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, use the proposals section.

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

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

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 5 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Discussions older than 5 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These discussions will be kept archived for 9 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 9 days the discussion can only be found through the page history.

communication = notification be phone [or even] eMail and at least Snailmail

why not ALERT a user that [at the worst] our 'TOPIC' is about to be deleted or [ the LEASTE] an important responce is in your Bit-Bucket ? ! ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UNiRaC (talk • contribs)

Wait, what? Are you saying you want us to send you a postcard before AfDing "your" page? No. A talk page posting and maybe an e-mail is more than sufficient. --tjstrf talk 06:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

But most of the time, users don't even get a notification on their talkpage when an article is AfD'd. Admins just use their arbitrary powers to delete anything they don't like. Walton monarchist89 10:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please (re)read WP:AGF - the view of most of us here, I believe, is that admins try their best (and usually succeed) in being objective about deletions.

Having said that, I do think that it could be a major improvement to have an automated system post a message on user talk pages (as is done, for example, with the Signpost), for, say, the person who created the article (but does NOT, as noted by someone else, own the article), and also post the same message on the talk pages of (say) the last ten editors (or, alternatively, anyone editing the page in the last 30 or 60 or 90 days). John Broughton | Talk 14:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There are huge numbers of editors who fix typos, refine categories and DAB wikilinks on pages they have not made major content changes on. No bot could distinguish them from actual content editors. I would think most of them would be, uh, less than thrilled to start getting their Talk pages filled with notices like this. Fan-1967 14:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep things simple. Users want their page in good condition : they respect our policy and they put the page in their watchlist. They may use RSS too - see VP:Tech. -- DLL ^{.. T} 18:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

While a notification to primary contributors is nice and appreciated , no user is under any obligation to do so, because users don't own the pages they contribute to. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• We have such an automated system, it's called a watchlist :) (Radiant) 13:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally always leave a message on the talk page of the user most active (if he is not the creator) if i have left an AFD on his article. Generally most articles to be AFD's are very recent in creation, so the creator will still see the tag or his talk page message. And if not, there are always other users who seem to get the word around, esp. with wikiprojects watching all of their own articles. I personally think the system works well. From articles I have seen AFD'd or AFD'd myself, if the user wants to contest it he has always found out pretty quickly and added the hang on template. SGGH 11:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I especially commend this when it is a newbie, and more stronly when it is the first article. Note {{Firstarticle|Page name}} is available so one doesn't need to come up with text, but I personally try to add a detailed discussion of the reason that we want to delete certain kinds of articles. Sometimes the newbie still accuses me of being stupid and arbitrary (and usually mistakes me for an admin), but sometimes it helps. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Contacting users for academic surveys.

Should requests made to user_talk pages, article talk pages, and/or emailing editors be prohibited? Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Spam#Academic user surveys. -- Jeandré, 2006-12-17t10:36z

The best term to wrap up cities, towns, villages, etc.

I won't get into what's been happening with top-level U.S. state categories lately (as I don't want to treat this like a dispute), but I'd like to know what fellow Wikipedians think. Should we wrap up subcategories for cities, towns, villages, etc. into a top-level category for "settlements" or should we use something like "political subdivisions" or "administrative divisions". All of these connote certain things, but I just wanted to get others' opinions on this. Thanks! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Settlements seems to be the best word to wrap up cities, towns, villages, etc. into one category, in my opinion. Political subdivisions and administrative divisions would seem to include only those locations that are politically recognized and would include things like counties, states, provinces, etc. On the other hand, Settlements limits the subcategories to concentrations of people and excludes counties, states, provinces, etc.--Bobblehead 18:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

How about "populated areas"? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and say what I think is optimal, although I don't want to stop others' ideas from flowing. I'm thinking "community" or perhaps even "polity" (although, that's kind of a flighty word). A city and a county can both be communities. What sounds less absurd, the Louisville community, or the Louisville settlement? With counties: the Jefferson County community, or the Jefferson County settlement? I'm going by connotations here, and community has a more authentic ring to it. Even "populated area" sounds more authentic than settlement when looking at it this way. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• For information existing use of 'settlements' in WP, see Settlement (first meaning), Category:Settlements, Category:Settlements by region, Category:Settlements in the United States. This is not a discussion about what to call a particular city, town, village--they are still cities, towns, villages etc. This is a discussion regarding the collective name for human habitations, which include city, town, village, etc, but not state, county, province, etc which are land areas. Hmains 17:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Counties are effectively communities, like cities are communities. Not all space in any of these entities are full of residential space ("human habitations"), but also include commercial and industrial zoning, as well as farmland and even much unused land in many cases. "Community" would apply to everything beneath a region level. I think that normally in the Wikipedia we go with more inclusive categories. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not according to Community, which specifically excludes cities, let along anything higher from the definition of community. WP reflects the commonly understood meaning and use of the term. Also see Category:Community and Category:Communities Hmains 21:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we need to find a better word than 'settlement'. That's the bottom line. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

How about "localities"? Admittedly, that could include other local administrative units such as counties, or unpopulated areas, but it might be better than "settlements" (which does have a whiff of the frontier about it, to my ears at least). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I like "localities." It's also used by DMOZ, where categories are the be-all and end-all of the project and therefore category naming issues get a great deal more attention. -- Visviva 04:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"[T]he term 'locality' is used by the United States Board on Geographic Names to refer to the name of a place that is neither a legally incorporated or defined entity (like a township or city), nor a specific geographical feature such as a river or mountain." So there's that to contend with. Postdlf 05:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Postdlf, can you point me to where the U.S. Board on Geographic Names uses the term "locality"? I haven't been able to find it used anywhere on their site. They do use the term "locale", although I haven't come across a definition for it either. older ≠ wiser 13:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like a problem to me: I assume that the USBGN uses "locality" for that because there isn't any other, more specific name for such places. All places are localities, so if you have a place that isn't a town, city, river, mountain or whatever, you can just call it a "locality". Merriam-Webster defines "locality" as:

1. the fact or condition of having a location in space or time
2. a particular place, situation, or location

and the Compact OED gives:

1. an area or neighbourhood
2. the position or site of something

Does that satisfy our purposes? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I like 'localities' a lot. It's much more contemporary in usage than 'settlements' and it can include cities, towns, counties, neighborhoods, etc. Also, while the USBGN point is well-taken, I also accept the broader definition, and we shouldn't be US-centric anyway. As far as 'settlements' is concerned, that should apply to settlements in the vain of non-permanent locations where humans settled; in other words, it would largely have a historical bent. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Two thoughts. One, I'm not sure what the problem with "settlements" is. It does have connotations of smallness or non-modernness or colonialism, but the United Nations Human Settlements Programme [1] seems to subsume all sizes of human habitats within its scope. Second, the term "locality" does not very well cover large areas. It strikes me as decidely odd to consider places like New York City or London as a "locality". This applies to non-urban areas as well, where some levels of local government encompass large swaths of sparsely populated areas that often include widely separated and distinct communities within them. I don't think either term works well with such entities. older ≠ wiser 04:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but I think that "locality" fits New York or London somewhat better than "settlement" does. I agree that neither word is perfect, but I think "locality" has less baggage than "settlement". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm slightly inclined towards "settlements" as the more inclusive term for populated places and thus less poor-fitting for large urban areas like NYC or London. I think it fits less well for those rather arbitrarily defined geographic subdivisions that do not correspond to human population centers. OTOH, "locality", to me, fits both types of areas poorly for two reasons, 1) locality has the connotation of a human-scale point in space, larger-scale places seem rather out of place described as "localities"; 2) there is nothing inherent in the term "locality" that implies a populated place -- a locality could be a rock or a crossroads. older ≠ wiser 13:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not married to the term 'locality'. I just would like to see a term that's inclusive and doesn't carry the connotative baggage that 'settlement' does. Also, we don't have to necessarily combine populated localities (cities, villages, etc.) with geographic subdivisions (counties, metro areas, etc.) -- it's not a bad thing to have these separated. I look to the moment when Wikipedia decided on the somewhat sterile, but baggage-free category naming "People of...". I think we need to do this again with "Settlements of...", renaming to something like "Populated localities of...". Sure, there will be some huge populated localities, such as New York, but I don't think we should let a few exceptions constrain the guideline we come up with. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, both terms, settlement and locality, have aspects that make them problematic as catch-all terms. Perhaps what you're going for is "populated places" (which I think is somewhat more generic and less narrow than "populated locality"). Regarding your comment about not needing to combine populated locatities from geographic subdivisions -- the problem is that the distinction is not always very clear. In many states, Towns and Townships were created as geographic subdivisions of the County. These entities often cover large geographic areas and can encompass multiple distinct communities. However, at the other extreme, these entities can become indistinguishable from cities. There is no clear line distinguishing them. If some townships are categorized as populated places (or localities or whatever), they logically would all have to be classified as such, even though some townships cover hundreds of square miles and have an extremely low population density. older ≠ wiser 17:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Populated place" sounds workable. I don't know if it should matter whether a populated place has a particular density, as long as it's generally regarded as a populated place. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes baggage must be discarded for forward movement to happen. A quick google search of 'human settlement' seems to show that this 'is' a collective term for 'cities, towns, and the like'. Please check and also remember English dictionaries are not 'prescriptive', they are 'descriptive' and sometimes take time to catch up to actual usage. Thanks Hmains 02:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Check the archives for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities, as I think this topic has been discussed and decided there. (SEWilco 04:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

I don't believe that wikiprojects have the authority to make decisions for the entirety of Wikipedia. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) has been discussing names of populated locations. (SEWilco 05:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC))

I place a much higher weight on connotation, obviously, and I think others are seeing this argument too. I would hope that nobody would marry themselves to a specific term, as changing over to a new one can be simply accomplished by a bot. Just because a word is defined a certain way doesn't make it the best word for our use. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

For references, the United Nations Stastical Division uses "locality", which they define here and [2]. More details can be found in the actual Methodology documentation. --Polaron | Talk 06:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Canadian practice has generally been to use "communities" as the general parent, and then to group specific types of communities in the appropriate subcategories ("cities", "towns", "townships", "villages", etc.) A "community" that isn't incorporated as a municipality in and of itself, but is instead nested within a larger "community", would be either left directly in "communities", or subcategorized as "communities in (appropriate census division)". Again, not that the US has to use the same categorization scheme, but I offer it as food for thought nonetheless. Bearcat 22:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• It seems that 'settlements' is even used in an established WP naming convention: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements). No alternative really needed Hmains 18:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV = mainstream only?

Not sure if this is the right place to post this... but we have two editors on the Kriss Donald article effectively claiming that NPOV=MPOV (mainstream point of view) and that only a mainstream adherent counts as a "prominent adherent" from the viewpoint of a news article (thus for instance, critical academics and even some mainstream journalists are excluded). The first user claims anything other than MPOV is "tiny minority" while the latter claims anything other than MPOV is "original research". I don't think this is Wikipedia policy, can't find either policy or precedent for it, and frankly the situation is past a joke - I'm well aware my edits required some work on style, removal of inadvertent weasel words etc., but this is different from claiming the kind of material I inserted (in particular, the actual sources I referred to) is inappropriate as such. It was things like: official trial defence reported in mainstream press, racial politics specialist writing in political magazine, BBC investigative journalist in special report, anti-racist group commenting on broader context.

Is there any chance an admin or someone familiar with NPOV disputes could have a look at this? If NPOV=MPOV really is Wikipedia policy then I'll bow out but I'm very concerned about what's going on. Please have a look at my edits, and my comments (on NPOV=MPOV and the summary of arguments), rather than just the latest version of the article.

-82.19.5.150 08:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

They are trying to intimidate you hoping that you don't know the rules. In most cases, mainstream sources should make up the thrust of the main premise, but non-mainstream sources are fully acceptable everywhere else (eg, don't use a non-MPOV for as your primary source, but it can be used either to agree with it or to dispute it)

(user did not sign)

Yes, I figured NPOV=MPOV was a very dodgy reading of policy. I raised it here because third-party contributors have not always been very supportive of me, including one who embraced the NPOV=MPOV position and several others who ignored that dispute and picked up on other flaws in what I'd written. The talk has got bogged down in nit-picking so it's hard for someone coming fresh to it to figure out the exact stakes.

The user who claims NPOV=MPOV is also edit-warring (both vs me and others) and repeatedly reverts to blank the contested section. He's just started doing so again today. I'm not sure what to do because if I revert back he just blanks again, requesting third opinions has so far been unproductive, the user is refusing compromises etc. -Ldxar1 23:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What to do is to follow Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Third opinions are a first step, then there is RfC and then mediation. If all those fail to get stop those who are disruptive editors, then the Arbitration Committee will deal with the issue. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 19:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use question

I will admit that I have a hard time wrapping my brain around the image policies. I write/de-stub a lot of articles about living composers. As everyone knows, it can be tough to find free images of living people who are not super famous and in every tabloid. If there is a publicity headshot of a composer on the website of s/his publisher, and that same publicity shot is reproduced across the net whenever you do an image search for him/her, is it within the fair use criteria to use that piture in and only in the article about the composer? Always yes, always no? Please advise! Thanks-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. Fair use is about as grey a grey area as you can find in copyright law, which is one reason we try to stay away from it. --Carnildo 20:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think fair use has gone too far. If you can produce an image of a person, then it shouldn't qualify a picture of the person as fair use. I would not doubt that emailing the publisher for a GDFL (CC or whatever) license on a image would get promptly declined. Then why should this "fair-use" be put into effect if it's essentially illegal and not wanted, especially on an encyclopedia that advocates being "free"? Now, eliminating all "fair-use" images may be ridiculous, not being able to include a needed historical picture impossible to be reproduced, but one can still make the argument that Wikipedia is still free and has no grounds to use the picture. There's a huge problem with this in actors and sports-people.

This is an area on Wikipedia I am displeased at. Not that Wikipedia would get sued, it's just that I don't think Wikipedia has correct permission to use many of these "fair use" images. And ignoring it or not reaching a consensus makes the problem even worse.++aviper2k7++ 21:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a cumulative "no" to me. Here is a small dilemma: I am working on an article which I would sure love to improve to FA status (who wouldn't). However, no matter how well-written and comprehensive the article is, it seems nearly impossible, practically speaking, to get it to FA status if it is devoid of images, particularly an image of the subject. You may say "there's no rule saying FAs have to have images", but really, how many of them don't? I'm not really sure what to do.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Try to solicit permission for one of the few pictures that do exist. You probably won't get permission for the really nice headshots, but perhaps someone has a passable snapshot posted somewhere on the web (maybe on a photo sharing site like flickr). When you find one you like send an email to author asking them to release the picture under the GFDL or CC-by-sa. Explain it will be used in wikipedia, and that without their help wikipedia won't have an illustrated article. I have done this a few times, and I've found many photographers are excited to help out wikipedia without doing any real work. In fact, I've had a few jump at the chance to get their picture on wikipedia. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 08:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an incorrect interpretation of fair use. First of all, valid fair use is never illegal, and doesn't require permission. Second, fair use does not require that it be impossible for you to produce the content on your own. Fair use content is unfree (and invalid fair use claims are illegal), so fair use should be avoided, but not to the extent you advocate. Superm401 - Talk 21:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use under United States copyright law doesn't require that it be impossible for a freely licensed alternative to be created, but the Wikipedia fair-use policy, which is intentionally stricter than U.S. copyright law, does require this. —Bkell (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, however it's hard to say whether it's impossible to get a free version, or just difficult. Superm401 - Talk 06:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

but the Wikipedia fair-use policy, which is intentionally stricter than U.S. copyright law, does require this.

There is a lot of discussion going on about the status of this policy on the talk page, by the way. — Omegatron 02:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured Articles and Good Articles

Since the relation between those two categories is more or less hierarchical, wouldn't it be an applicable idea if articles defeatured for some reason would automatically acquire the status of a Good Article? That is, though they wouldn't satisfy the higher criteria of a FA, they would certainly satisfy those of a GA. This would leave more space in the GA nominations page for other articles to be considered, while at the same time the defeatured articles wouldn't suddenly find themselves outside, or too low in, the grading structure. —The Duke of Waltham 16:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be wary of doing this: there are still some featured articles lurking about from the "brilliant prose" days, with huge citation deficiencies (see Tank, for instance). Given the GA assessment doesn't take too long to perform, then it's probably worth not making it automatic. Trebor 20:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier for the process to give defeatured articles priority in some way, though? —The Duke of Waltham 07:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Patrol the FAR pages, and when one gets de-featured, nominate it for GA, with the comment "recently lost FA status here". Patrol the GA pages, and when you see a recent FA, review it for GA status. You can't be both the nominator and reviewer, but being one will still speed the process along mightily. This is known as {{sofixit}}:

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. You can edit almost any article on Wikipedia by just following the Edit link at the top of the page. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. . AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed policy on removing alleged trolling on talk pages

I would like to propose that "trolling" not be allowed as a justification for removing other people's comments from talk pages.

Different people differ about what constitutes trolling. An editor who takes action to revert "trolling" is implicitly asserting that his opinion speaks for the group. Often the original poster does not agree that his words are trolling. Often the editor who removes the "trolling" is already opposed to the original poster.

Thoughts? --Ideogram 01:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I can go along with this to some degree. Removing comments by any established wikipedian is often counterproductive. however, the bulk of trolling comments removed are comments by IPs or highly disruptive single purpose accounts, who are adding 'Fuck your mama' to userpages. That obviously should be reverted on sight. But drawing up any policy that differentiates between a wikipedian removing comments from a userpage that he doesn't agree with as 'trolling', and outright vandalism from a real troll will impossible. We all know that there's a clear difference - but the boundary will be undefinable without hideous detail. This will inevitably end up in instruction creep and ruleslawyering. Best perhaps with a simple principle "assume good faith - particularly from normally good contributors - only deem something to be trolling if no other explanation is possible"--Doc^g 02:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the term "trolling" itself should not be used. I believe comments which are clearly vandalism or spam can be identified as such without regard for whether they are "trolling".

The most effective response to a genuine troll is to ignore him. I propose that anyone who believes someone else is trolling should simply comment, "I believe this is trolling and recommend everyone ignore it." Then others could signal their agreement or disagreement by actually ignoring or responding to the comment in question. --Ideogram 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem there: Many of the real and unmistakable trolls we get here (*coughconspiracytheoristidiotscough*) do need to be removed, and there is no justification other than that they are trolling. Leaving their comments risks them actually convincing someone of their lunacy. --tjstrf talk 02:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think removing comments to "protect the naive" is productive. (1) The comments are present in the history and reverting them actually gives them more prominence. (2) I don't believe in protecting the naive; I believe everyone is free to make their own judgements. (3) Real and persistent trolls need to be identified by community action (e.g. community blocks discussed on the admininstrators' noticeboards), not vigilanteism. --Ideogram 02:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it gives a 6000 character text dump any more prominence to revert it than it did when the guy posted it with an ALL CAPS HEADING and his latest YouAreTheAntiChrist username in the first place. Leaving vitriolic rants is far more harmful than removing them. You may have more of a point on article talk pages, but even then those are often used for things like unrelated campaigning, vaguely linked attack rants on other users, etc. Case in point: Talk:William Connolley, which gets assaulted quite regularly by people who are annoyed at User:William M. Connolley, the article's subject. --tjstrf talk 09:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I am talking only of posts on talk pages. Mainspace pages exist to communicate verifiable facts; rants can always be removed on that basis. Talk pages exist for people to express their opinions and discuss them; removing someone else's post doesn't change the fact that it is their opinion. See the concrete example I post below. --Ideogram 22:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Many troll postings are extremely verbose, if we are not allowed to remove them then the talk page would soon become unreadable. Some trolling is extremely inflammatory and makes people's participation on the uncomfortable. I agree that in the most cases DFTT is the best defence. Alex Bakharev 03:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Some articles that get a lot of trolling, like Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorem, set up an "arguments" subpage of the talk page to move these comments to. Then the comments are not deleted, just moved to the "arguments" page. CMummert · talk 04:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

(to Alex) You still have not offered a definition of "trolling" other than "I know it when I see it". This definition has been abused many times by hotheaded editors who feel their personal judgement justifies removal of comments they deem trolling. Many postings are extremely verbose, but we do not remove them. What is the "magic" trolling ingredient that justifies removal? There are many tactics that make participation uncomfortable, not least having your well-intentioned comments attacked as "trolling" and being removed.

"Trolling" has no defensible definition because it requires reading someone's mind. If you accuse someone of trolling you are de facto failing to assume good faith. By removing someone's comments you are saying those comments are worthless. These judgements need to be made by the community not a biased editor already involved in arguing with the person who is being called a troll. Frankly, "trolling" has become a one-size-fits-all club that hotheads use to beat up people they disagree with.

These editors equate "trolling" with "it makes me mad". I would think any rational observer would understand how this definition leads to abuse.

The onus of defining "trolling" should not be on me; I am advocating abandonment of the term altogether. People who defend the idea of individual editors being allowed to delete comments deemed "trolling" shouild be required to offer an objective definition of trolliing so that we can be sure these vigilantes are not just squelching opinions that they don't like. --Ideogram 04:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You are identifying a real problem - people removing good-faith posts which they deem 'trolling'. However, you are hitting it with a sledge hammer. Sure, we can't define trolling in any watertight way that won't have grey areas and subjectivity. Actually, exactly the same is true of vandalism. We can't read minds. Thus, we assume good faith. However, there is always a point where it is reasonable not to do so. 'Fuck your mama' is one 'You are gay' is probably another - but at that point, and beyond it we are into grey areas, where there is potential for disagreement, and even abuse. We need common sense here. But we do need to leave the option to remove obvious trolling. And no, we can't read minds, but there comes a point where we are entitled to judge intent by action, otherwise we disappear into some post-modern sludge of non-communicatability. This is not to protect the naive (that's a silly argument), but the best way to discourage a troll is to remove his voice. Vandals and trolls need to know that their posts have almost zero impact on wikipedia - we don't want to leave a stream of abuse or some aggressive rant lying around. If the recipient really want to see it, then it is in the edit history.--Doc^g 09:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I just say in my edit summary something like "Removing text - violation of Wikipedia:Talk page and WP:TPG". I can't remember the last time that someone objected to such a removal (but, admittedly, I rarely do this for talk pages of really contentious articles). If the editor reverts, adding the improper text back, then a second revert (removing the text again) with "See your user talk page" and a note to them about using talk pages only for discussing changes to articles should be the next steps.

I too very much dislike the term "trolling", even if there is an essay that tries to define it. Why not just keep the discussion to whether the posting complies with policy, as opposed to giving the troll user a label that he/she can argue about? -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 19:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's talk about a concrete example. in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Paul August#Questions from Cyde Weys you will see mention of an edit war over whether a question constituted trolling or not. You can check the edit history for the details. This one went so far as wheel-warring. Ultimately Jimbo himself stepped in and asked everyone to calm down. How do you think this situation could have been avoided? --Ideogram 22:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The "troll" terminology frustrates me for several reasons. Firstly, it's all-too-often used as a blanket response, designed to circumvent actual discussion in favor of what is basically a personal attack. Legitimizing a form of personal attack is really bad form. Secondly, it defeats the purpose of discussion; why even have discussion if it can be silenced so quickly by troll accusations? I believe strongly that the discussion should hinge only on whether the post conforms to policy or not, as John said above.

Trolling is an unnecessary term as well. Obvious trolling is quite clearly prohibited; insults, personal attacks, etc. But those are all covered under WP:NPA. .V. -- (^Talk_Email) 06:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone interested in this issue I would ask you to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What is a troll. I have tried to edit this essay to discourage usage of the term and am being opposed by an editor who (not surprisingly) thinks I am a troll. --Ideogram 19:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:SMOKERS discussion.

A discussion on Laura Bush's/Barack Obama's smoking/attempts to quit smoking led me to begin an essay/potential guideline on the topic of including smoking within biographical articles. The participation of the editors here would be appreciated. Italiavivi 01:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to settlement naming convention

WikiProject Current Local City Time is proposing at their talk page that articles for prominent cities be moved to include subnational units. For example, Toronto would be moved to Toronto, Ontario. This would result in a de facto change to naming conventions for settlements, which provides (at least for Canada) that:

Places which either have unique names or are unquestionably the most significant place sharing their name, such as Quebec City or Toronto, can have undisambiguated titles.

Your contribution to this discussion would be most welcome. -Joshuapaquin 05:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I was bold: I closed the poll. That was clearly the wrong place and wrong method to discuss major changes to naming conventions as many editors noted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice on username transliterations

Just a note to say that I've made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Username#Latin character transliterations to require transliterations on non-latin usernames for various reasons, spelled out in the post. Please discuss on that talk page. pschemp | talk 18:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Requesting 3rd opinion on External Links

replacementdocs has tons of game documentation for all kinds of computers and consoles from the past 30 years. So I thought it would be worth sharing that site with Wikipedia visitors by adding an External Link under various classic computer and console articles to the associated file section at replacementdocs.

My thought was that this fit in line with many of the other External Links on the pages of these articles. For example, there is a External Link to the appropriate section of AtariAge on virtually all of the Atari articles (Atari 2600, Atari 5200, Atari Jaguar, etc).

As I was posting these links, User:Luna Santin blocked my IP and reverted my edits claiming it was spam. I make the argument that there is a lot of useful information on that site, and that some people wouldn't even know that an archive like that existed if it weren't linked from these general computer/console articles.

Any other opinions on the matter? Casimps1 21:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The companies still own the copyright on the manuals, so it's probably a violation of WP:EL. Sorry, but there's no way WP can link to that kind of site. ColourBurst 01:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Casimps - you neglected to mention (as you were told on your talk page) that User:Luna Santin posted several times to User talk:66.192.94.185, the IP you were using, about the problem - and that anonymous account never responded. At minimum you should have mentioned that here, and acknowledged your mistake, or you should not have mentioned Luna Santin at all. When you omit information, actions by other editors may appear to be unjustified when in fact they are not.

As for replacementdocs.com, the matter of legality may be a bit more nuanced than ColourBurst indicates, per this FAQ item; the site asserts that it does have permission from some publishers to have their manuals downloaded. Perhaps a note to the site owners saying that it would be helpful if such manuals were specifically identified? -- John Broughton ^(♫♫) 15:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the notes from Luna, I didn't mention them because the 3 times I was "contacted" were 3 User talk messages in the time frame of 6 minutes while I was in the process of editing documents. They weren't being ignored, I simply didn't see them. Add to that I had never so much as heard of a "User talk" page or how it worked. I admit my ignorance in Wikipedia's policy and workflow in general, but I only had good intentions when I added the single targeted link to each of a dozen or so articles, so I felt it absurd to apologize for attempting to enhance an encyclopedia based on user contributions.

Regarding the links, I feel that the copyright issue is even more of a gray area than either of you mention. First of all, replacementdocs only hosts game documentation, not the games themselves. This could fall under fair-use because the manual is a relatively insubstantial part of the total product (the game itself). Of course, this hasn't been proven in court yet, but the argument could definitely be made. Additionally, copyright law dictates that instructions cannot be copyrighted. Although the manuals encompass the instructions as well as the layout thereof and artwork, this still seems to be another argument for the site's validity.

But if everyone agrees that the copyright issue still makes replacementdocs a no-deal, then I believe that probably all links to AtariAge would have to be removed as well. There are links to AtariAge from virtually every article for an Atari console. They likewise host scans of copyrighted manuals.Casimps1 13:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:FAR and WP:GAR are the enemies of WP:The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit

Seriously. At the time of writing two articles that are having their GA status reviewed are The Beatles and Shakespeare; two of the most searched subjects on the internet! Two subjects that may well be the avenue by which a surfer will come into contact with this site... Well done, folks!! Anyone searching for these subjects will find that Wikipedia aren't sure that the article is actually any good. For those that look a little deeper, it appears that the efforts of new editors are detrimental to the standards that Wikipedia promotes. This may have the effect that new editors are discouraged, that the perception of Wikipedia is tarnished, and that the efforts of regular contributors are hindered by those editors who feel that style is everything and that content and context is irrelevant.

I agree that standards are good, and that the vast majority of articles are (or would be) improved by the strict application of same. It is just that a few are not, or perhaps more correctly are beyond the practice of academic due process. I like to call these articles "flagships", those topics that are likely to attract readers, excite interest in interacting within Wikipedia, encourage editing (no matter how clumsy) and generally bring people into the concept.

These few (very few!) should be exempt from the the usual visible checks and measures. Do not place templates on the talk page, recording the decline from FA class to GA to B grade, make WP:Peer review a condition before putting the article to review (to enable flaws to be addressed). Make it understood that a page that attracts possibly scores of edits, some from new editors or IP addresses, in a day is unlikely to ever be devoid of mistakes in both content or style.

It is in the nature of the beast, the popular article, the majority of it will be mostly right most of the time. An energetic article will constantly be updated, reviewed, corrected, tagged, cited, vandalised, reverted, rewritten, polished, split, added to, subtracted from and generally interacted with. Sometimes on a daily basis. To take an arbitary example of an article and say, "this is not to the standard by which it was once judged, and should have its status revoked" is stupid, pointless and insulting. It is made by editors who are (despite their commendable enthusiasm and diligence) stupid, rather pointless and liable to insult those contributors to major topics with their nitpicking and arrogant, superior attitudes. Perhaps my original premise was wrong; it is the editors who inhabit the FAR and GAR that are the enemy of the ethos of Wikipedia, in attempting to raise the standard they disavow the achievements and struggles of those who have spent time and effort in creating and expanding Wikipedia articles.

I suggest that the 20 (or perhaps 50) articles that aggregate the most edits (including vandalism, which suggest topicality and/or general familiarity if nothing else) over a year should be declared Flagship Articles, and not be subject to the petty referrals and overzealous Wiki policy police edits some other articles are subject. They should have an extra layer of protection from the misguided fools who prefer to concentrate on the placement of blank spaces before or after specific type of text, who will reduce a 10,000 character article into a question of consistency in the spelling of a couple of words. As in law, sometimes the argument that there is a case to answer needs to be made before the case is allowed to proceed.

If the flagship articles are not protected from the WikiZealots, then every FA or GA article will be arcane excercises in subjects that few will be engaged by and the very concept of The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit will be in trouble. LessHeard vanU 00:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If anyone complains about the language I have used; this is the point I am making! You are avoiding the debate by concentrating about the style. Prove me wrong; show me that by removing marks of approval for an article is a good way of motivating editors and encouraging newcomers to contribute. Then make the argument that those articles which attract readers and ultimately new editors should be subject to that same process. Ignore the style and concentrate on the context! LessHeard vanU 01:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with every single point that LessHeard vanU has made, at this precise moment in time, I feel like making no further contributions. Vera, Chuck & Dave GM 03:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU's comments are to be applauded. So many editors (WikiZealots) look at a page, leave a comment about what is wrong (usually something they could have easily corrected in the time it took to write their comment) and then move on. Their grievances take up more time than vandals, whose destructive edits can be reverted. Style is to be commended, but actual content is something that these editors do not take part in. andreasegde 04:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally, when I personally suggest on a talk page that something is wrong instead of fixing it myself, it's because I'm seeking the opinion (or lack of it) of other editors working on a page before changing it. On a high traffic page this is a significant step in avoiding horribe edit wars and the likes where the current "residents" at an article may be defensive of the status quo. By discussing the problem, people can see why a change is needed and a consensus can be reached.

The article review and grading process is the only form of "quality control" that wikipedia has. It's also the only outward looking indication of the quality of an article, or for that matter, an inward looking indication to editors of what kind of work an article needs. The peer review process is merely a way of getting input from uninvolved and usually experienced editors as to what an articles faults are. The GAR and FAR are much the same, but also look at whether an article continues to meet the criteria for those levels of grading. Quite imply, if the criteria for FA or GA aren't met, then the article isn't FA or GA, and needs work to bring it back to that standard. The reviews offer advice on how to go about doing just that. Crimsone 09:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't take this badly, Crimsone, but you have just explained something to us that we already know. Changing something that is blatantly wrong, like spelling mistakes, hyphens, gaps in the text etc., are not for discussion. Just repair them. Editors spend a lot of time going back and forth on talk pages about the most minimal of stylistic things, when they could be putting in content. andreasegde 10:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally cannot see why the most-viewed articles should be devoid of quality control, and be awarded GA or FA status "for life". These are the test cf credibility through whitch most people will judge the seriousness of Wikipedia; they should all strive for excellency, even more than average. Not to have a mechanism ensuring that is not really the best way to go in my opinion.

However, there seems to be growing consensus about one thing: Prose quality. It seems to me that prose is definitely the very last of our problems. We want good, informative, reliable content, in huge quantities. The "professional standards" that are required to pass criterion 1a of FAC are just way too subjective, and, for reason's sake, we are not professionnals! I feel like many people who put a lot of energy in an article in order to get it to FAC are a bit disheartened when they meet the copyediting gang there, whose word is law. Maybe we could have another classification, like PP for Professional Prose, that would be distinct from FAC?--SidiLemine 11:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of the people commenting are professionals, actually. Featured articles are supposed to represent our best work, and prose is a factor in determining what is "best". Yes, prose is often the thing most overlooked, or left until everything else has been added, and that is why it is often raised at FAC. That's not to say that articles with worse prose are no good; it's just a reflection that FAs are meant to be the best of the best. Trebor 12:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU, could you please assume good faith? To call editors who are attempting to improve the encyclopaedia "stupid" and "rather pointless", and accuse them of having "nitpicking and arrogant, superior attitudes" is hardly being civil. Most articles which go through FAR and GAR are improved by the process, even if they are eventually demoted. Isn't that the most important thing, that the quality has been improved? Classifying articles into quality groups is useful and encouraging to editors who work hard on articles, but it is hardly the most important aspect of Wikipedia. And yes, when new editors come to FAs, most changes they make are not an improvement. While we shouldn't bite, we shouldn't allow them to degrade the quality either. Trebor 12:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Trebor (and others), the assumption of good faith is a possible archilles heel of Wikipedia. It limits discussion to a level of politeness where other people may not realise the passion that prompted a comment. I deliberately went against that in my comments, but only to demonstrate the strength of my feelings in the matter. I apologise to any person who feels personally targetted by my words. I do not apologise for using them to provoke a reaction.

In truth I think that those people who take the time and effort to review articles in both FAR and GAR are doing the best job that they are able, and their efforts should be applauded. I still maintain that the discipline rightfully demonstrated at those places sometimes works to the detriment of Wikipedia, in that articles may be too easily referred there; there could have been some notes on a talkpage, and that content and context are ignored for pretty minor infringements of style. I have seen articles passed with a cavaet, which is something I would encourage. Pass it (provisionally?) for content with comments about how it could be bettered in presentation.

The idea behind flagship article is that FA and GA status can be made irrelevant within days of passing. Major interest articles attract a great many edits, some malicious, some inept, some good but not to Wiki standards, and some fantastic. Those editors who adopt an article can be hard pressed just removing vandalism and poor contributions, rewriting and requesting citations, and may sometimes be overwhelmed. A flagship article is one where this is recognised, and the processes used for quality control are only applied after a good deal of consideration. It does not stop an article being reviewed, or make it easier to pass a nomination, it just perhaps does not allow a reflex fail/referall over matters that may make up a tiny fraction of the content.

In short, I believe that WP:TETACE has precedence over WP:FAR and WP:GAR and those who do (great) work over there should bear it in mind. Perhaps there is also an argument that a very small number of articles which attract a great many searches and edits should have an extra layer of protection of over zealous application of Wiki standards.LessHeard vanU 12:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith doesn't limit conversation to politeness; WP:CIVIL does that. Good faith is acknowledging that even if you disagree with their actions, they are trying to improve the encyclopaedia. Insulting people, and generalising about their attitudes and motivation, doesn't make you point stronger; it's just more likely to get people's backs up. I'm still not sure what you want to change (or what WP:TETACE is); are you saying we should relax the quality requirements for articles that are more popular? Trebor 13:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

While WP:Civil certainly does moderate the language, assuming Good Faith possibly disallows a caustic appraisal of anothers efforts. This exchange, however, does illustrate my point that the discussion of the technicalities of the presentation can obscure the point that is being debated. Anyway, I apologised for the terms and tone used and explained that I was only shouting to elicit a greater response. FYI WP:TETACE is a conceit, just me not wishing to type out "The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit" every time. ;)

I would refer you to my last two paragraphs in my previous comment; not easier to pass but an acknowledgement that those processes may not always be appropriate for a very few articles in Wikipedia, and that another level of referral/review may be necessary before going to FAR/GAR. LessHeard vanU 13:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I totally didn't get the WP:TETACE bit. I'm not sure how another level of review would help really, apart from introducing more bureaucracy. Yes, the level of editing should be considered when making the review, but I don't think a whole new process is required. It would also bring new problems, when you try to consider which articles can be considered "flagship". Trebor 13:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

*Dan T.* below makes a very good criteria for Flagship status; the entry-point page which might be determined simply by hits. Mine was edits (which may more reflect zeal amongst fewer). If hits and edits can be counted try listing the top 100 of each, take all those which are in both listings and have the top 20 (or other arbitary quantity) made into Flagships. Amending policy for those so qualified would be the difficult task.

None of the above assumes you agree, of course; it is just how I see how it may be arrived at. LessHeard vanU 14:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you wanted to do it on page views, here is the list of the top 100 (a both amusing and depressing read). I still don't think there's a need to amend policy, just to bear it in mind when reviewing articles. Trebor 16:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least the lads are in there! This would be the passive list, I suppose. It may well be that the sex related articles, and the political ones perhaps, are semi protected anyway as they are obvious targets for vandalism. I wonder how many have even tried for GA/FA? Perhaps mixing that list with the most active in respect of edits may be interesting? As WP does not censor content, there is no reason why sex related articles cannot be classed as Flagship's . As I commented, maybe only a couple dozen articles might qualify under the discussed criteria. LessHeard vanU 17:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC) (I'm now going to the Sealand article to see why it is so popular!)

There isn't any WP:TETACE page when I just checked now. Some might argue that the most popular pages that people arrive at by search are the ones where it's most important that high standards be maintained, since they're the face we present to the world. Others might argue that consistency is a virtue, so we should strive to, as best we can, maintain the same standards throughout the site, in articles both popular and unpopular. So there is plenty of room for good faith disagreement with your assertion that standards should be made and enforced in a more "relaxed" manner on popular entry-point pages. *Dan T.* 13:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I would refer you to my reply to Trebor above re TETACE, and also

not easier to pass but an acknowledgement that those processes may not always be appropriate for a very few articles in Wikipedia, and that another level of referral/review may be necessary before going to FAR/GAR.

i.e. "semi protection" from reflex referral. Also the (provisional) passing of an article with cavaets, allowing an article which is otherwise FA/GA to get/keep the accolade while determining what needs to be done to ensure it is retained. "Entry-point page" is as valid a description of "Flagship Article" as is one which relies on edit count. LessHeard vanU 14:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The GA review of William Shakespeare is a mistake--it is a very good article and with a little work could be a featured article. The person who nominated the article for GA review was mistaken in his/her concerns, as evidenced by the fact that no one else has supported the removal. The article is also extremely stable and well referenced. While there is still room for improvement, any one whose first exposure to Wikipedia is the Shakespeare article is not getting a bum rush. I also agree with the previous comment about how too many editors pop onto a page, leave comments about what is wrong with the article, then don't stick around and actually help improve it. Shakespeare was on the Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive a half year ago and even that wasn't enough to get other editors to pitch in and help. Anyway, this is a very good article which a core group of editors has worked on for a good while. Instead of bellyaching about how some high-profile articles should be better, how about actually helping to improve them?--Alabamaboy 15:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The above is an example of what could be avoided; if there had been an intermediate stage where it was discussed whether a Flagship article (which the above might qualify as) did indeed qualify for review, and what may needed to keep it from listing, then the above editors concerns may have been addressed and the article not sent to GAR. LessHeard vanU 16:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, the review is that intermediate stage where its status is questioned. Why should things have to go through another hoop just to see if it needs to be reviewed? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Alabamaboy is not of the opinion that it need have got to this stage (however, he may be a little peeved that no notice of the referral to GAR was given at the article talkpage; a matter of procedure for the folk at WP:GAR perhaps). In respect of the above article, the comments made at GAR make it clear that the matters raised in the referral are to do with vandal reversions and one contentious inclusion that was from a Wikipedia source. An intermediate review may have discovered this before listing. LessHeard vanU 19:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Wow. Setting a double standard like this will only deterioate the quality of the encyclopedia; this will encourage people to vandalize and do other crap to the article so it can hit the "top 100" most edited/viewed article and thus be "exempt" from having to mantain a certain standard of quality. The fact that all articles are subject to the same policies is what keeps the quality of the encyclopedia from going down. There are no exceptions. Many Featured articles promoted in 2003 and 2004 do not have any in-line citations and are generally of poor quality. It hurts Wikipedia more to say that Ridge Route is of the same quality that V for Vendetta (film) is when the former is clearly worse than the latter. Besides that, most readers do not visit the talk page, and the only indication of an FA is a little icon on the upper-right hand side of the screen. The GA logo was obliterated awhile back due to a lack of strong, formal procedure for GAs (anybody can promote GAs; FAs have to go through WP:FAC). My trust of the article comes if it has an accurate in-line citation or not, not whether it has been promoted to FA status or the rather arbitrary GA status. Hbdragon88 00:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again... At most I am suggesting that a very, very few articles should be reviewed in the knowledge that a great deal of the deficiencies found at any one time are the result of many recent edits, and that the core of editors who have adopted the article will remove or improve them shortly. The same logic would be applied to the same articles that should they pass that they are likely to be edited from that standard (and back again) within a few days. It happens. Popular articles attract the good, the bad and the ugly every single day. In these instances only long standing problems need be addressed. This is not, however, how FAR/GAR works presently.

My proposed solution would to be to quantify the very few (less than 100, more than 19 is my thinking) articles as Flagship Articles which can be dealt with in one and/or two ways; firstly, a 'preview' of whether the problems are of sufficient seriousness to put to full review (after speaking to editors involved in the article), semi protecting them from kneejerk referral. Flagship Articles which are still considered to qualify for review should be treated the same as any other. Secondly, I have also suggested that any article (not just Flagship) can be passed (possibly provisionally) with a caveat that requires identified weaknesses (not sufficient of themselves individually for failure) to be addressed. This would mean less articles fail review, but the standards are maintained.

I have not pursued my suggestions that templates detailing the failure to obtain/keep accolades for such articles should be hidden or not promoted. It would create unnecessary work. I adhere to my original comment that the fine work by those in FAR and GAR does seem to work against the ethos of The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit. Nobody has even hinted that there is a decent counter argument. LessHeard vanU 00:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• What makes you think The Beatles and Shakespeare are 2 of the "less than 100, more than 19" "flagship" articles in the Wikipedia? They're clearly important, but how about Tony Blair or Islam or United States or World War II or a hundred other similarly important ones? Wikipedia:Most_referenced_articles doesn't have Shakespeare. Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics has 150 articles and doesn't include any of those. Wikipedia:Core topics, inner levels has 45, doesn't include any of them. Wikipedia:Vital_articles includes all of those, but has 1182 articles. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 01:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this list is pretty interesting. It shows what our readers are really looking for. --Ideogram 02:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I had already peeked at the list provided by Ideogram... It doesn't really matter which subjects fell within the criteria as I am not looking to "protect" any one individual article, but how Wikipedia is perceived by readers, anonymous and new editors.

The predominance of articles of a sexual nature in the list perhaps illustrates my case quite well. How many of them are included as core topics? Of more interest is if Breasts and Sexual Positions are in the 1182 vital articles? As Wikipedia is not censored they should appear there, as they are obviously a major Entry Level Topic for a great many readers (unless number of hits does not count toward the criteria!). I would also suggest that they are also frequently the target of vandalism; some of it juvenile but also some of it malicious/POV orientated. Perhaps these would then qualify for Flagship Status, with an expectation that they should be part of a promotion drive to get them to GA status? I suspect that currently they are subject to repeated vandalism (if not semi-protected), have a small (dedicated, I also suspect) team of editors who try to maintain a minimal degree of encyclopedic standard and really could do with not having other members of the Wikicommunity reminding them of the required presentation of citations and the use of the em-dash rather than the en-dash.

If the sex orientated subjects do not appear in the Core Topics then the criteria needs looking at. That the Beatles aren't included also indicates that the Core topics criteria is not based around relevance to the Wiki reader, and I would then question the point of them (I simply don't what they are or how they made the grade; I may well be persuaded if I knew the facts). Since we are discussing the awarding and removing of grades which directly impinges of the readers experience of Wikipedia then it may even be irrelevant. The other manner of attempting to find relevance would be the quantity of edits, again over an extended period. Some articles must have cycles of edits, as the subject matter gains and loses exposure in the media, and some may have a brief spell as a hot topic before reverting to the usual number of edits. Some subjects like The Beatles and Shakespeare have either a regular level of frequency of edits or (as the Shakespeare editor commented) a regular cycle. In these cases the level of edits may not decline simply because the article reaches a Wiki defined standard, or falls from that standing. They are going to be frequentley edited consistently because that is the nature of the subject, many people think that there is information that needs including (or removing) or could be said better.

If an aggregate of most viewed and most edited articles ultimately does not include either the Beatles and Shakespeare then so be it. It simply means that there another 20 or 99 articles that might require a further level of referral and debate before taking to FAR/GAR. I think this would be of benefit to Wikipedia. LessHeard vanU 17:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the most viewed articles should be the ones that are held to the highest standards. What would tarnish the image of Wikipedia is if these frequently-viewed articles were reviewed less stringently than others. Having more people viewing an article does mean more checks and balances, but it also means more vandalism, more well-meaning but ultimately harmful edits, and more small edits adding pieces of useful information that are nonetheless not well cited or well integrated into the article. You only have to look at articles that have had their day on the front page to see that scrutiny by the masses is a double-edged sword. There is a reason why featured articles tend to arrive at that state because of the devoted hard work of a small number of contributors. "Flagship" articles need extra vigilance, not less. MLilburne 21:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it just seems silly to suggest that GAR or FAR are "petty referrals". Also, I fail to understand what sort of catastrophic repercussions you think GAR can have on new editors. Let's see: new editor looks up the Beatles entry. New editor is so fascinated that he reads the talk page, finds the article is under Good article review and thinks "that's odd, I thought the article was really good." And if we're to believe your concerns new editor now thinks "jeez, I'm not going to participate in this project because the standards of quality are way too high". Come on... If anything, ensuring quality articles is going to bring us more quality editors. Wikipedia had the early reputation of a great place to find unreferenced, poorly organized and poorly written piles of info. Thanks in part to the GA and FA processes, it's emerging as a real alternative to paper and other commercial encyclopedias. I don't see how anything is to be gained by hiding these. Pascal.Tesson 22:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that FAR and GAR should not be conflated. GA has mimiced, in weaker form, every FA process, but they have little to do with each other. I personally think GA is a rubberstamp process with serious problems in terms of throughput structure. FAR is a month-long content improvement process. It's greatly aided a number of articles. Marskell 14:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I am unable to determine users MLilburne and Pascal.Tesson stance in this matter. Both appear to be arguing for both sides of the debate at various points. I would also mention that I am not interested in the precedence of the review processes of FA or GA, both of whom provide a hugely useful function within Wikipedia (IMO).LessHeard vanU 22:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My point was, and remains, that the application of both GA and FA and their (different) processes run contrary to the ethos of The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit, in that the good faith contributions by editors are liable for removal and amendment against standards of which the new and/or careless editor is not aware. My suggestion is that Wikipedia may be better served by having a very few of the most popular and thus edited articles have a further level of debate where editors expressing a view that a review may be necessary can discuss this on the article talkpage which would include said naive editors (who may become dismayed and demoralised should they believe that their contributions were the reason for referral - at the very least they can be reassured) before beginning such processes if then deemed necessary. These articles may be termed Flagships. As an aside, I also supported the option of deeming articles a pass with a caveat regarding some easily corrected matter which would have otherwise failed.

I realise now by the opinions expressed here that my viewpoint and proposals are not going to gain sufficient backing to take any further, and that the status quo remains regarded as the best or least worst option. I would like to thank everybody who took part in this, and the civil manner in which it was conducted (as opposed to the intemperate manner in which it was introduced!) I now withdraw this policy discussion point, although I will attempt to answer any queries arising. Thank you. LessHeard vanU 22:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh, so does WP:OWN, WP:VAND, WP:NPOV, and a host of other policies that are designed to ensure a high quality encyclopedia (all those policies do limit the types of edits you make to the encyclopedia as well). Are you saying we abolish those too? Those seem to run counter to the phrase "The Encyclopedia that everyone can edit" as well. I mean, we should be welcoming (that's why we have guidelines like WP:BITE), but we can't be so welcoming that we sacrifice encyclopedia quality as a result. What we should do is encourage people to come to consensus, that's why we discuss changes to articles. ColourBurst 23:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, just to make it perfectly clear and since LessHeard seems to have some doubts: I think that the proposal was a bad idea and I think ColourBurst is right on the money: Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia that anyone who can make an article better can edit. Pascal.Tesson 00:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, this seems to me to be much ado about nothing. It is basically a proposal to exempt the most popular articles from any editing standards whatsoever for fear it might hurt the feelings of potential editors who might be challenged in their self-esteem. Perhaps vandalism shouldn’t be reverted on these “Flagship” articles, and deletion of anything from the article should be banned? In any case, as proposed, it appears that for “Flagship” articles, “most popular” is defined in terms of general internet searches instead of the articles that are actually most checked out on Wikipedia itself.

Anybody can edit Wikipedia. That doesn’t mean everyone should — or should even want to. As one of Wikipedia’s Five Pillars states, “Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit…. Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community.”

ColourBurst and Pascal.Tesson have the right of it: Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia that anyone who wants to make an article better can edit. Wikipedia does have standards. The most fundamental of them is laid out in Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset: “The primary objective of Wikipedia is to produce a high-quality encyclopedia, and most pages are encyclopedia articles.” Wikipedia:Introduction elaborates, “Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting, and make it better. You can't break Wikipedia. Anything can be fixed or improved later. So go ahead, edit an article and help make Wikipedia the best information source on the Internet!”

WP:FAR and WP:GAR aren’t the enemies of this goal; they are recognitions of the accomplishments of many Wikipedia editors working together and who cared enough to make the grade with a given article. However, unlike printed encyclopedias, no article in Wikipedia is ever “finished.” Piecemeal editing will eventually degrade the quality over time ... unless editors remain willing to and interested in maintaining that standard.

If you really want to alleviate a lot of frustration for editors of all degrees of experience, there are two more practical things we can do. First, when you revert or change someone else’s work (as opposed to obvious vandalism), take the time to add a decent edit summary. It’s part of being civil and it’s also a good way to educate newcomers. As for GARs and FARs and peer reviews and so forth, if you can’t be bothered to make useful and constructive criticisms, don’t bother to critique the article in the first place. And if you’re so thin-skinned that you can’t handle constructive criticism, then you really shouldn’t be a Wikipedia editor in the first place. -- Askari Mark (Talk) 04:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am getting bored with pointing out that I do not a) wish to abolish FAR or GAR, b)change or dilute the work that goes on there, and/or c) make any article exempt. If you want to know what I do propose then read my comments above.

re

Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia that anyone who can make an article better can edit...

That isn't what is said on the front page.

I assume, in good faith that the comments in the preceeding comment were not specifically refering to me, since my edit comments have often been a source of wisdom and amusement... LessHeard vanU 13:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

When can I call an idiot an idiot?

I understand the intent behind our policies NPA and CIVIL; we need to be able to discuss matters politely in order to work together. Unfortunately some people interpret those policies to mean that we must respect each other. Now, I am not the kind of person to give respect lightly; I believe respect has to be earned. It is also easy for me to be nice to someone who clearly respects me.

The problem is when I run into a user who is both arrogant and an idiot. There is no way to work with, or even communicate with, such a person; they are too dumb to know what they are talking about and too full of themselves to learn from their mistakes. Generally I give up all hope of interacting productively with such a person and take pleasure in pointing out their stupidity.

I can't simply pretend such people don't exist. And if I wanted to grit my teeth and play politics with them I could get paid a whole lot of money in a real job. Is there any hope for me in Wikipedia? --Ideogram 07:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but not if you tell people that they're "idiots" (no matter how much pleasure you derive from belittling others). Instead, simply inform them that you've been unable to adequately communicate with them and don't care to continue trying. —David Levy 07:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Typically how I encounter such people is in the middle of a controversial argument that has already dragged on too long. I may be overestimating my abilities, but I sometimes feel that I can help focus the debate on important things by dismissing obviously stupid arguments before other participants get distracted by them.

I suppose I could simply shrug my shoulders and let those silly enough to get dragged into such arguments suffer. But for some reason I am irrationally attracted to conflict. --Ideogram 07:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram, you are falling into their most basic trap. Have you ever thought that the .......... (insert word of choice here) might enjoy making you angry? Silly people like silly arguments. Please don't let them drag you in. Have fun. andreasegde 10:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

take pleasure in pointing out their stupidity.' - ummm, not good. Reasoning with someone who is either not very smart or is very passionate about something to the point of extreme POV is generally unproductive; it's best just to say "I find that argument unpersuasive" and see if other editors agree. If it's just you and the other editor, then Wikipedia:Third opinion is useful; if it's an editor and his/her buddy(s), then an RfC is probably needed.

You might also take such situations as a challenge to try to pull something constructive from the other person's arguments. My sense is that editors feel agrieved when some argument or point of view is totally ignored in an article, and a sentence that says "claimed" or "critics have said" can appease them, without ruining the article.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, don't get caught in the trap of arguing over wording in an article like ("A and B mean that C often occurs"). That appears to be a logical statement that could be debated and resolved on a talk page; in fact, it's a statement that should be sourced like other controversial assertions and facts, and should not be defended on talk pages as "simply logical". Just keep saying "that needs to be sourced or it needs to be removed"; at some point they'll realize that you're not going to engage in a debate over the matter, and that they either have to put up or shut up. -- John Broughton ^(♫♫) 15:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Simple, never. Calling someone an idiot isn't civil, no matter how you spin it. Don't do it; you're still free to ignore him, though. Superm401 - Talk 20:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

With one's superior skills it is often easier to shrink a fool to the size of a cockroach and make him dance in a teaspoon. A neutral description of the other's rhetorical techniques is effective. Addressing other readers of your post rather than the fool directly may be more effective. And always coat your venom with honey. --Wetman 21:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Never, never, never call someone an idiot. It's about the most jabbing insult you can make on Wikipedia, and chances are high you'll have an extremely heated edit war on your hands. Don't do it. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for your replies. You have given me much to think about. --Ideogram 22:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I find the approach recommended in Romans 12:20 quite effective (even if one is not religious); one of Napoleon's dicta also is helpful. Raymond Arritt 20:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks and comunity bans.

There's currently discussion on the relationship between use of indefinite blocks and community bans at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Indefinite_Blocks. --Barberio 21:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Public domain images

If i upload an image, if its published before 1923 or something related do i need a source present? Nareklm 03:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You should explain where the image came from, so it can be verified that it is genuinely in the public domain. See Wikipedia:Public domain for more information. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 03:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

When an article is finished...

Can an article ever be considered complete, and if so, would restriction in editing be considered to ensure that an article doesn't reach a peak and then decline due to sneaky vandalism/sabotage etc? Of course if someone has something to add to a "completed" article, a suitabley ranked Wikipedian could be trusted to implement the addition. I just think it would be nice, once an article is decidedly finished, to not have to spend resources keeping it in good shape and to concentrate on something else. --Seans Potato Business 04:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Such a thing has been proposed by Jimbo, but the discussion on it is still ongoing, and it's certainly not implemented. --Golbez 05:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I would support the idea that, at some point, an article could have a "DONE" stamp placed on it (with a permanent lock, which would be removed by request: for example, if new information becomes available on the subject and the article needed updating). However, that is not the policy at the moment. It is sad that excellent articles, once they achieve a level of perfection where we can say they are "done", need constant monitoring to prevent vandalism, but that is the way things work right now. Blueboar 15:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, do you know where the discussion is taking place? --Seans Potato Business 20:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Even excellent articles can still be improved, and there would need to be some mechanism that was not overly burdensome for an editor to propose further improvements to a "done" article. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Reviewed article version and Article validation feature give some overview, although there isn't a lot of ongoing discussion at the moment. It's a MediaWiki feature currently in development, and the plan last I heard was to test it out on the German Wikipedia once it was ready to go live. If you're interested in this and other "behind-the-scenes" things, a good thing to do would be to join the mailing lists, where a lot of such discussion takes place. You'll probably also find more discussion if you dredge through the archives of some of the major lists, such as foundation-l, wikipedia-l, and wikiEN-l. --Slowking Man 20:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have written a new essay

The essay I have written is called: Wikipedia:Essays are not policy. I have written in as an attempt to explain what essays are and are not, and how to respond to those who use them and you don't agree with the essay. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this one of a large number of essays that belong in a category I'd name Category:Wikipedia essays that automutilate because of circular reasoning. I'm serious about that category, we do have a large number of verbose essays, whose only reason for verbosity is hiding self-contradiction. Then I'd treat the essays in that category in the same way as trivia sections per the description at Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections#Guidance: the not self-contradictory contentions of such essays should probably be merged with existing guidance (if that isn't already the case...), the rest should be removed.

Applying that to Wikipedia:Essays are not policy: this essay shoots at its own argument: if essays are not policy, then this essay certainly isn't and its content can be neglected, a truism, a triviality that doesn't need a separate page. FYI, relations between policies, guidelines and essays are explained at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc. - if you want to change the approach explained there, there's always Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines to explain your arguments, which would be largely preferred over authoring a self-contradictory essay. --Francis Schonken 12:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh? How is it self contradictory? This isn't a guideline, nor is it a policy. It looks like an essay, it reads like an essay (opinionated, full of reasoning, etc) and... it is an essay! It makes suggestions, and never directs the reader to actually do something. It doesn't have broad community support, but is still needed by others. The link that you direct me to says a few words on the matter, but doesn't give an opinion on what to do if someone tries to browbeat you with an essay. You say the essay can be neglected, yet I don't in particularly intend to keep it neglected. Some people might find it useful. You call it a truism, yet it's not that obvious and I've seen more than a few people try to use essays as if they were policy. You may count the essay as a triviality, however I don't see it that way. If you watch people spouting essays at the drop of a hat on AFD to win their argument, you'd see why I thought it was important. So I don't think it's self-contradictory, and as you believe it to be opinionated, then it's perfectly fine to be in an essay, as that is what they are there for. As for explaining on a talk page - they get archived and are largely off the radar. I hardly think that talking there is going to get much action, or explain what I think in quite the way I'd like to. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Francis on this one. This essay duplicates the content of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc.. By the way, that's one of the problems with the multiple essays floating all around: many of them are re-hashing things which are already part of established policies and guidelines and as such they create confusion when they're trying to eliminate it. Pascal.Tesson 16:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Modifying when dates of birth should be listed for biographies of living people

I have opened up a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Proposal_to_alter_the_criteria_for_listing_dates_of_birth concerning altering and clarifying when dates of birth for biographies of living people should be used. New voices to the discussion would be helpful. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 16:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Pre-emptive semi-protection

I am aware that pre-emptive protection or semi-protection is currently against Wikipedia policy. I would like to propose that, with apprpriate safeguards, this policy be changed under certain circumstances.

The article Auschwitz concentration camp is a major article, although not a featured one, and deals with a subject having, for many people, a very highly emotional content. It also, for some reason, is a major target for vandalism. I have seen it hit, on occasion, four or five times a day, nearly always by non-account-holders, and at least one hit per day is expected. The edits are, of course, mindless and/or childish and/or obscene and/or offensive, and must cause very significant distress to editors whose families were caught up in the Holocaust.

Devolve the decision to a bureaucrat, or a steward, or Jimbo himself if you like, but I would like there to be a procedure in place whereby pages of this type, vandalised in a way which causes emotional distress to other editors, can be permanently semi-protected. --Anthony.bradbury 17:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think this is reasonable. Of course, "appropriate safeguards" and "certain circumstances" are the keywords here and both would have to be explicited more formally before I wholly support such a change. Articles which, by nature, are the subject of extremely offensive vandalism (Nigger is another example that comes to mind) would benefit from such a measure. Vandalism is of course quickly reverted but every now and then some user will see the Auschwitz page replaced by "Jews burn" and the damage done is probably much greater than when a user wants to read on George Bush and sees it replaced by "I hope this guy dies". Pascal.Tesson 17:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - that is exactly my point. I did not take the liberty of stipulating which safeguards or circumstances were appropriate; it seemed to me that, if the principle were approved, then these factors may emerge in the discussion. If you look back in the article's edit history you will find edits which are much more upsetting than the example which User:Pascal.Tesson quotes.--Anthony.bradbury 17:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think that the current request for protection process is insufficient? --Aervanath 18:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

explaining copyrights and WP:CV

What is the best article to link on when trying to explain about WP:CV to new editors? Soemthing nice, simple and concise (or at least, something they'll read so I don't have to summarize it all on their talk page). RJFJR 23:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Formatting

While this may seem to be a semantic point, I think the Wikimedia Foundation should adopt the CE/BCE format for date rather than AD/BC. My main basis is to preserve NPOV (religious overtones would seem to have no place in a date format).

I also feel that there should be a markup method for metric/Imperial conversion. Any measurement could be submitted with the tag and based on the user's preference the appropriate measurement would be given priority (with the other following it in parentheses). Again, a minor quibble, but something which would be relatively simple to institute and would/should make the content more appropriate for it's audience. 167.1.143.100 18:29, 28 January 2007

I like those ideas! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk

This is a textbook case where enforcement of a style is not only undesirable, but patetly harmful to the encyclopedia. Any attempt to enforce a specific date style would lead to the same problems attempts at enforcing a given spelling style cause.Circeus 23:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree on the first point. I can live with a fairly common practice for BC/BCE, which is to use whichever date seems more appropriate for the subject matter, and omit the label entirely for AD-only articles-- for instance, the Solomon article is measured in BCE, whereas Augustus is in BC/AD and William the Conquerer and 1066 just use the years without designation (see WP:MOSNUM). (Bizarrely, Jesus uses both labels for reasons that make no sense to me whatsoever, as is the case with all good compromises.) However, I continue to believe that BC/AD has about as much religious significance in 2007 as Thursday, the day of Thor, and that BCE is a pointless affectation. I recognize that it is a fashionable and increasingly common affectation; I just think it's silly. There's no real reason to modify the current manual of style.

With regard to the unit conversion, I don't think it makes a big difference if there is one or not in most articles. (For instance, Orson Welles was 72" tall; the article doesn't suffer for not having that translated into meters.) More information can never hurt, though, and sometimes it will be handy. DCB4W 00:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, to clarify, the guideline proposal to limit BC/AD to Christianity related articles failed. The issue of "appropriate" appears to be made on an article by article basis by the involved editors. I think that is how it should be. DCB4W 00:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Partially owned images on user pages

I am a contributor to and an editor of The Technique. In developing its wiki entry, I uploaded Image:The Technique 12-01-2006.jpg, and placed that image in a "gallery" on my userpage. Given that I therefore own partial copyright of the picture, do I have rights to use it on my userpage? Does it make any difference that the "use" in question is a thumbnail? See additional discussion on my talk page: User talk:Disavian#Fair use images aren't allowed in user pages. Thank you. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a weird one. Frankly, assuming you're one of the owners, it isn't a fair use at all-- it's the copyright holder using the image as he sees fit. We're picky about fair use, because we a) care at least somewhat about what happens downstream of our creations, and b) we don't want to get sued (for a use to be fair it has to be for a "fair use" purpose, and decoration of one's web page isn't ordinarily one). You're licensing it to yourself for your use here, so that solves problem b) and problem a) is weird, because user pages aren't part of the encyclopedia. So the policy issue is one of first impression.

When I say we care at least somewhat about what happens downstream, I mean that we do allow some content that isn't free, permanently. We like to have as much free as possible, because creating an unrestricted free source of information is one of our policy goals. We do allow restricted content-- e.g. fair use-- when necessary, because we sometimes need it to make this particular wiki useful, even if downstream users who have a different purpose might have to cull out some fair use images if their usage of the image wouldn't be "fair." There's currently a vigorous and occasionally bitter debate about whether we should go ahead and delete fair use content that could be replaced, or if we should wait until the replacement has been made or found before replacing it.

Personally, I'm in the "leave fair use content on the wiki until free replacements can be found" camp, because I see creation of Wikipedia as a useful entity as our primary goal, and the other issue as an important secondary goal. (I realize that not everyone holds that opinion, but that's where I stand.)

Your use may raise policy problems above and beyond the copyright law. Your use of the image on the newspaper's entry is fine-- perfect example of fair use. You as the owner of the image would be exempt from fair use requirements, so you can decorate whatever you want with the image. However, Wikipedia is hosting the image, and it's odd that only one Wikipedia editor is authorized to use it the way you're using it.

Are you sure you're the owner, though? Isn't the Technique itself the owner of its content and representations thereof? I don't think the managing editor of the Post owns the front page. If you're not the owner of the content, I don't think it matters that you actually made the image, any more than taking a screenshot from Heroes (TV series) conveys rights over the image to the photographer. I think we need to be sure of the answer to that before we even address the hard question. DCB4W 02:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm with you in the "wait until a replacement can be found" camp. Legally, the Editor in Chief holds the full copyright to the issue (and therefore, any derivatives). Therefore, I was planning to ask her to release rights to that image the next time I saw her. I consider my copyright over the picture to be somewhat limited, given that I'm only a contributing editor. Let me ask the hard questions, now that you know who technically owns the copyright:

• If I was the Editor in Chief, would I be able to use the image on my userpage?
• If I authored one of the articles on that image, would I be able to use the image on my userpage?

Given that information, we might be able to conclude on the final question:

• If I helped create that image, even though I do not hold the primary copyright, would I be able to use the image on my userpage?

Hope that helps. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI: My concern is how does Disavian prove he is a copyright owner? Without, isn't the entire discussion mute? Will (Talk - contribs) 06:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I was under the impression that the permissions account only handles GFDL releases, and I don't think that they'd want to release under GFDL. One could prove that one was the EiC for a newspaper by using the editor email account from their newspaper. ColourBurst 01:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

My concerns about this are that we Wikipedia users do not own their user space, it is a community resource. Use of copyrighted images on those pages would only be within fair use, even though it is not technically part of the encylopedia. The problem is there is not really any legitimate usage that would qualify as free use on user pages. (criticism of the artwork, artist style used in the image, review, parody) You, the copyright owner, could give rights for use of the image on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia requires you give unlimited usage rights (well on encyclopedic pages, but I am not sure about user pages). Use on your own user page is no different that use on any one elses user page, as it is a community resource, and not yours.

What do you mean when you ask "If I helped create that image, even though I do not hold the primary copyright"? If you created the image, then you are copyrighted at the time of creation (without formal filing). When you say "helped" does that mean you are co-copyright owner? Or does it mean you held the lights while someone else took the picture? Probably in either case, it can't be used on your user page, as it is copyrighted. And the copyright owner (whomever that is) has not given unlimited use rights to Wikipedia. If it is your creation, you could consider licensing the images under creative commons version 2. Atom 02:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The image has been removed, by the way. I think I've seen some pretty convincing arguments that I can't do it. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean you gave up trying to relicense the image? Everyone else, I think we need to continue this until the end so we know what to do with future images in this situations. When I saw that image, I was in a bind. I don't like binds. Clear? If there are some lawyers with experience in copyrights and related law in Wikipedia, we need to get them involved in this conversation. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing the thumbnail is easier than proving I have legal rights to the image, and I doubt that it will be licensed under a more free license as it would include the masthead, which AFAIK/have been told recently, is something newspapers (even smaller ones such as The Technique) are hesitant to share. However, I would still like to know the answer to the dilemma I proposed, you are correct. Rephrasing the underlying question: "If a user owns a copyright to an image, and the image is used under a fair use license on WP, does that user have rights to use it on their userpage?" And while we're on the subject, can they use it on their talk page? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the rule is that fair use images can't be used outside the main namespace at all. Durin told me this we can't even allow fair use images on the talk pages of articles and any templates out there -- even ones that will never be used outside articles. So I would expect User talk pages to be a no-no. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Q: "If a user owns a copyright to an image, and the image is used under a fair use license on WP, does that user have rights to use it on their userpage?"

A: No. a) Wikipedia does not allow Fair use outside of main namespace. b) Fair use is for criticism, review, or parody(short version) and using on your user page is probably not any of these. Atom 20:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD: second nomination rules?

Funday PawPet Show survived Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funday pawpet show. Now there's a second AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funday PawPet Show, but shouldn't it have "(second nomination)" in the URL? --EarthFurst 07:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's only a disambig concern as far as I know, for cases when an article retains its original title in between noms. The nominator notes the previous debate. In this case, the altered title allows for a unique identifier for both debates. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User Talk Page

What is policy regarding deletion of comments in a persons userpage talk space. I was under the impression that you should only ever archive old comments, and deletion was, if not disallowed, heavily frowned on. An anonymous user User talk:203.87.64.214, repeatidly deletes all the comments on his page. Including comments made by me in a current dispute. Several editors have told him that you shouldn't delete comments on a talk page (though only one was regarding his own talk page) and I believe the intention is to make it appear on first glances that he's just a newbie even though by his edit history he's been here since February. Or make it appear that he's never been involved in a conflict of interests. Jacobshaven3 11:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that deletion is frowned upon, but on a user page is not quite a blocking-level offense. You can, of course, revert his deletions.--Anthony.bradbury 12:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it is acceptable to retrospectively, from the talk page history, construct a chronological listing of the posts made to a talk page, then post that to an archive subpage. Even if that is later blanked, the actual chronology will be more easily visible in the page history of that archive subpage, rather than someone having to wade through lots of blankings and disconnects between comments. You would still record each blanking of the talk page with a little note, like "this section blanked on 2 January 2007 at 02:45 UTC by...". Then the pattern of behaviour is far more obvious, and people can judge - oh, that blanking was of a vandal's comments, and this blanking was of an over-zealous admin, and this appear to be a bad-faith blanking of a reasonable comment that seems to have been ignored, and so on. Not a scarlet letter, but more making it easier to actually see what has been happening in cases like this. Of course, you'd have to trust the person reconstructing this 'single-view' history of the talk page. Carcharoth 12:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If a user wishes to blank his or her talk page, that is his or her choice. There are lots of legitimate reasons to blank. For example, I regularly blank old discussions so that I don't have to scroll down the page to locate new messages. If you need to see a deleted post, you can always go to the edit history. it isn't like the messages are completely gone. That said, it is considered a no-no to blank various warning templates. Admins frown on doing that. Blueboar 15:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no clear policy on that. The policy on vandalism is poorly written and implies that you can do whatever you want with your talk page, but does not say that clearly. Because of that, some admins give warnings and blocks for removing comments from your talk page, and other admins tell you that you can do whatever you want. The policy that is applied, or misapplied, depending on your interpretation is in Wikipedia:Vandalism

Removing the comments of other users from talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion. Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon.

Generally people read the first sentence, stop, and interpret that as an okay to blank your talk page. Others read the whole paragraph, and read it differently. It would be nice if someone would rewrite this clearly.

How about:

Your user and talk pages are a community resource. HOwever, removing comments from your talk page is always fine. Removing warnings from your own talk page indicates that you have read the warnings, and is allowed. Removing comments from other users talk pages is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is considered legitimate. It is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. On a user's own talk page archival of comments is at the user's discretion.

OR

Your user and talk pages are a community resource. Removing comments or warnings from your your own talk page is considered to be vandalism, as a record of warnings can be used by administrators in making decisions, or in showing that Wikipedia has done due diligence in trying to prevent certain activities. Removing comments from other talk pages is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is considered legitimate. It is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there.

Atom 02:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

First, I have seen users that delete messages ASAP after reading them. This is a real pet peeve for me as I need the older posts to track what I have already told so and so. I tend to repeat myself too often without the older record. Searching history is a real pain in neck. You have to check each edit one by one. I never bother except in unusual cases.

Second, if nothing else, I think it should be a crime to remove warnings from any talk page unless you are an admin and that user is permanently blocked with no hope of becoming unblocked. Otherwise, I have no way to bump the warning up without laboriously searching history. If vandals can delete warnings, it would be a dream for them and a nightmare for everyone else. Once you institute a rule, you can't selectively apply it. You either apply it to everyone -- or you drop it. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Article size

I understand that there is a policy on WP to keep article sizes under 40kb. I request that this limit be increased in special cases like articles about countries. I say this because, articles about countries need to cover a wide gamut of issues (geography,history, politics, ethnicities, cuisine, architecture etc etc etc). Long list actually. And each of these subtopics is worth its own dedicated fork.

So following 'summary style' becomes very difficult especially when new content and information keeps getting added. It is also leading to futile edit wars with reams and reams of futile discussion on talk pages. India for example, is facing this issue at the moment with a relatively new user, reverting content at sight and then hiding behind spurious 'article size' compulsions when others demand an explanation for his reverts.

So my suggestion is that article size be wedded to say, the number of forks that an article has. I would rather an article run into hundreds of kilobytes than the discussion page.

If this is not possible, I feel we should simply lock an article forever once it reaches its size limit or gets featured status. That way, new editors to wp will be spared the pain of adding content in good faith to an article only for it to get blanked out because the article has gone 1 KB over the limit. Sarvagnya 17:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is a policy... just an ideal. Obviously, some topics will take more space to properly discuss than other. However, we do want to keep articles to a resonable size if we can. If the article is getting overly long, information should be split off into logical sub-pages and simply summarized in the main article (with a clear and obvious link to the sub-page). But the key word in that is logical... the split has to make sense. It is not an invitation to POV fork or hide information you don't like. Blueboar 19:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no fixed size limit; but obscure or specialized information should go to subarticles, not just be reverted. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As Blueboar says, this is not a policy. Country pages typically have separate articles for those topics you mentioned. For example,

India, Geography of India, History of India, Politics of India, Economy of India, Culture of India

Within the main article (in the case of my example, India), the important issues should be covered (in India's geography section, there should be mention of major features such as the Himalayas), but then less obvious details (such as the Vindhya range) should be left to the separate articles. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Essay pages being mislabled.

There seems to be a growing trend in the WP namespace of late, to try and make the {{essay}} tag obsolete. Either by creating essays and putting them up mislabel as howtos or removing the essay tag and replacing it with a witty tag because this page doesn't need to follow convention.

The {{essay}} tag serves a pretty important use, as it makes sure new users can tell that not all pages in the WP namespace are official policy. Without it, anyone would be able to create pretty much anything in the WP namespace, and declare it 'The way we do things here' by fiat. While it's a good thing that the WP namespace is open for editing, it really needs to retain the use of essay tags so this doesn't happen.

Loosing the essay tag would lead to a flood of pseudo-policy pages, conflicting with each other, and all appearing to new editors to be 'official'. --Barberio 01:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Not all non-policy/guideline WP pages need the essay tag, and I'm quite happy with the one that's currently up on WP:SNOW. -- Steel 01:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Also worth noting is that this thread is only here because Barberio's attempts at getting rid of a page he doesn't like are failing (See MfD and talk page disussion). -- Steel 01:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! You have seen though my disguise, and now know I am the evil Doctor Smythe, and my aim is to Take Over The World via editing the Wiki. My five year plan to get one small essay deleted is Ruined! Quick, to the Escape Pods! --Barberio 13:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree that is is becoming a bit of a mess. Essays should remain essays, and these "witty" tags removed from the Wikipedia namespace. The WP namespace should be reserved for policies, guidelines, and help and FAQ pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I start to wonder if we might need an equivalent of notability requirements for the WP namespace. I think the WP namespace is where we really need to be deletionist, and right now there's just too much stuff that really belongs on userpages. --Barberio 13:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I should also draw the comunities attention to this edit [3] made to the Policies and Guidelines page without any apparent discussion, and seems to be intended to support those who want to abandon use of the {{essay}} tag on their essays. --Barberio 13:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oh no! You have seen though my disguise, and now know I am the evil Doctor Smythe, and my aim is to Take Over The World via editing ... well, anyway. No, you're missing the point entirely, which is that there are quite a lot of pages in Wikipedia namespace (over 80% if you must know) that are not policy, guideline or essay. So this is to counter the misguidedly bureaucratic effort to tag every page, including sticking essay tags on pages that aren't essays, or indeed proposal tags on pages that aren't proposals. Also, please do quit your forum shopping. >Radiant< 13:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This isn't forum shopping,t his is consensus building. Take notes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • LOL. You wouldn't know a consensus from a hole in the ground. >Radiant< 13:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
      • WP:KETTLE indeed! --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, most of the pages that are not Policy Guideline or Essay are... Process pages or Wikiprojects, or *purely informational* Help pages. If it's not a Policy or Guideline, if it's not a Process page or Wikiproject, and it's not a *purely informational* help page, then what is it?

Radiant, you haven't addressed the fundamental issue, that the Project namespace should not be cluttered with things a new editor could mistake as being 'Official Policy'. --Barberio 13:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, 'Forum Shopping'? Er... On the Pump? Er... Isn't this supposed to be where we discuss this stuff? --Barberio 13:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yep, forum shopping, since you've brought up the same issue in at least three different places already, and got disagreed with in all of them so far. The point is that not every page is going to fit into whatever neat classification you devise. But since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, that problem lies in the classification, not in the page that doesn't fit.
• At any rate, I fully agree to an effort of clearing the Wikispace of some of the worst cruft. That seems to be a productive task that we both agree on, wouldn't it? But how exactly do you seek to accomplish that? MFD? >Radiant< 13:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we can have pages in the project name space which do not fit cleanly into the categories of process, wikiproject, help, policy, guideline and essay... However, the question is should we?

I think such quasi-policy pages would be a very bad thing for Wikipedia, creating extra bureaucracy and instruction creep and confusing new editors. Everything in the project space should be there for a reason, and be immediately identifiable into a category of project page.

The project namespace is not somewhere you can just put anything in, and too many people have been using it as such. It may be time for a review of what should and should not be allowed in the project namespace. --Barberio 17:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Cleanup

I've created Category:Wikipedia Cleanup and associated template as a way to identify and clean-up problematic pages in the project namespace. No idea why we didn't have this before. --Barberio 18:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Categorization of pilgrimmage routes

Category:Pilgrim route was for all pilgrimmage routes, but recently someone took the Way of St. James out of this category because they claimed it only applied to pilgrimmage routes in Norway. This sounds a bit strange to me. Comments?--Filll 04:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think they meant it only applies to a specific route in Norway named the "Pilgrim's Route" although that isn't specified on the category page at Category:Pilgrim route. - Foxhill 04:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

problems with WP:COI

I believe there are many problems with the current COI page, the most salient one being ambiguity (the page states both that editors with a COI should and should not edit), and a second being that the description as consensus seems rather debatable (I and may other editors have allowed, even encouraged, editors affiliated with their corporations, to engage in constructive editing.) Can we begin a discussion on this at the COI page? I have attempted to begin one, but three editors have refused to engage in substantive discussion (their essential point being that the consensus is settled and the matter's final.)

I encourage editors with opinions on the matter to begin a discussion on the WP:COI talk page. Sdedeo (tips) 05:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's time to tag.

(Cross posted from Wikipedia talk:Fair use)

Categories:

• Articles with WikiProject banners but without a banner shell

Categories:

• Articles with WikiProject banners but without a banner shell

See also: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions

WP:UUI#9 and biographies about deceased individual

Item 9 of WP:NFC#UUI states that "cover art shouldn't used to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover", but non-free images of deceased individuals are allowed for this purpose if all of the NFCCP are met. How does policy, therefore, treat non-free cover art when it's being used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone biography about a deceased individual? For example, File:The Life and Work of Dennis Potter (cover art).jpg and File:Album cover of Nephi the Polynesian man.jpg are being used for said purpose. There are probably more examples of this out there, but these two are the only ones I can remember at the moment. Neither of these is really the subject of any sourced critical commentary in their respective articles, and they appear to have been simply added because the subjects of the articles are dead. Does policy justallow such files be used in such way for that reason, or does it require different non-free images be used instead? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Amalija Knavs image

Given that Amalija Knavs was the mother of Melania Trump it would seem that there's a very good chance that a free image could be found to use instead of File:Amalija Knavs.png or any non-free one. If Knavs appeared at any official White House events, there's a really good possibility she would've been photographed by an official White House photographer. There also seems to be a good chance that a photo of her was posted on an official social media account. The article was created back in January and appears to have gone without an image until the other day, but there's no indication on the article's talk page of any discussion related to an image search. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought so too. I was unable to find any but maybe someone else may have better luck. The vast majority of images I found were Getty/AP. TJMSmith (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Non-free no reduce

While looking at some newly uploaded images, I came across File:Oscar S. Adams, 1933.jpg and saw that it was tagged with {{Non-free no reduce}}. It seems a bit odd that an image used in a biography article like Oscar S. Adams needs to be so large given that default width for most infobox images is much smaller. So, I replaced the "non-free no reduce" template with a "non-free reduce" template. I then decided to take a look at some of the other images uploaded by the same uploader to see whether this was just a one off type of thing. It seems that two other files uploaded by the same uploader (File:Aage Gerhardt Drachmann.jpg and File:Яглом Исаак Моисеевич.jpg) have been tagged with "Non-free no reduce" as well. FWIW, I'm quite happy to go back and self-revert my edit to the first file if the consensus here is that particular file doesn't need to be reduced. However, if that's the case, I think some more guidance on when it's OK to use this template should be added to WP:IMAGERES and perhaps even Template:Non-free no reduce/doc, perhaps even an example or two of when it's not OK to use this template. It appears someone attempted to try and start a discussion about adding a |reason= parameter to the template at Template talk:Non-free no reduce back in 2018, but never got a response. Perhaps this should be something worth discussing now. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I added these because these images are portraits of long-dead people with zero commercial value, for which it isn't too easy to find any portrait at all, and the auto reducer is absurdly aggressive in making everything gratuitously tiny and then hard deleting the originals. I don't think there's much chance the original photographers or publishing organizations even remember these portraits exist, let alone care that someone distributes them in the context of biographies, and there's no reasonable challenge to the claim that they are fair use, even at full size. Perhaps there should be some better middle-ground option(s) between "preserve the original upload" vs. "turn this into an unrecognizable thumbnail". –jacobolus (t) 07:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The specific very bad experience I had with an image I added was with File:Blackboard bold in typewritten notes from Narasimhan (1966).png which was turned into such a ridiculously tiny thumbnail that the indicated feature (the shapes of the symbols ⁠$\mathbb {C}$⁠ and ⁠$\mathbb {R}$⁠) wasn't remotely visible anymore, even after I had tried to make it as small as possible before the bot came through. (Frankly the size I left it still doesn't properly demonstrate the letter shapes as intended.) But I have also seen plenty of other pages where standard biographical portraits of long-dead people of zero commercial value with unenforced sometimes nearly expired copyright, sometimes fairly hard to find better copies of, were made into thumbnails where the person could barely be recognized. As a reader, I always find these images extremely frustrating. I basically don't believe in adding images at all which aren't either free or far, far on the no-brainer side of the fair use line, but for the latter, I feel like making the images tiny mostly defeats the point of having them at all. –jacobolus (t) 07:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Images in which lots of intricate detail is going to be lost due to reduction probably don't need to reduced to the same degree as a "portrait photo" or "logo". Moreover, images which themselves are the subjects of articles in which certain apects of the image are critcally discussed in the article might also benefit from not being reduced or reduced as much. How much detail is really lost, though, when it comes to portrait photos being used in main infoboxes or at the tops of biography articles? For example, you also uploaded File:Nathan Altshiller Court.jpeg which also seems to have zero commercial value, but is much smaller than the other three mentioned above; yet, it seems to be serving it's encylopedic purpose of identifying Nathan Altshiller Court. How much detail will be lost if the other three imges are reduced to that size? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Quite to the contrary, the image at Nathan Altshiller Court is an incredibly bad image which does a horrible job at fulfilling the purpose of illustrating the subject, only very marginally better than nothing at all, and frustrating and disappointing for many if not most readers. Unfortunately I don't have anything else, but if I had a nice high-resolution photo I certainly would love to add it there, in or out of copyright, where it would undoubtedly be fair use under US law. Edit: I will certainly agree with you that File:Nathan Altshiller Court.jpeg also has no commercial value whatsoever, and is clearly fair use. How much detail will be lost if the other three imges are reduced to that size? Most of the detail would be lost, for no benefit whatsoever. File:Oscar S. Adams, 1933.jpg is an image only a few years away from entering the public domain, whose subject is dead, whose photographer is dead, published in a journal which ended over 60 years ago, and which probably hasn't even been looked at by any human in the past three decades (before I hunted it up), with the possible exceptions of (1) whoever scanned the image, and (2) Mark Monmonier, the only person to ever cite the paper where this image appeared. It's possible there's a better copy somewhere in the archives at NOAA, and it's even entirely possible this image was in the public domain at its origin (I don't have more details). Down-sizing it serves no purpose beyond ticking some kind of out-of-context bureaucratic checkbox. –jacobolus (t) –jacobolus (t) 08:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Now the bot has come through and turned these images to emoji-sized blobs, at readers' expense. I don't really see the benefit, and may revert at some point. –jacobolus (t) 00:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

As a rule, it is better to let the bot reduce the image rather than attempting it yourself. Do it yourself and you usually wind up with the bot reducing it again.

I often have free images and tagging them with {{Non-free no reduce}} would be a good option because they literally have zero commercial value and there is no valid reason to reduce them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what your second paragraph is trying to say. Are you agreeing with me that this type of image should have {{non-free no reduce}} added so that the bot doesn't come scrunch images to emoji size? –jacobolus (t) 09:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. If the image has no commercial value, there is no reason to reduce it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll note that our WP:NFCC policy does not say it's ok to use a larger non-free image than we normally allow if we take a guess that the copyright holder isn't going to care. Copyright law is copyright law. There is no allowance in it for chances of someone suing. Neither should there be such leniency in our own policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The policy page doesn't actually say anything concrete or specific about what "minimal" resolution/quality means, other than that logos should be insufficient for counterfeiting, and for historical photographs copies "will be of very inferior quality". The image in question here is a poor quality scan of a photograph which was printed as a mediocre black-and-white picture accompanying a journal article. The highest available resolution copy of the digital image as it currently exists doesn't come anywhere close to being suitable for commercial printing of an ordinary glossy photograph, as you might obtain from a portrait studio. There's no way to turn this image into something that won't be "of very inferior quality", irrespective of resolution; the amount of detail in the image is significantly lower than you would get from a bad 2-inch passport photo obtained from your local pharmacy. –jacobolus (t) 06:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The vast majority of images from that period will not meet your standard of commercial printing from a modern portrait studio. Are all such images from that period therefore unencumbered by copyright? Prior debate on the size of images has resulted in the practice that non-free images generally aren't much larger than the place (usually an infobox) where they are used. --Hammersoft (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Ya know how it goes. Not Bureau, IAR. If an editor in good standing vouches for the need to keep a slightly larger image, bet they have a good reason. We're so far from actual line of what US Fair Use actually permits, we have total editorial freedom to accommodate gray cases. Feoffer (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Because the line we use is not fair use, it is about reducing the quantity and net content of non-free images to promote more free media for WP so that it can be reused and redistributed. Its nice to have pictures of long-dead persons, but if they were not in the public eye at any point and their appearance contributed no factors towards their notability or importance, these images tend to be simply decorative, not to where they have to be removed but we're not going to necessarily allow NFC to be thrown out the window to allow larger than needed sizes. Masem (t) 12:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree entirely that portaits on biographies, or images more generally, are "simply decorative". By a similar standard a significant majority of the text of Wikipedia is "simply decorative", especially on our longer articles, detail embellishment of a story that does not "contribute factors towards notability" (whatever that is supposed to mean). A significant proportion of human mental capacity is devoted to processing of human faces, and attaching clear pictures of people to their names and accomplishments creates an emotional connection, anchors memory, and provides significant context used to assess the person. –jacobolus (t) 15:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not arguing g that such images should be removed, but they are general of very low value in terms of NFCC#8 for comprehension of a person who did not have a public presence as to merit an exemption of NFCC#3 on minimal size. Masem (t) 16:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

"Are all such images from that period therefore unencumbered by copyright?" – This image is still (possibly, nominally) copyrighted. What we are talking about is whether including it in Wikipedia is fair use under US copyright law, which it clearly is: This is a 91 year old image which was intended to be distributed as a portrait of a public figure rather than sold as art, and certainly has zero commercial value today; it is being used for an educational purpose, for which it is clearly relevant; our use is limited to just this photograph, which we are including on just one page; the image is quite mediocre, and there's really no chance someone is going to start selling prints of it taken off Wikipedia.

There are many hypothetical scenarios where "images from that period" could still run into copyright claims (whether or not they were pursued in court). For example, if Wikipedia scanned a whole book of some portrait photographer's work and reproduced it in its entirety on a page, that would no longer be a limited use. If Wikipedia included a high-quality scan of a fine-art photograph, that could (conceivably) impinge on the photograph's commercial resale value. For example, File:Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.jpg is a pretty clearly detailed scan of a famous art photograph, and Wikipedia is publishing a portion that could be used to print postcards or something, in a way that could conceivably affect the profits of Ansel Adams's estate.

Aside: The file page at File:Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.jpg claims that this 1941 photograph published 1943 is out of copyright because it didn't file any copyright renewal. The same is undoubtedly true of the image currently under discussion. –jacobolus (t) 15:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

For a image that likely might fall into copyright due to its publication date, we need proof position that the factors that limit its copyright term and can be made into a free image be expressed and demonstrated. That's done in a satisfactory way for the Adam's photograph, so it can be uploaded at full scale on commons because it is no longer covered by copyright. We have no idea if this image here as similar ability to be marked free, so we have to go with the default of assuming non free. Also to stress, we do not care about fair use aspects because NFCC is purposely stronger than those to encourage free media and minimize nonfree use. While the commercial value factor is just one part of fair use, NFCC is more than that, and even a freely distributed copyrighted piece that limits reuse is a problem for us. — Masem (t) 16:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I took a look through the Stanfard copyright renewal catalog https://exhibits.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals and can't find any relevant entries after searching for a variety of relevant keywords. When I get a chance, I'll go ahead and change the file page here to describe the image as in the public domain for lack of copyright renewal. Edit: on second glance, maybe that's not right. This renewal database seems to only contain copyright renewals for books. Would File:Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.jpg have ever plausibly be listed in there / was searching that database really sufficient to declare a lack of copyright there? –jacobolus (t) 16:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not familiar with that Stanford database to know if it is strictly limited to books or includes other registrations, but if it is strictly limited to books, then that image on. Commons should be nominated for deletion at commons bince that database can't be used to validate picture copyrights. — Masem (t) 13:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the non free bot is often ridiculously stingy (treating the 0.1 megapixel rule of thumb as absolute instead of a guide) and specifically upload content in a low resolution that preserves the relevant info based on context (video game screenshots, for example, can get scrunched to the point where even reasonably large on-screen details become impossible to grok, and thus it's not a useful image at all.) But I think there's a bit of a difference here between "I tag an image I shrunk down to a reasonable size that readers can still see a slightly larger and clearer image for" and "I'm uploading 1.7-megapixel non free images", jacobolus, which is what you're doing. If you want to argue for loosening WP:NFCC, you can start an RfC. But right now you're absolutely abusing the template to stop these from being reduced (especially for the Oscar Adams shot, the original scan is so bad all the high-resolution image is really getting you is an appreciation for dot patterns anyhow.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Concur. Frankly, looking at the larger image vs. the smaller image of File:Oscar S. Adams, 1933.jpg I fail to see what the larger brings to the table that isn't apparent from the smaller. It's a man, in a suit, wearing glasses. Even the 94x120 thumbnails on the image description page tell you the same thing. --User:Hammersoft (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that "number of megapixels" is an incredibly poor guide for the actual resolution of an image, i.e. how much detail it contains, but is easily substituted by people who don't have a basic understanding of how human vision and images work (which is most people).

This image could certainly be reduced in pixel dimensions (hopefully by a less shitty process than whatever the bot is doing) without losing too much detail, because, again it's a mediocre scan of a mediocre black and white print. I uploaded the version I did because this image doesn't need further degradation, and carefully reducing the pixel count takes time and work that is better spent on something else. –jacobolus (t) 15:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hammersoft, Masem, and David Fuchs: Is it now safe to assume that the {{Non-free no reduce}} templates on File:Aage Gerhardt Drachmann.jpg and File:Яглом Исаак Моисеевич.jpg should be replaced with {{Non-free reduce}}? @Jacobolus, Hawkeye7, and Feoffer: Would you prefer that these images be further discussed at FFD? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd fight for a no reduce tag in theory, when an article requires it, but these two specific images are used at much lower resolution in their respective articles. They should be reduced and the larger versions removed. Feoffer (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I see no problem with reducing them, as they will be displayed at 220 to 300 pixels. My issue has always been with the requirement to reduce free images, for which the wording of {{Non-free no reduce}} is equally inappropriate. (And does anyone know what "non-free media on Wikipedia should not be usable as substitutes for the original work" means?) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It means that you aren't supposed to put a high resolution image of someone's fine art painting (or whatever) that could be used to sell postcards or something and hurt the original artist's revenue stream. –jacobolus (t) 10:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they should be reduced. --Hammersoft (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

NFCC#4 and previous publication

Do personal photos uploaded as non-free content which never seem to have been published (at least not prior to being uploaded to Wikipedia) like File:Winder high school shooting.jpg meet WP:NFCC#4? Is being uploaded to Wikipedia considered sufficient or satisfying WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion, even though it seems to imply that it's not. There might be WP:FREER issues with the photo as well, but for I more curious about the NFCC#4 compliance. Please note the file was tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F7 by another user while I was typing the above, but I think it's still a good idea to discuss the potential NFCC#4 issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Being uploaded to WP, while that's the first publication, is not the type of previous publication that we expect for non-free images. This is really a case where we expect that the image, being what appears to be a personal photo, should be uploaded as a free image if it hasn't been published before. Masem (t) 04:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting case. On the file information page, the uploader identifies the photographer as my son-in-law's father and says that the image is used with his permission. If the son-in-law's father wants to give permission, then a proper CC BY-SA 4.0 license (or equivalent) is the way to show that verifiable permission has been given, no matter the familial relationship between the uploader and the photographer. Cullen328 (talk) 04:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I've uploaded thousands of my personal photos to Commons, which haven't been published before. I've always selected a free license. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I have an email from him to me giving me permission, but I'll contact him tomorrow about sending an email to VST. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Commons doesn't accept non-free content of any type per c:COM:FAIR and you uploaded this file locally to Wikipedia as non-free content. WP:NFCC#4 is one of the 10 criteria that are required to be met for each use of non-free content per WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I knew not to upload it to Commons, that is why I uploaded it to Wikipedia and tried to use "fair use". This was a short-lived event that made the news. Someone on a talk page requested a photo, which I saw in the category of photo requests in Georgia. My son-in-law's father sent us that photo while he was waiting to pick up his child. I asked him if it was OK to put on Wikipedia, and he said yes. I thought it would help Wikipedia so I put it up. I'm a grandmaster editor so I was really trying to help - now it is all of this. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Since this photo is related to an incident that just happened, there could eventually be a free equivalent posted somewhere online, which makes FREER an issue. Not meeting FREER alone is more than a sufficient reason for failing the NFCC. Even so, the NFCC#4 issue is still interesting to me. For example, even though the photographer can release this particular image under a free license if they want, they might not want to do so because they're hoping to take advantage of any potential commercial opportunities the image might provide. They might see Wikipedia as one way of increasing the value of their photo. I don't mean that in a bad way and not trying to imply that's what happened here; it's just that I think more people these days are aware of potential commmercial value that their personal photos of breaking news stories may have. Photos can easily go from one's camera to being posted online with a simple click. Does the "Meeting the previous publication" section need to be tweaked a bit to make it clear(er) that there needs to be some in-between third-party publication stage between a photo being taken and uploaded to Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, those hypotheticals are plausible. And yet the uploader states on the file information page that The photographer has no intention of comercializing the photo. The only evidence we have of that at this point is the uploader's assertion. Cullen328 (talk) 05:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The photographer (my son-in-law's father, who had a child at the school) has sent an email to the VRT saying that he wanted to use the free license. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

non-free rationale and ability to use copyright photos appropriately

I want to ask a question if it is alright with you. So how do I get a photo to be implemented into a non-free content rationale and copyright free? I read the article on how to do it in the templates but it is still very confusing. And with the templates like how do I use them and when? Thanks Gymrat16 (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Food and drinks guidelines proposed

Can anyone chime in at the discussion over at User:ShakespeareFan00/Food_and_Drink_Notability_Guidelines, especially on the talk page there? Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 16:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• How is this different from WP:CORP for products? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Attmepting to be more specfic, note the thing about 'generics' for example ShakespeareFan00 16:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Excessive specificity is instruction creep, has there been any sign that such a rule is necessary? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I started writing the guidelines because I felt they might be useful, if the existing rules cover the same ground... ShakespeareFan00 18:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

I request everyone's input regarding this idea, to create a hall of fame to celebrate the editors who've made lasting, non-revertable contribution to the Wikipedia project and deserve some permanent form of recognition, which may serve as an inspiration to the growing community of newer editors. Rama's arrow 18:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the divisiveness of an editor popularity contest would outweigh any benefit of recognition. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I can promise my feelings would be hurt if I were not inducted, or I'd just dismiss everyone who didn't appreciate my contributions as idiots (maybe both at once). If I were inducted, I'd expect everyone to take me more seriously, by giving more weight to my opinions and editorial decisions. I'll leave it to my adoring public to decide how much I am only being facetious...

But I think the worst result of this would be inevitable abuse by the obsessive agenda pushers we see on here across a variety of subjects and issues...or that people who are interested in certain controversial subjects would be seen as such even if their contributions were good faith attempts at NPOV.

I nevertheless commend Rama's arrow for having his heart in the right place; in a perfect world (i.e., a Wikipedia sans assholes), it would be a great idea. I'd encourage him (or anyone else) to personally tell contributors that he admires them and appreciates what they've accomplished. That can do more than institutional, procedural recognition. Postdlf 18:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only the divisiveness, but also the disparity between this and building an encyclopaedia. Could time spent deciding who our best editors are not be better spent working on articles? I think it's great to recognise editors' work and commend them for it, but there's no need to create a formal process; a personal message is just as effective. Trebor 18:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Fundamental changes in our "notability" criteria

A lot of fundamental changes regarding our "notability" criteria are being forced by some editors, and a discussion has sprung up on WP:N, WP:WEB, WP:BIO, and WP:MUSIC regarding the controversial changes. Please come by and offer your input. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's somewhat unclear looking at the talk pages for those guidelines what, exactly, you are talking about. Is there one specific discussion or diff that you can point us to to show what changes you are looking for input on? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Supposedly based on discussion at WP:N, this change was put across the three I've listed. This diff, applied on the same day to those three, is the controverisial one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense, the primary one is directly related to WP:V and WP:NOR (things must be based on reliable published sources), the others are just signs that things should meet that one. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't the primary notability criteria always been:

A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other.

It seems like the diff Jeff mentioned is just pointing this out; it doesn't seem like a policy change to me. CMummert · talk 21:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur- this is a clarification of notability, not a change. It would only look like a change to someone who never understood notability to begin with. Friday (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)