (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the be-all and end-all of the internet. Information is allowed elsewhere you know. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a useful essay: WP:OUTLET —Akrabbim^talk 12:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Castlevania wiki on Wikia. Paradoctor (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

user:Nagpur31

What do you suggest should we do for this user? See his contributions. It looks like the ID is being used only to add links to his website under external references section. --GPPande 14:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Revert if spam, warn (as you've done), block if they persist despite warnings. But this isn't a policy discussion, so it shouldn't be on this board. Fences&Windows 04:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Life (EOL) verbatim copying

Now that Wikipedia has switched to the Creative Commons license, may we copy all material from EOL into Wikipedia (and Wikispecies) verbatim? Would a reference to the EOL article satisfy the attribution requirement? How about images from EOL into the Commons? See previous village pump discussion. Also see Template:Eol. Here is information on EOL's terms of use, licensing policy, and if you're interested in contributing (eg Wikipedia material) to EOL, here is some information. The EOL already uses extensive material from Wikipedia, for example Theobroma Cacao. -kslays (talk • contribs) 20:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Only the bits which are CC-BY or CC-BY-SA - none of the non-commercial bits. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Typically including a template acknowledging the inclusion of a source's content with a URL to the original is sufficient, like {{citizendium}} for example. One could easily be created from the existing {{eol}}. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

NASA collaboration

There is a collaboration proposal at OpenNASA that suggests that NASA collaborate with Wikimedia project including Wikipedia. Please vote/comment on it.

There is also a NASA collaboration task force at the strategy wiki.

What are your thoughts on a collaboration between NASA and Wikipedia?Smallman12q (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Category names has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Category names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) no longer marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the article was moved and changed to Wikipedia:Category names. This is still a guildeline, the tag was only removed when the orginal target became a redirect and stayed with the article under its new title.--76.66.190.219 (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Progress in BLP RFC

There is momentum for a proposal to close the request for comment on unsourced biographies on living people.

The RFC will be open through Monday night, 23:59 Wikipedia (UTC) time.

In a nutshell, this proposal would declare consensus for:

1. Stronger policy against new unsourced BLP's, and
2. A deletion process for new unsourced BLP's.

There is a Q&A on the talk page. Maurreen (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Some people are commenting on the earlier proposals.

To be effective, your input needs to be at one of the closing proposals.

For a summary, please see the Q&A. Maurreen (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The Notability of High Schools

Are High Schools inherently notable? If you look at it purely from a WP: Notability standpoint, it would seem that they are not, but popular convention seems to point towards them being notable. From my perspective, the coverage of High Schools is not uniform and the articles tend to be of a low quality or even stubs. Also, the articles tend to attract vandals and trolls. Obviously some High Schools are notable enough, like the ones scoring in the top ten on the U.S News Best Schools report, but I think the question is mostly applied to the majority of schools that are not, for example, featured in that list. I think the question is: In general, are Articles about High Schools inherently notable and are valuable additions to Wikipedia? 226Trident (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No high school is notable unless a molestation occurred there, which makes most of them notable. joke to deal with boredom Equazcion ^(talk) 06:01, 21 Feb 2010 (UTC)

They are real places and thus reasonable to include. RxS (talk) 06:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

My house is a real place. So is the gated community I live in. The furniture store down the street is too. Same with the small park. Hell, so's the swimming pool in the middle of the houses. I guess I better start writing some articles... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Find some reliable sources and have at it. RxS (talk) 07:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe they are inherently notable. But this debate has been going on for more than half a decade on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Schools/Defunct; Wikipedia:Schools/Old_proposal; Wikipedia:Schools/March_2007; Wikipedia:Notability_(schools); User:GRider/Schoolwatch/Archive. --BaronLarf 06:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As Wikipedia gets older, I'm sure we'll have to have (a) page(s) similar to WP:PEREN in which we link old discussions of re-occurring topics much like this. Killiondude (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, consensus is currently that they are all notable. I strongly disagree with this consensus and hope that it changes sometime in the future to help foster a discriminate encyclopedia of only noteworthy topics. But even if this would happen our articles wouldn't change very much since most high schools pass the GNG. We don't need an unwritten rule about schools that prevents the few that aren't notable or significant from being removed. I see most "all X is inherintly notable" style of argument as disruptive to the notability criteria in general, an exception being when they are used in a descriptive rather than prescriptive manner (ex. all U.S. presidents are notable- they are, but not because we define them to be). ThemFromSpace 06:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's notability guidelines are unfortunately opaque. They say that a thing is notable if notable people or institutions have taken notice of it. Duh. Well, how do you find out if people and institutions are notable? Same problem. Notable writers are identified by the fact that they are published by notable publishers, and the same with notable works. And notable publishers are identified by the fact that they publish notable works and writers. And yes, we identify notable works because notable writers produced them, and notable publishers published them. Are you beginning to see the problem? There's no solid ground to stand on here.

It helps if you replace the fancy word "notable" by the more common word "interesting." Then, whether something is notable (defined as whether notable people took note of it) reduces merely to the less fancy question of whether interesting people took interest in it. And how do we know whether the interested people are themselves interesting? Because other people take interest in THEM. Well, what other people? You? No. Me? No. We're talking about INTERESTING. PEOPLE. You know? Do I have to draw you a picture? Turn on the TV. But not whole sections of the internet. Because the internet is full of great dark areas of uninteresting stuff, written by uninteresting people. Like blogs and wikipedia. Wups. But it is true that the plebian interests of proles like our editors do not count. It is the interests of other media, publishers, and writers that count. Wikipedia is the ultimate parasite, and it rides the "buzz" from those who produce buzz. That's a technical word, there: BUZZ. It means "notability." SBHarris 06:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Watch who you're calling a prole there, buddy!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 07:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Meh, you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. SBHarris 07:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Themfromspace has summarized the current unfortunate circumstances well. Despite many high schools not being able to even meet WP:N, many editors have decided that they are all inherently notable by nature of being a high school alone, because (I kid you note) "all high schools have sports coverage in their local papers". Of course, local papers are not really third-party, particularly in smaller towns, and if they are the only one to notice a high school, that really shouldn't be enough. Further, just printing sports scores and high light is not really significant coverage either. And some high schools lack even evidence of that, but it "must be there just not online" so that is still deemed enough. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That same logic - that HS are notable due to sports coverage - implies that this is routine coverage like most individual sporting matches, which are not notable unless something of interest happens (eg Ten Cent Beer Night). Thus, this type of coverage immediately invalids the school notability aspect. (and personally, I find it highly moronic that we're using athletic aspects to qualify the existance of an educational institution; this is not to say that some high schools produce a disproportionate number of eventual professional athletes and sources to attribute this fact, but just that in general, because a HS has a football team that travels a few miles down the road to play 6-8 games out of year doesn't shed any light on what the school has to offer). I can understand the logic of every town and village being considered notable, but not schools. --MASEM (t) 08:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

A high school doesnt have to be notable, because in addition to being an encyclopedia Wikipedia is also a 'gazetteer, so yes being a real place does automatically make a high school, school district, Census-designated place, hamlet, village, (I can keep going...) a notable article for Wikipedia GRANTED that reliable third party sources can be found to make a viable non-stub article. There are plenty of hamlets that I would love to have an article on, but there isnt enough info out there, so they cant realistically be made. Same goes for schools. A good example of a great school article is Brunswick (Brittonkill) Central School District. If we went the extreme opposite and started saying they werent inherently notable where do we draw the line? Is Herkimer County, New York notable as a county goes? Probably not. Is Wyoming now notable enough as a state? (no) Is Djibouti a notable country? (yes, but my booty isnt).Camelbinky (talk) 10:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I can agree from the point of being a gazetteer why every town/village, road, county, etc., should be included because those are functions of gazetteers, but even to that point, that would not include schools. That is, as called by definition a gazetteer is a "geographic dictionary", which implies any geographic element - natural or man-made - should be included, and I can't deny that towns/villages or roads are such. But a school is not a geographic element. Going by how WP defines a gazetteer, a town's school system may be described as part of a gazetteer's entry in the school, but the school itself is not a top-level entry. One could argue the same langauge that if every school should be included, so should every city hall, post office, shopping area, church, etc. be included. There is a fairly clear line that can be drawn to prevent non-geographic elements from being considered "necessary" as part of a gazetteer system.

(Also, but I don't want to belabor the point, notability is generally from secondary sources that are beyond routine coverage, not just third-party stuff as you suggest. But when we're talking about WP being a gazetteer, it seems we want to include those appropriate topics anyway simply due to that function, as long as there's verification via third-party sources and not through notability in general.) --MASEM (t) 13:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

For me, a better focus would be to the verifiability and reliability of the information on high schools, not notability. Especially because students are inclined to edit their own school's pages, potentially putting false information in. Perhaps we should have a stricter standard of verifiability and RS for high schools to get rid of the chaff? Also, as Camelbinky says, there isn't enough reliable info out there to realistically write an article on every school. Although making a special rule for a category seems excessive to me. Also, what of the schools in other countries?-kslays (talk • contribs) 15:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Making guidance based on the potential for vandalism or poorly-cited information is a bad idea; this is overly preventative even though no one likes the results of vandalism. Otherwise, we'd have to consider the same idea towards sports teams, cities and towns, modern fictional works, and current political figures, for some. --MASEM (t) 16:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I regret that high schools, roads, bridges and similar assets are notable, because they're in government inventories that are WP:RS. I won't contribute or reviewing them, because they're boring - and the government keeps all these inventories mainly to impose taxes. --Philcha (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• In general local media will cover a high school (founding, scandals, sports, and even changes in leadership) in enough depth that one can safely assume such coverage exists for any given school. So as long as the school is verifiable it's almost certain to be notable even if sources haven't turned up yet. Hobit (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Even though the idea of "inherent notability" is controversial, we can presume that a high school would have been covered many times over the years from sources at at least the regional level of news coverage, and a high school has a role in the community that other physical buildings such as the post office do not. Given that Wikipedia has a role as a gazeteer, it would be ridiculous not to include articles about local government and infrastructure. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have any examples of a high school, or elementary etc, that does have an article but it should completely be deleted because it wouldnt fit notability guidelines as applied to, say living people? (which I would say is probably THE category we are most strict with) And is it possible to deal with it (and those like it) simply by saying it doesnt have reliable THIRD PARTY sources or other problems with it instead of having a new "rule" to specifically deal with them? If we can deal with this issue using what policies, guidelines, etc we have already established I think that would be much better than adding a new one. We also must realize no matter what consensus we come up with here we could face a huge backlash by those who actually work on the articles to the point where it may just be futile to do anything.Camelbinky (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

While I don't have an example at hand, there have been high schools in places like Pakistan where no reliable sources could be found beyond verifying the basics of the school. Under the assumption that local media probably isn't on the web (or in English) we've kept those in the past... Hobit (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of any coverage, there is no evidence of notability, so high schools (or any other topic for that matter) are not inherently notable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• People seem hung up on the word "inherently". High Schools aren't magicaly notable due to some proclaimation. High schools are notable because if you do the legwork you will find third party coverage of them. They are not "inherently" notable. It's just that I can't think of an occasion that a High School article wasn't determined to be notable due to sourcing being found.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• The concept of "inherent notability" is one of the most unfortunate memes to have ever plagued Wikipedia. I understand that, given their nature, certain topics will undoubtedly have the sources to confirm notability. Presidents of sovereign nations are pretty much always going to be covered in reliable sources and pass our notaiblity criteria with flying colors, therefore one might make the argument that presidents of sovereign nations are inherently notable. But what does that mean for an artcile at Wikipedia? Does it mean that an article about President Fulano of Somewherestan, as the head of a sovereign nation, does not require sourcing? Absolutely false; every article must be sourced. If anything, any topic that is "inherently notable" should be abundantly sourced rather than sparsely sourced. If a topic is "inherently notable" there should be no dificulty in producing sources to establish notability. In short, the "inherently notable" argument should never be used as an excuse to retain topics whose notability cannot be established; this not only lazy encyclopedia building, but it is absolutely wrongheaded. Now on the other hand, if the community at large decides that all foo should be included because Wikipedia is a gazetteer and gazetters should cover all foo, then an argument can be made that an article about bar, as a member of the subset foo, should be retained in spite of the fact that notability cannot be established, but this is another argument altogether. "Inherent notability" is a poor excuse for lazy editing. Shereth 16:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Good points have been brought up above, and I withdraw my statement that "high schools are inherently notable," since it is an unproven stance, and not helpful to discussion. (I'd say the same thing about Millard Fillmore or, as one editor suggested, the State of Wyoming I guess.) Instead I will say that, despite the dozens of high school deletion discussions that I took part in back in 2005, I have yet to come across a U.S. high school that did not meet the general notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I agree that simple listings of sport scores in a local newspaper are not enough. But, as government entities, most school districts these days have their statistics collected and reported by state and federal agencies. These are easily discovered online, and would I believe count as verifiable, reliable sources. And yes, high school sports are heavily covered by local media. Do local media have some interest in the performance of local schools? Sure, since the people who subscribe to the papers are interested in the performance of their children. But this shows that, to some people at least, high schools are "interesting." Whenever I see a high school up for deletion, I try to use a little elbow grease in to show it meets the general notability guideline. This entire discussion began because a certain high school was put up for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Lakes High School). As that discussion shows, the high school did in fact have a good deal of third-party coverage, in places such as the Washington Post, CNN, and the New York Times. I'm not saying that all high schools will have so many reliable sources for them. But the sources exist.

Yes, articles on high schools are often the first to be vandalized by high school students with nothing better to do, and often get filled with fluff and unsourced statements. Unsourced statements should be removed, vandalism fought with warning, blocks and protection if necessary. My comments here are limited what I have experience editing: "high schools" in the United States. While I would hope they would apply to all secondary schools in the world, there are undoubtedly secondary schools out there (Pakistan, as one editor noted) without reliable sources to support them. In those cases, the general notability guideline would not be met, and the article would be a good candidate for deletion.--BaronLarf 04:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability: why?

(this discussion began in The Notability of High Schools)

(sorry for the drift) I never understood why something calling itself an encyclopedia needs notability criteria. Though I'm sure there have been raised many good, rational arguments against this point of view. Paradoctor (talk) 11:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If there are no criteria for inclusion, then ANYTHING goes. Do you think any encyclopedia should have an entry on yourself, for example, or me, or that neighbor four doors down, across the street whose name you can't recall? How about your car? Someone's pets? Etc. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Provided there are supporting WP:RS, why should that be a problem?

• "whose name you can't recall": That only means neither you nor me would have any interest in creating or maintaining such an article. I'm pretty sure that is true for the vast majority of articles in any encyclopedia, let alone a behemoth like Wikipedia. In fact, you couldn't even read all articles in your lifetime.
• "your car": See above.
• "pets": That means you want to AfD Socks, All Ball, Hodge, Humphrey, Smudge, Scarlett, Tama, Trim and Wilberforce, don't you?

To reiterate: Where's the problem? Paradoctor (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree. I've never understood what Collectonian and most others are so concerned about. That being said, that some "notability" (loosely defined, mostly related to fame, despite that being specifically disclaimed) is required has become a well worn standard among many. It's become such a part of the background here that I doubt that many who are sympathetic to this point of view, such as myself, would seriously consider trying to deprecate it.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware that it's popular. What I'm trying to figure out is why? I willing to consider the possibility that I'm inclusionist because I'm ignorant. But so far, my impression of the arguments for notability is "only the important stuff", by whatever yardstick is handy. For an encyclopedia, notability can at best be a compromise forced by limited resources. I'd like to know about the horrible things that would happen if WP:N was AfD'ed. Paradoctor (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

In many cases, notability is used to restrict or delete content. I'm not sure why people are more interested in deleting content than adding it. WP:RS and WP:V are all that's really needed to judge inclusion. RxS (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• OK, a defence of notability as a standard. Inclusionists want everything verifiable in reliable sources to be included (some extreme inclusionists don't even want to be restricted to what reliable sources say). Imagine the result: rather than being a summary of noteworthy topics, Wikipedia becomes a mirror of the internet and the press, with no discrimination. Every local news report gets its own article, every sports match, every self-published book with a press release, etc. The problem is that Wikipedia becomes a compendium of trivia and self-publicity, even more than it already is. An encyclopedia does not serve to record all information ever, and Wikipedia is not the only outlet for information in existence. Fences&Windows 22:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

  eh, you're just setting up a false dichotomy though, and seemingly basing your entire argument on that. Aside from an emotional assumption, what evidence do you have that Wikipedia would become "a mirror of the internet"? What does that mean exactly, anyway? To take it to a real extreme, if we actually took away the ability to delete articles, is it your position that Wikipedia would become useless? I think that Paradoctor is hitting the heart of the matter here in asking "where's the actual problem?"
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, I think that without notability large parts of Wikipedia would become completely unmanageable, full of trivia and self-publicity. It would be like Google Knol (not something we want to emulate). Don't cherry pick my worst argument to refute ("mirror of the internet" was hyperbole): if we only have WP:V and WP:RS, every topic covered in at least one news article, book or scholarly article could have its own article. That wouldn't be an encyclopedia, it would be a mess. You want this? Fences&Windows 00:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

  See, this gets to the heart of where this ideology looses me. Do you see yourself as some sort of "guardian of Wikipedia", or something? Perhaps yourself and others are running around exposing yourselves to more problematic articles then I am or something, I don't know for sure, but I don't see anything even remotely approaching a real problem (even when I do random article copy editing). I'm just not sure where this idea, which seems to be something like "I must approve your editing", is coming from (and it probably doesn't help that I have no clue why Knol is being mentioned, especially since AFAIK that's the way that Knol operates). It seems to me that many of you who espouse this "notability is the most important content guideline" idea are over-involved in testoterone filled "enforcement" tasks here, rather then actually building article content. It is interesting to note that most those people who hold that sort of view end up nominating and approving each other to be "admins" as well. Y'all have pushed the pendulum to far towards policy enforcement recently.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

  That's very well said. I see people running around defending the old idea of what an encyclopedia is, calling the alternatives ill defined terms like "mess" etc...but never explicitly identify what the actual problem is. Like I said above, reliable sources and verifiability is all that's needed to control content, but many editors are more interested in writing rules than writing content and want to enforce that on the rest of the group. RxS (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

  "Many of you who espouse this "notability is the most important content guideline" idea are over-involved in testoterone filled "enforcement" tasks here, rather then actually building article content." Nonsense. I've started ten of articles and significantly expanded hundreds. I've deprodded over two hundred articles and I've probably argued for keeping hundreds of articles at AfD. You have set up a false dichotomy of "content builders" and "gatekeepers". Believing in notability does not make one a deletionist. Of course we have to approve each others' editing, it's a collaborative project aiming to achieve a quality product, not a playpen or a walled garden. Anyone care to address my specific issue, which is that all things ever covered once in a reliable source could have their own article without notability being used as a guide? I think that notability is a good thing as it forces editors not to be lazy, we have to actually find multiple reliable sources that discuss the topic rather than relying on the first Google News hit or primary sources. Many who don't like notability are either promoting something (including fandom) or are just bad at finding sources. I don't think that writing a neutral, quality article is possible in the absence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, as without this you're relying on single sources (bad for reasons of bias and incompleteness) and primary sources (probably presenting a biased view of the subject). As for policy enforcers being admins, it's one of the things admins are meant to do so you may be putting the cart before the horse. If you want a diversity of editors as admins, nominate some. Fences&Windows 14:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia would become completely unmanageable" ... "a mess": That looks like a serious concern. But what do you mean by that? Wikipedia has no management to begin with. Sounds a bit like arguments against democracy. (Relax, /me is AGFer ;)

"notability is a good thing as it forces" ... "multiple reliable sources": Umm, You seem to be conflating two policies here. I'm every bit as interested in WP:V as you are, but if you feel that WP:N is necessary to uphold WP:V, that is an argument for upgrading WP:V, rather than a justification for WP:N.

"Many who don't like notability": Neither do they like WP:V or WP:RS. That's basically the same argument as above, you wish to use WP:N as a tool to enforce other policies.

"without this you're relying on single sources": Again, this has nothing to do with notability. If you say that a single reliable source is not sufficient to satisfy WP:V, then let's add that to WP:V. Paradoctor (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

My 2 cents is that WP:N is fundamentally too limiting in many cases. I think there are things many people care about where the coverage is in depth but primary (say TV show episodes or Pokemon) where there is plenty of material and interest in the topic by our readers. That said, I generally favor and support WP:N because it's a fairly objective standard and that's darn useful. Otherwise we get too far into debates with people who think covering TV shows (for example) at all is "trivia" and not worthy of coverage here and we end up spending all our time arguing rather than just most :-). I'd love to see something better, but I've no idea what that would be. Hobit (talk) 06:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:N is absolutely necessary. While it's true that Wikipedia is not paper, and so we are not limited by physical space concerns, it is fallacious to proceed to saying that we have unlimited resources. We do not. We, the editors of Wikipedia, are not a limitless resource. A metric of notability serves to help us keep the encyclopedia to a size manageable by the population editing it. The exponential increase in size precipitated by a revocation of the notability guidelines would produce an unmanageable mess, and would only serve to harm the reputation, and ultimately the usefulness, of the encyclopedia. Powers ^T 13:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"exponential increase in size precipitated by a revocation of the notability guidelines": Please forgive me for finding that amusing. Where were you a few years ago? ;)

Actually, removing WP:N could improve our editor base. How many potential editors waste their time at Wikia? And who knows, maybe some of those SPAs grow into fine, upstanding model Wikipedians? If the stats are to be trusted, only one in 10000 accounts becomes an active editor right now, so our strength lies in numbers.

"fallacious" ... "saying that we have unlimited resources": Dunno about that. There is WP:PERFORMANCE, and considering the way IT is developing, technology will not be the limiting factor for the foreseeable future. And as argued above, WP:N may be be a liability to our growth and well-being.

"unmanageable mess": Some facts or reasonable speculations would be nice here. Both F&W and you talk about a "mess", but I don't see how it would be different from the current state. Paradoctor (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As I thought I made clear, I wasn't speaking of technical limitations when I said that we don't have unlimited resources. I'm well aware of how quickly technology is advancing and that it is not a limiting factor. I apologize if that wasn't clear. As to your last point, widening the project's scope without a concomitant increase in editorial activity would necessarily result in lower-quality content. I suppose it's possible that some of the new content would be contributed by new regular editors, but it seems far more likely that the content will be contributed in large part by drive-by users who just want to say their piece but have no interest in maintaining or developing the content they add. Powers ^T 14:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"I apologize": Please don't, if I followed your lead, I'd soon have to disembowel myself in order to satisfy propriety standards. Seriously, I'll gladly presume that any typos of yours are really brainos of mine.

"widening the project's scope without a concomitant increase in editorial activity": I argued above that broadening the project scope would possibly lead to an increase.

"no interest in maintaining or developing": That's the edit pattern of the vast majority of contributors. And yet, they make a substantial contribution overall.

"far more likely": I hope you have a good argument for that, because I'd love to pick it to pieces. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As you note, that's the edit pattern currently common; there's no reason to think it'd change. And we're barely hanging on as it is now; to add more drive-by users would risk overwhelming the rest of us. Or so it seems to me. Powers ^T 22:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll refrain from characterizing yourself and those who also hold your stated opinion here (I'm sure that you've heard it before anyway, but it involves control), but I happen to think that "being overwhelmed by drive by editors" would be one of the best things to happen to Wikipedia in a while. Beware insularity.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• sigh* I don't think it's being a control freak to want to avoid diluting the mission of this project. We can't be all things to all people. There's a reason one of our five pillars is "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". Achieving that goal requires a clear definition of scope. If we overreach when defining that scope, we risk infringing on other projects, increasing the enormity of our task (possibly by several orders of magnitude), and for what real gain? At any rate, just because I disagree with you on the impact such a change in scope would have is no reason to start casting aspersions on my motivations. Powers ^T 13:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

But WP:RS is not WP:N. In fact, WP:RS is not even WP:V

I'm seeing a conflation of "notability" (which actually is a synonym for the interest taken by "interesting" or "official" people), with "source reliability" which actually has to do with something entirely different, which is truth. There is a huge amount of reliable-source information out there which is likely to be true, but which isn't interesting and thus not notable. Like mundane weather reports from mundane places, decades ago. Who cares that someplace that often gets cloudy skies, had cloudy skies on March 9, 1952? Unless there's some interesting historical event at that time and place it bears on, the answer is: nobody. The same for high school goings on from the same day, even if they made it into some Fische record of some (now disappeared) newspaper. They're like the weather. The routine weather reports from local places are examples of stuff that is WP:RS but not WP:N. Thus, WP:RS does NOT and should not define WP:N, but that bad idea is something I'm seeing proposed above. These two things, N and RS, are two different things, and it takes both to be really worthy of inclusion. Of course, that said, the problem is in defining N in some other way that has nothing to do with RS, and I've had my say about that. It ends up being a game where celebrities identify celebrity, and they themselves are identified the same way. Soon you can be famous for being famous, ala Warhol.

Perhaps the nastiest example of such conflict comes in the area of BLP, where RS is defined in terms of "likely to be true," but then "likely to be true" is defined as "having come from a source identified as reliable." This gets to the epistemological problem of when we admit that our list of standard V sources (you can look them up) are not RS sources (likely to be TRUE), because some things aren't as likely to be reliable as our memories, which aren't available to anybody. So WP:V is not WP:RS, either. For example, I myself am the leading expert on my own life, and if I disagree with something that gets into print about me, from somebody who met me for a few hours, I'm more likely to be right than the "source" is, if we disagree. Especially when a statement I myself made is the source for the information in the "RS" source, which got it from ME, second-hand! And yet, in a deletion fight, the WP:V claim would be taken over mine, even though it came from me originally, and was garbled. Go figure. This is a prime example of what may be called the "celebritization of truth." The idea being that something is more likely to be true, if some "notable" or celebrated person or source claims it, than if an "ordinary person" (like you or me) claims it. Say what? That's an incredibly stupid idea, indeed ridiculous idea on the very face of it, but it's written right into WP's policies. They make no exception for BLP, in part because of a foolish consistancy which is the hobgoblin of little minds. SBHarris 19:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of logical fallacies which are apparent to me, here. The first is Who cares that someplace that often gets cloudy skies, had cloudy skies on March 9, 1952?, which makes the galling and presumptuous judgment that you somehow know the information that all of our readers might want or need to see. This seems to be the core idea under which the "notability warriors" operate, that they are somehow more knowledgeable then the rest of us. Is it then any wonder that the various XFD areas are often turned into a battleground?

And then there's For example, I myself am the leading expert on my own life, and if I disagree with something that gets into print about me, from somebody who met me for a few hours, I'm more likely to be right than the "source" is, if we disagree. This is certainly true in day to day life, but there's a fundamental problem with it's use here on Wikipedia. How do I know who you are? Even if you do something to connect your Wikipedia identity with your real life identity, how can we verify that anything said through your account actually comes from you? Unless and until some legal means of generally establishing identity is created and adopted for the Internet (yea, right, that'll happen...) then this is just a generally untenable line of thinking to pursue. If there really is untruthful information out there, then some publication will be willing to print it, at which point we can and should cite that.

All of that being said, I do agree that our self-referential verifiability, reliable sources, and notability policies and guidelines are a problem. I think that comes from the fact that there are (obviously) different ideological ways to look at this whole subject. I have no idea how to really address the issue though, or if it's even possible to address it.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"isn't interesting and thus not notable": But where is the problem in having uninteresting articles? The vast majority of the current articles are not interesting to you in any meaningful way, so that doesn't seem to be a good exclusion criterion. Wikipedia does not need to sell itself. You're under no obligation to work on stuff you're not interested in. So where's the problem?

"WP:RS does NOT and should not define WP:N, but that bad idea is something I'm seeing proposed above." Umm, I did not make any proposal. Right here and now, my interest is in learning why people think that notability is important. Paradoctor (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

We know that Verifiability=/=truth, but you're going to have to live with it while editing Wikipedia. If you can't verify an objection to published material, how are the rest of us supposed to trust in the objection?

As for us basing our articles on what is "notable", i.e. what is given significant coverage in multiple, independent, secondary reliable sources, on what other basis should we make our decisions on inclusion? Your assertion that reliable sources=celebrity sources isn't true, scholarly sources are in plentiful use on Wikipedia.

Your point about trivia is covered in WP:UNDUE, and seems to be a straw man as I don't think that many editors would want to detail the weather on a random day five decades ago in an article. Wouldn't WP:NOTNEWS be a reason to exclude listing all the weather reports ever for a town in Weather of X? Whether to include information about the weather or high school events in a particular article (if they can be verified) is an editorial judgement. If the information is pretty trivial, we'll likely not include it. It is already well established that Wikipedia is not for listing every verifiable fact, see WP:NOT. But the weather on the day of a major event (like a space shuttle disaster) might be worth including. Fences&Windows 21:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This is confusing to me. What exactly is the difference between WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable Sources, and WP:Indiscriminate? They seem redundant or at least largely overlapping. I think I understand the difference between them and notability, though - this can be demonstrated through examples. There are plenty of newspaper articles, books, photos, video, and other reliable media concerning construction projects, weather, business openings or closings, car crashes, murders, and weddings of random people dating back hundreds of years, but they may not be notable (or no longer notable, even if they were 50 years ago). To me, it seems that things may be notable for one group of people (like everyone in a small town within a certain time period, but nobody else), but it would not satisfy our criteria unless it was notable for a larger community (how big? notable to a small town of 300 is too small, but if 2 newspapers and a mayoral announcement of a city of 5000 covered it, that would probably be notable?) and there was coverage beyond a few months (WP:NTEMP). But I still am not convinced of the need for the notability requirement, though the notability essays make for good reading. Also, in practice, in my experience with AfD discussions, notability is satisfied by having a certain number of verifiable, reliable sources in the article, usually about 5. I understand that there may be more theory behind it, but pragmatically this is how the system appears to work. It's like a simple equation: 2 or 3 big newspapers coverage (or 10 prominent online sources) equals notable - admins probably don't have time to ponder things like the impact of an article's topic. -kslays (talk • contribs) 23:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"No longer notable, even if they were 50 years ago". No, "notability is not temporary" means that notable topics are always notable. Read WP:NTEMP again. WP:V is about the fact that we need to verify facts using sources, WP:RS is about how to find reliable sources, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE means that we don't include everything we can verify: all very separate. Fences&Windows 00:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the pithy distinction. So, per WP:NTEMP, if something was notable in 1952, it is still notable, regardless of whether it would be interesting to anyone today. That leaves the matter of how big the population of people who care(d) has to be, and the functional distinction of notability from having a minimum number of sources during AfD discussions. -kslays (talk • contribs) 01:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This conversation is fabulous. It would help if we could see some statistics, i.e. a list of articles that have been deleted on the grounds that they lack notability -- does such a thing exist?

I'm going to venture that it's mostly rock bands, books, restaurants, bios of struggling professionals, startup companies ... in other words, self-promoters. I have always felt that Notability embodied Wikipedia's (admirable) hostility to greed; it means, "We have to be convinced that this article will help OTHER PEOPLE more than it helps YOU", but we can't really say that. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 11:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be all AfD and PROD deletions, and the CSDs that deal with notability. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to answer your question, but there are some old deletion stats here: User:Emijrp/Statistics#Most deleted ever, User:Emijrp/Deleting, Wikipedia:AFD 100 days. Deletion archives here: Wikipedia:Archived deletion discussions. Common outcomes gives a qualitative description rather than quantitative: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. For light relief, see Wikipedia:Deleted articles with freaky titles. Fences&Windows 15:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(Andrew Gradman) "self-promoters": If the information is verifiable, where is the problem? We don't judge edits by the motives of the editor, we judge them by their value to the article. Wikipedia does not participate in advertising, and I'm probably one of the greatest fans of that. But on the other hand, we don't censor facts just because someone might stand to profit from them. Paradoctor (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Field-specific guidelines

I believe that the points above all easily explain why some concept and baseline for notability is necessary - while not paper, we're not an indiscriminate collection of verifiable information.

That said, understanding that notability as it is treated today as one swing of the pendulum of self-correction on WP is probably a bit too heavy-handed but also a bit too unfocused. I think most editors know how to use notability, but it is clear that most of this inclusist vs deletionist war that's been going on is due to a vicious circle of events that typically start with a heated argument at AFD and lead to ranges of articles being contested. This is often fueled by disagreement for what is appropriate coverage of certain fields relative to other fields (a fact often joked at by the press, which fuels the battles further) - I know one of the biggest is concepts from fictional works (characters, etc.) which some believe are important to be covered but rarely can be covered by secondary sources, thus making the present WP:GNG statement difficult to work with. But this is also true for schools, sports figures, etc.

It is not that notability isn't a bad idea, nor one to be abandoned, but we need to remind people that we a combination of an encyclopedia/gazetteer/almanac - to that end, we should be asking ourselves, first and foremost, what is it that we want to cover, and not the negative of what we don't want to cover. Given any field, we should be able to say "Ok, topics that satisfy these conditions from this field that demonstrate notability within that field should be included", and list out specific criteria that avoid subjection assessments. This may not be possible for some fields, but I think most fields can provide a good swath at appropriate topics that, with reasonable assurance, would be part of the encyclopedia/gazetteer/almanac. To that end, we already have the various sub-notability guidelines (SNGs) that provide that. Failing the SNG then drops you to our next goalline, the general notability guideline, which says that a topic that shows notability via secondary sources should be included. Mind you, many topics that would meet the field-specific guidelines likely would meet the GNG, but this should not be taken as a sign that the GNG is more important. The GNG is the fallback position of a topic doesn't meet its field's guidelines or if the field lacks any guidelines or falls outside of any known field. When viewed like this, this can significant help discussions at AFDs where notability is in play, because we're not talking about the presence of sources but the appropriateness of the topic for WP: if it is notable in the specific field but lacks sources, we should be more open to keeping it than deletion.

The problem we stuck with is this impression - when you read through policies and guidelines and AFDs - that the only good encyclopedic article is one that has third-party, secondary sources. Granted - verification and avoidance of original research and bias are all important, and third-party, secondary sources are a strong way to get there. But that's satisfying the "encyclopedia" part of WP's mission - gazetteers and almanac are works that tend to just cite facts and not attempt analysis or the like. Not every article on WP needs third-party secondary sources to meet WP's mission. That's not to say that we open the door to thousands of articles by allowing primary, first-person accounts as the only sourcing metric, and that's why, again, the field-specific guidelines of what is actually notable should come into play - there may be some topics within a field that should be included even if the sourcing is otherwise not as strong as one that is provided through secondary sources. Failing the field, then the lack of secondary sources will mean the topic fails the GNG, and we likely would not have a separate article on it.

We still need to make sure that field specific guidelines for inclusion are not overly inclusive compared to others. For example, if a guideline says that a one-time cameo fictional character always gets an article, while we exclude an amateur that plays one time at the Olympics through an athlete-field guideline or a single mom-and-pop business through a business-field guideline, we've got a problem. These field guidelines cannot be developed in a vacuum and should be challenged if they are overly inclusive - or overly exclusive too. We also need to realize that not every topic easily shuffles into established fields, or that new fields may become more obvious over time as we work towards this. We still have the GNG for those.

Basically, the "tl;dr" version of the above is simply that we should be asking ourselves, "what do we want to include in WP" instead of always playing the negative "This doesn't belong in WP". We want to assure ourselves we are covering all topics within individual fields well enough to meet the mission of WP, and being overly reliant on the GNG is harmful. (An argument I've had to point out several times is that while the property of having significant coverage is usually the result of something being wikt:notable, it is not true that having significant coverage is what makes something wikt:notable. There is a small but significant gap between GNG-based notable topics and dictionary-definition-based notable topics. We need to find out how to fill that gap, and field-specific guidelines are one way to do so.) --MASEM (t) 16:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This has some merit. But it might be hard to do in practice. That is, a list of included fields could be too long. Maurreen (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

A complete switch to this approach is not something to be done overnight. But the framework is there, in how the existing SNGs (like WP:BIO, WP:BK, and WP:MUSIC already are written towards this idea. It would be a gradual change. The only immediate switch is applying to all editors the general understanding that the GNG needs to be treated as the fallback for notability, not the first barrier. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense.

In one of the sub-guidelines, I don't remember which one, is something like "has made a major, lasting, contribution to his field." I think that is a good guideline in general.

The question then would become, "When is a field to small?" But that could be addressed gradually and organically, as you suggest, such as by adding sets of sub-guidelines. Each set of sub-guidelines could be addressed specifically. Maurreen (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:CREEP to me. I dunno; I always felt our ultimate goal was well-researched articles regardless of the field. Fundamentally, I see Wikipedia as the biggest literature review in existence. Nifboy (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Finally someone with brains. (Ok, I'm gushing ;) Paradoctor (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Technically it is not creep as the framework is in place, though yes, as more field-specific guidelines are added, that increases the size, but I don't see that changing the general ways things are done. And while I do agree with you about WP being a literature review, that itself can be conducted, with care, in the absence of secondary sources which is why the GNG should fallback over topic-inclusion guidelines if it is a topic we decide we want to cover. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still not reading you right. I see "in the absence of secondary sources" and read it as "in the absence of anything resembling a decent article at all." Then again, I'm most active in a project with a big list of things not to do because GameFAQs, TV Tropes, Wikia et al do them better (see WP:VGSCOPE); those sites are not constrained by things like WP:OR. What Wikipedia does better than any other place on the web is source compilation and summary. The notability guideline emphasizes that, and I like playing to our strengths. Nifboy (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That point of view is starting from the possibly flawed opinion that secondary sources are necessary in a good article. I will content that it is likely difficult, working from non-secondary sources, to make an article as strong as one that is backed by that, but that it is not impossible. The reason I consider this possibly flawed is that what we consider an "encyclopedic" article is so disputed to know if this is consensus or not. I propose that being more open about topics but still alert to indiscriminate incluse, what we include will tell us better what we expect of "encyclopedic" articles. --MASEM (t) 04:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You probably could make a good article, but I don't think it would be a Wikipedia article, if that distinction is at all meaningful. Nifboy (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If we were just an encyclopedia, yes, I argue for what you're saying, but the fact we're more than just an encyclopedia means that we may have articles that don't fit the pattern of an encyclopedia but nevertheless part of what we considered to be covered. --MASEM (t) 05:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

We are? And here I thought Wikipedia was just one of many different knowledge bases on the internet, willing to let other projects pick up subject matters where we're weak, typically due to our policies. Nifboy (talk) 06:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

We're an encylopedia that anyone can edit, but we're still just an encylopedia. People forgetting this is possibly the single-most cause of drama and conflict here. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that where a MediaWiki sister project exists or has the possibility of existing, we should consider moving non-encyclopedic material to there. I also agree we are to be summarizing knowledge, not simply reiterating it, and pointed to reliable sources outside of the Foundation should be encouraged, but that's after we've summarized the topic here. I also point to the difficulty that many editors have resolving the first pillar in what "encyclopedia" means when we have elements of more datum-driven works like almanacs and gazetteers as elements of WP as well. This, in part, is the problem of notability, is that it is a way to drive home one's own opinion of "encyclopedic", when I doubt anyone can say exactly where the consensus stands on what "encyclopedic" quality really is. The bounds of that opinion are likely much narrower than they were 4-5 years ago before notability, but it is still a very fuzzy line and one that we need to be careful of.

That said, even if we take a stronger concept of what we expect a good WP article to be (a point I contend against, but will assume for this discussion), I would still assert that field-specific inclusion guidelines are needed. There are likely topics we want to include because they are in fields that are core to human knowledge, but due to difficulty in getting sources (due to rarity, age, cost, etc.) may not easily be expanded in the short term. It is better to put out the article with what limited verified information we have and hope that anons and other readers can expand it before those sources can get added, than to have no article at all. Eventually we hope that article gets to this "encyclopedic" quality, but there is no need to have it off the bat. That's the benefit of being a continuous work in progress with community additions. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:ATHLETE in relation to referees

WP:ATHLETE clearly lays out notability guidelines for athletes that do not pass WP:GNG. However, Bradjamesbrown brought up a good point at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ian_Rogers_(rugby_referee). Referees are not included in WP:ATHLETE. For example, this person does not seem to meet the general notability guideline, but they certainly would pass WP:ATHLETE if it applies to referees. I'm inclined to personally say that it does not, but I figured it would be good to get a discussion on this topic going. So, do referees apply to WP:ATHLETE? NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe ask at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)? Maurreen (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Should "notable" should be in Wikipedia:Words to avoid?

I see this word appearing with much higher frequency in articles than it does when the English language is used elsewhere. This is probably because the word is in the mind of many wikipedians due to Wikipedia:Notability etc. I'm suggesting that it be added to the list of words to avoid. What do you think? Noodle snacks (talk) 10:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Avoid using a word that's a core principle of wikipedia? Why? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

And what word would you substitute? There are many lists of the form "List of notable X", whether as independent articles or embedded lists, and indeed they need to be restricted somehow or many would get clogged with trivia. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Damn, it creeps in RL, that's scary. Yours truly, who reads and writes English-language business letters in RL, frequently finds himself inserting notable in an otherwise innocuous audit report. Many times per page. Others spotted him substituting "true and fair view" with "demonstration of notability" and promptly called local asylum, but he bravely escaped the straightjacket and the little gray men... On the topic: an article approaching GA/FA hurdle will be, most likely, cleaned of all weasel words. And anything less than GA nominee has more important issues to do. I would not worry at all. NVO (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

And what should we do then with the Assembly of Notables? MBelgrano (talk) 11:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Charlie took care of it didn't he? NVO (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is a combination of the oft-quoted "no claim of notability" deletion reason and the fact that WP:Notability is not the same thing as wikt:notability. Many people use "notable" in articles when they mean the former rather than the latter, which is something to avoid. Plus, there is already WP:Words to avoid#Do not note what is being noted, which would include "X is notable" or "X is a notable Y". We already know they are, because they have a Wikipedia article (and if they're not they shouldn't have). OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That depends on context: the fact of someone being notable within a specific field may be important to understand why a event described took place on one way and not another; specially at fields were such notability is not a "generic" perception but something granting exclusive powers. Another example, notable subjects may not have been notable during all of their life or existence, and it should be pointed at which point of it they became notable.

Perhaps this proposal can be improved to a more generic way: avoid (or make sure of using the real meaning) words and quotes being used on a steady manner at Wikipedia maintenance. This means "Notable", "Verifiable", "Encyclopedic", "Undue weight", "Vandals", "Original research", "neutral point of view", etc. MBelgrano (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

THF's Third Law of Wikipedia is that the notability of a subject generally varies inversely with the relative frequency of the adjective "notable" in their Wikipedia article. If you look at featured articles about truly notable subjects, you will almost never see the word "notable" used. Nobody says "George Washington was notably the first president of the United States." Its use is generally in sentences like "Smith's notably finished in the semifinals in the Last Comic Standing 6 competition, falling just short of the final twelve contestants" that tend to be evidence against notability. I agree that the word should be avoided in articles, but it should be avoided because it's a ridiculous Wikipedia cliche' that makes our articles look like self-parody. See also Wikipedia:Wikipuffery and {{puffery}}. THF (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree here - while on WP namespace pages, we need to use these terms, these are all behind-the-scenes stuff that should not be seen by our readers. Words like "notable" may come up in normal prose writing about a topic but they should only be used naturally and when appropriate, not as a means to demonstrate (or failure to do so) an article's compliance with policy and guideline. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that's partly a side effect of the way CSD A7 is written. People get told they need an "asertion of notability" so they do exactly that. "John Doe is notable because...". Not good prose, but easy to see why it happens.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Easy enough to solve: Make clear that it suffices to make the case for notability on the talk page. Paradoctor (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really. The article itself should make it clear why the subject is worth reading about, assuming that the reader has any interest at all. The reasons stated above are exactly why this is happening (and, as an editorial aside, I'd hope that you guys running around looking for things to CSD A7 and/or tag with {{notability}} would take note of the side-effect that you're causing), but it's not really a terrible problem. When you see this, simply click the "edit" tab/link and copy edit the prose to be more natural. This is a collaborative project, after all...
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"worth reading about"? Now if that isn't an essentially contested concept. ;) But my point is far simpler: Notability is a peculiarity of Wikipedia, and if you demand that the criteria are obvious from the article text, you'll inevitably have editors using Wikipedia jargon in the article. Paradoctor (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I was trying to avoid using "notable" myself. Regardless, your point about inevitability is what I was getting at myself, that this sort of problem is going to occur when people repeat ad nausium that something is a problem. It'd be nice if people would shut up about it, if even just a little bit, but that's not likely to happen. All of that being true, the best way to deal with the situation is to go and edit, removing the problem with the overuse of "notable" where you identify it.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"Notable" is listed in Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms, for exactly the reason THF has stated. Nifboy (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

photographs of art

In the past I have photographed a couple of pieces of original art, paintings, that I owned. I am not the artist. i placed them on Wikipedia in order to illustrate the artist, a man recently dead, and whose copyright still therefore applies. Those images were removed with the argument that they were a copyright infringement. I am content with that.

Today I see a photograph of a sculpture with an artist whose copyright still applies. See File:The Scallop, Maggi Hambling, Aldeburgh.jpg. Please can I learn how this differs from a photograph of a painting and why this is not a copyright infringement? I am aware of the obvious 2 dimensions vs 3 dimensions answer for a photo of a sculpture. I am not sure that argument has validity. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Panoramafreiheit applies here. Paradoctor (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I chose a poor example. What about a closeup of a statue with no particular background? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Changes nothing. You're probably thinking of de minimis, but that doesn't apply here. Personally, I think that all bits should be freed, but I may not be entirely objective here. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't! I am now. I've read the areas you pointed me to, I am better informed, but I remain unconvinced. There is a borderline, somewhere, that one crosses. I just can't spot it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I wasn't accusing you of anything. ;) If you're interested in discussing the finer points of image copyright, you want to head over to commons:Village Pump, copyright is a major topic there. Paradoctor (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't feel accused of anything, you know :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Commons is specifically set up to be "A repository of free content". Their inclusion criteria are intentionally more restrictive then Wikipedia's, since there's no need or desire for "fair use" within their specific framework.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You can use a photo/reprint/whatever of the piece of art in order to directly illustrate that piece of art (If there is any reason for "fair use", this would be exactly it!). All you need to do is to use {{Non-free use rationale}} on the File: or Image: page. There are instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. It's confusing because there editors here who have made it much more difficult then it needs to be, or really should be, to use copyrighted media on Wikipedia, but it's manageable once you've read through our byzantine pseudo-legalese usage guidelines. In the end it simply comes down to making whomever it is who shows up to delete the file happy, so you'll just have to talk to whomever that happens to be (hopefully cordially, although I wouldn't bet on that. My experience with those editors who have appointed themselves to the job of "policing" images has been resoundingly negative, unfortunately.)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Those were my own feelings. My experience mirrors yours. Unfortunately the wisdom of crowds can become distorted once people don a self created uniform. I attempted to put two different style illustrations into the article Anthony Robert Klitz to illustrate his work with a couple of his works. And there they remained for a good few months. I chose not to discuss the removal because it became uninteresting. Fiddle Faddle (talk)

Talk:Johnny Weir#RfC: Is the LGBT Wikiproject tag acceptable on this talkpage

A BLP-related RfC has been opened at the above page. To some extent the issue in the RfC concerns balancing rights of members of a Wikiproject vs. WP:BLP considerations. In any event, extra input, on either side of the dispute, is welcome. Nsk92 (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Adnan Oktar and his reply to wikipedia

As one of the main contributors to the Adnan Oktar-article, I discovered that an anonymous user with a Turkish IP-adress added the website www.replytowikipedia.com/ to the External links-section of this article. How should we deal with it?
A) It is very, very interesitng; thus we rework the article and the WP-policies;
B) It is very interesting; thus we should expand the article with A.O.'s given comments;
C) It is somewhat interesting; thus, we keep the link in the links section and that is it;
D) It is not interesting; thus we delete this link.
I have been too involved into the article to give a neutral opinion. Let me just say that I really tried to give every claim a prper reference, I believe I succeeded in this. SO please give my your opinions and ideas in this.Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Userspace guidelines to allow NOINDEX as a remedy?

User space is often used for self-promotion (WP:NOT#MYSPACE and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX), and to draft articles, keep notes, and other miscellaneous material by the user.

Userspace guidelines (WP:UP) state that where a user page may be used inappropriately the user should be asked, and deletion may be discussed. This can take considerable time and effort though, so problem material proliferates in userspace.

I would like to propose an addition to userspace guidelines, that if it appears a userspace page may be used inappropriately, a NOINDEX tag can be added by any admin.

Rationale:

1. Userspace is not subject to the scrutiny of mainspace, and pages may be nested. So unremedied user pages may go a long time between being noticed or before being remedied.
2. Userspace does not normally contain material that benefits the project or "knowledge" to spider externally. Its user pages are not a web host, publisher, soapbox, promotional medium, blog, repository, or personal web space.
3. NOINDEX does not affect correct use (it's is transparent for any legitimate use of userspace), but impedes inappropriate use from being very damaging and hinders attempts to "use Wikipedia" inappropriately for external impact.
4. Allows immediate handling, with follow-up by discussion at leisure, if the page creator objects to NOINDEX or the viewing user believes removal/redaction will be needed.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)