Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please try to post within news, policy, technical, proposals or assistance rather than here. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

« Archives, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

Twisted Metal 4 music

As a player of Twisted Metal 4, I happen to know that the song: Closing Time [Live] is the song played in the Neon City level.

Time's Running Out is the one played in the next level.

Cypress Hill does Closing Time [Live] in Neon City.

(Minion1112)Minion1112(Minion1112) —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

How is this relevant to Wikipedia? This page isn't just a forum or an advertising page, you know. Pyrospirit ^Shiny! 04:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientology overcovered?

Here is Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology which now includes 240 articles. There seem to be about 100,000 Scientologists in the world so there is one article for every about 420 of them. Do you think this is a little bit too much? Thanks. Steve Dufour 11:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please see Talk:Scientology#How_many_Scientology_articles_are_needed.3F for more on this discussion thread, also see comment there by User:Raeft: There should be as many Scientology articles as there are coherent and individual informative occurrences, locales, people, or other originators of encyclopedic content related to Scientology. Adding information serves to make Wikipedia -more- coherent and encyclopedic, not less, and adding too much material to one article makes it overlong and clunky.

Incidentally, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts has 319 articles, Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons has 745 articles, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Nintendo has 1,608 articles. Smee 15:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

More people are interested in these topics than in minute details of Scientology doctrine and history. Steve Dufour 13:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? Have you talked to them? That is, both the people more interested in those other topics than in Scientology doctrine and history's minute details? Because I posit that I know many people more interested in the latter than the former, and thus we are tied. I mean, even if we HAD statistics stating exactly how many people were interested in every topic on Wikipedia, the current guidelines would NOT, Steve, NOT mean that this made one bit of difference.

The only number of people who need to be interested in an article in order for it to be on Wikipedia, is one. One person interested enough to find documents or examples, if they exist, of materials about the article subject which are verifiable, reliable and therefore notable. Please read these guidelines before you continue to make the mistake of equating sheer -number- of believers, interested parties, or adherents to the notability of an article.

I have said to you before that the bar of notability for Wikipedia is deliberately low. That is to say, if it CAN be written about in a reliable, unbiased, and substantiated fashion, it should be, if someone wants to write about it. The higher we set the bar, the more articles get taken out, and the less Wikipedia can claim to be a comprehensive and reliable encyclopedia on every possible topic.

To simplify this further, I quote Wikipedia:Notability:

• A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial1 or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject."

Please, go there and read up on the discussions about what constitutes notability. If you, as such an experienced editor, with so many valuable edits, had known about this, I feel sure the recent failed AFD application for article Xenu would not even have been initiated and time would have been saved. Now, to the bulk of things:

Steve, I do not know how many times I shall have to say this in the space of encountering you on Wikipedia, but I shall say it for the 5th time here, without being so trite as to cite the other times:

The standard of notability on Wikipedia is not how many people are interested in, believe in, or know about a topic, of necessity. The standard relates only to the presence of reliable sources, and the verifiability of same. Wikipedia is a Wiki, a huge, capable, utilitarian and powerful distributor and container for knowledge. If one source on an article which is intensely reliable, or multiple trivial and valid sources can be found, an article can be written.

This spirit of verifiability and reliability is what makes it possible for TV shows, even ones no one has ever heard of or which were never shown on TV because they were dropped while still being written, to still have an article for every episode if we have reliable sources for them and verifiability is established. Interest does NOT equal notability, and I do not know any other ways to say it except those I have been using.

Even apart from this, there are many Scientologists (the Church claims over half a million), and aside from that, many people outside are interested. Pop culture has directed attention at them (YTMND and South Park, others too), aside from which, even the obscure articles in the Scientology series, you have -admitted- (I will not be so crass as to cite you now), are well written and well sourced. Since well and verifiably sourced equals notable by Wikipedia standards, well... I leave the other conclusions for those following the discussions on Xenu's talk page and the attempted AFD there, as well as that for Scientology, and Wikiproject: Scientology.

Peace. Raeft 15:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of hard work has gone into the Scientology series of articles. I just think that 240 is a lot on this one subject. Steve Dufour 17:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you measure that, though? How do -you-, personally, determine what is "too much" information about any one given topic? This is an encyclopedia, more information is a -good- thing. Now, if any of the information is inaccurate, not neutral, or in some other way messed up, that can be addressed on the individual article's talk page, etc. And can be fixed. But sheer number is -not- a reason for there to be less. Chances are good there will only ever be more, and since this is an encyclopedia being built? Bigger is good. If I search a topic I'm interested in on Wikipedia, and don't find some information, or it doesn't have a page, chances are good I'll MAKE that page. Everything can be written about, if you have the sources, that's the beauty. There is no such thing as too many articles about one subject. As long as each is unique and a stand-alone article. And if it's not, there's merging, but merging should be restricted to when two things are so close in topic that a suitably organized page can be knocked together from them. Peace be with ya.Raeft 19:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You say each article should be unique and stand-alone, but in the Scientology series a lot of pieces of information are repeated in multiple articles. Steve Dufour 19:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the reason for that is that Wikipedia pages cannot cite themselves. Each article has to be both unique, AND stand-alone. Statements and sources have to be repeated if they are condusive to information about the subject of the article. The triviality of difference between two closely related article can basically be summed up in saying that the closeness has to be great. Multiple similar articles are often used to keep already-long pages from becoming inconveniently long pages, AND to separate different topics. Really, if the information is repeated, one can only justify removing it from an article if it doesn't BELONG there, if the information does belong, it's perfectly acceptable to repeat it. Sometimes repeat material can be removed from an article if the information is key and prominent in a closely linked article (Such as in the "see also" section, or something linked in the text), but it can NEVER be removed altogether, since taking information which is well-sourced and verifiable out of Wikipedia is destructive to its overall goals. Thus, it is better to have the information twice, than to risk not having it at all, and if an article ceases being comprehensive due to someone removing material they feel is "repeated", and the lack of said material leaves a casual reader less informed, the editor has done a disservice to the base of knowledge present. But, I'm through quoting and paraphrasing Wikipedia guidelines, the process handles itself rather nicely when everyone does their best, and the number of Scientology articles on Wikipedia is not going to stop growing. Peace, and Eris be with you. Raeft 21:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think that two articles could be merged if they contain the same information. Steve Dufour 22:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Not if they only contain -some- of the same information, you see. For instance, sometimes the same information is relevant to two different lines of thought and discussion, and placing it only in one place would be counter intuitive to single articles being informative in many cases. Cheers, I'm done here. Peace. Raeft 01:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I might post another notice when the project reaches 365 articles, one for every day of the year. Steve Dufour 03:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Violation_of_WP:POINT. for more on this user's attempted disruption of the project. Thank you for your time. Smee 15:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Steve's statistic seems a bit exaggerated. If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology/publicwatchlist you'll see that many of the articles listed are related to Scientology rather than about it - an important distinction. Examples include Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act, Christopher Evans (computer scientist), Erhard Seminars Training, Gabe Cazares, Penet remailer and of course John Travolta. As for the rest, Steve needs to remember that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and therefore, to quote, "there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." -- ChrisO 07:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. There are a few on that list that do not seem to be mainly about Scientology, most do however. Steve Dufour 16:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is where I got the number 240: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Scientology articles by quality statistics. There are now 247 Scientology articles. When the count reaches 250 there will be one article for about every 400 Scientologists in the world. Steve Dufour 17:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God you must be joking!

Here's what you should do instead of telling us the ratio of articles to Scientologists: find some actual articles that are either non-notable or so close in information that they need to be merged. Atropos 20:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me get back to you on that? Steve Dufour 21:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Starting from the beginning of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology/publicwatchlist here are some that have no cites from secondary sources (which discuss the topic of the article): Altered texts in Scientology doctrine, Andreas Heldal-Lund, ARC (Scientology), and Author Services Inc.. That does it for the A's. Steve Dufour 14:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the B-list: Believe What You Like, Bennetta Slaughter, Body thetan, Bridge Publications (scientology). Steve Dufour 17:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And the C's: Celebrity Centre, Church of Scientology v. Gerald Armstrong, Citizens for Social Reform, Clear (Scientology), Creative Learning: A Scientological Experiment in Schools. Steve Dufour 17:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The D's: Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science, Dianetics Today, Doctrine of Exchange, Dumbleton-Powles Report. Steve Dufour 19:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

E's and F's: Enturbulation, Fishman Affidavit, Fort Harrison Hotel, Foster Report, Foundation for Religious Tolerance of Florida, Frank A. Gerbode, Free Solo Processing, Freedom Magazine, Freewinds. Steve Dufour 19:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going hit the last article, Freewinds, with a notability template and see what happens. Steve Dufour 21:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The tag was removed. It seems that every ship that sails the seas, like every Pokemon character, has its own WP article. :-) Steve Dufour 23:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

These are the G's: Galactic Confederacy, Galaxy Press, Game (Scientology), Gerry Armstrong, Golden Age of Knowledge, Golden Age of Tech, Golden Era Productions. And the H's: Harry Palmer (Avatar), Helatrobus, Heron Books, Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, Hubbard Association of Scientologists International, Hubbard College of Administration International. Steve Dufour 00:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The I's: Ignatius Piazza which might have BLP problems, Implant (Scientology), International Association of Scientologists, Introspection Rundown. And one J: Jesse Prince already tagged as non-notable. Steve Dufour 00:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Then we skip to the M's: Mark Bunker, Mary De Moss, Meade Emory, Medical claims in Scientology doctrine no secondary source seems to be about the topic, MEST (Scientology). And an N: Notes on the Lectures. And some O's: Operating Thetan, Orientation (film), OT VIII. Steve Dufour 01:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles are sourced up to: Reactive mind, Robert Vaughn Young, Ron Newman (computer programmer) already tagged for non-notability, Ron's Org, Ron's Journal 67, Route to Infinity, Rundown (Scientology). Steve Dufour 01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Lots of S's: Safe Environment Fund, Sara Northrup, Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics, Scientology 8-8008, Scientology cross I contributed to this one, Scientology holidays, ScienTOMogy at least it cites itself, Security Check Children, Source (magazine), Squirreling I corrected the info on real squirrels, Standard Tech, Straightwire, Study Tech. Steve Dufour 02:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

T's too: The Cause of Suppression, The Creation of Human Ability its one cite is not about the topic, The Phoenix Lectures, The Process Church of The Final Judgment, The Scientology Handbook, The Technology of Study, Tim Bowles, Traumatic incident reduction already has 3 tags. Steve Dufour 02:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Finishing up: Writers of the Future, Xenu is not on this list, he has gotten lots of press coverage, Youth for Human Rights International the newspaper story cited did not seem to mention it, and lastly Zenon Panoussis. Steve Dufour 02:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientology Finance was not on the watchlist but seems to have serious problems. Steve Dufour 05:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

And the count is now 252. :-) Steve Dufour 20:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a really hard time believing that this list is in good faith. AndroidCat 21:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please check out any of the articles I mentioned and see if they are supported by secondary sources, unless something has been added to some of them since I posted the list. Thanks. Steve Dufour 21:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You obviously didn't check out all of them or you wouldn't have included Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto. There are quite a few others there as misplaced as your last [1] effort. That's why I have trouble taking this seriously. AndroidCat 02:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The article Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto is only sourced by court documents, primary not secondary sources. I am not saying it should be deleted however. Steve Dufour 04:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It's -good- that you're not saying it should be deleted. Not simply because primary sources are -acceptable- when talking about the documents themselves (documents from a court trial are perfectly acceptable as sources about the documents themselves, and their contents (the case). Additionally, to imply the documents were untrustworthy would kind of be saying the supreme court of Canada is not a reliable source. I would then foresee that people who've used Roe V. Wade's text as a source, or oh so much else, would be bothered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.224.195.30 (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

My list was in response to Artopos's suggestion to mention some Scientology articles that were non-notable. I am not saying that they should all be deleted. However, there should be some secondary sources added to that article. Steve Dufour 17:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto is extremely notable in Canada and is cited in a great many cases involving areas of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and is covered in law schools. Comparing it to Row v. Wade isn't out of line. The article is primarily part of WikiProject Canadian law, rather than Scientology Series. AndroidCat 05:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

But still its WP article has no secondary sources. Steve Dufour 17:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And just in case you were wondering, Atropos is not a sockpuppet. :-) Steve Dufour 15:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am! Stop denying it. Atropos 06:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The first comment on this topics says, "There seem to be about 100,000 Scientologists in the world ..." However our article on the Church of Scientology says: "The Church has said that it has anywhere from eight million to fifteen million members world-wide, and has stated that Scientology is "the fastest growing religion in the world."" -Will Beback · † · 21:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article does contain that sentence. It then goes on to mention quite a few surveys and censuses which seem to indicate about 50,000 Scientologists in the USA and a couple of thousand or so in each of a handfull of other countries. Steve Dufour 21:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If the article is more accurate than the church's own statements then that's an indicator of the value of this material. -Will Beback · † · 21:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Will. :-) Steve Dufour 23:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's face it: most articles are just a repetition of others. All the "doctrine/practice' stuff could be merged, and so could the "controversy" sections. This thing is just artificially blown up. Instead of having dozens of stubs, several long articles would do better. Misou 22:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But try to delete or merge any and see what happens. :-) Steve Dufour 03:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that Tim Bowles is now up for deletion. And the count is still 252. :-) Steve Dufour 04:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And it survived the test!!! The count is still 253. :-) Steve Dufour 03:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

But now it is up for deletion review. Steve Dufour 11:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it passed that too. Steve Dufour 14:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

253. Steve Dufour 17:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A big jump today! There are now 272 Scientology articles. Steve Dufour 00:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The article on Ken Ogger, an ex-Scientologist trying to get on with his life, has now been nominated for deletion. This one might have a chance. The count is still 272. Steve Dufour 15:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Compared with other religions, this is pretty scant coverage. There are 17,800 pages mentioning moonies, 2,080 pages mentioning sikhism, 3,110 pages mentioning falun gong... --Infrangible 23:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The Unification Church also seems to be overcovered for its number of members. There are 23 million Sikhs and at least 2 or 3 million Falun Gong members in the world, according to their articles. Searching the same way there are 3,970 pages with the word "Scientology". That's one for about every 30 Scientologists. Steve Dufour 05:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles per Scientologists is a rather misleading measure of overcovered, undercovered or anything of the like. 10800 pages on Wikipedia use the name "George Washington", using the google method used above. Does that mean that George Washington is overcovered? No it means he's famous. I could go on with similar examples. The US Supreme Court has nine members and is mentioned 5170 times (and 3010 times as Supreme Court of the United States), does that seem overcovered? No, because those articles are notable and important. The category United States Supreme Court has more than 355 pages in the main category and principal subcategories. That's more pages than scientology for an organization with only nine members. Cool3 21:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the Supreme Court is one of the most important institutions in a nation of 300 million people, while Scientology is mostly only important to its members. BTW I would guess that about one article for 10,000 people would be about average for WP. Steve Dufour 01:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientology is mostly only important to its members - Excuse me? You don't know that. May I suggest that you just drop the whole issue you have against coverage of Scientology on Wikipedia? Your whole argument consists of (1) random statistics that no one has analysed to see if they actually mean anything and (2) broad generalisations that you have no idea are correct. --Iamunknown 02:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if Steve keeps posting idle tidbits, the Twisted Metal thread will be archived, and this month-long thread of little content will be top of the charts. AndroidCat 06:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I felt like commenting about that too; I wish this thread would go away. --Iamunknown 07:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Support--SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 18:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Before it does, I forgot to mention that Xenu, a fictional character created by L. Ron Hubbard, is mentioned on 745 pages and there are now 276 Project Scientology articles. Steve Dufour 13:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter, a fictional character created by JK Rowling is mentioned on 7940 Wikipedia pages. These statistics, really don't mean too much. The city of Chicago is mentioned on 77300 Wikipedia pages. Quantity of coverage of this that or the other doesn't matter so long as the articles involved are factual, well-written, and follow Wikipedia policy. Cool3 17:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think Harry Potter is only 10 times more important than Xenu? Or Chicago only 100 times more? Steve Dufour 17:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You're missing (or perhaps disagreeing with) my point that these numerical comparisons are misleading and nearly useless. Nonetheless, I would like to ask you something, do you feel that Wikipedia is a complete and finished encyclopedia with articles about everything that should have an article? I seriously doubt it. Wikipedia still has lots of room for further growth and development. Any growth of well-written, encyclopedic articles is worthwhile. If you really think that the coverage of scientology is out of proportion to that of Harry Potter or Chicago, then the best thing to do with your time is write more articles on Chicago and Harry Potter or whatever other encyclopedic topics you may choose. Cool3 18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia isn't paper, we don't need to fit everything into 30 (or 100, or 1,000) volumes, and if the articles are good, then they're good. If people are willing to do the research and write good articles on a topic they're passionate about, their contributions should be valued, because they're valuable. We have articles on nearly every concievable sexual act, articles on obscure acid rock bands, articles on nearly every officer in the US Civil War. That's what will hopefully make Wikipedia the Best Encyclopedia in the World someday... we have articles on everything :).--SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 18:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this murder threat?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Frankman&diff=next&oldid=52801141 --Pockey 21:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a death threat. But it was made in June 2006. x42bn6 Talk 23:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

..from an IP address which is currently blocked from editing, and has amassed the longest Block Log I've ever seen. --Stormie 01:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• • That's nothing. I've blocked someone for a year before with less vandal edits (probably because he was blocked for so long!) I started out small, but he kept coming back so I blocked him for longer and longer periods. And wouldn't you know it, when the year was up, he came back! Unfortunately, it was a school IP, so he's not longer blocked. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Create an article about a person?

Are we able to create articles on ourselves or someone we know?

Thank you. KieranMullen

Please see our policies on autobiographies and on conflict of interest. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. It is probably a good policy. I am watching this page and I did not get an email. Is there a wikipedia village pump newsgroup or standard web forum? Posting in this manner is really clumsy.

Thanks again

KieranMullen

People do post information about themselves on their user pages. — RJH (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your questions, no, there is no process by which someone is notified that a question or posting has been responded to; no, there is no village pump newsgroup, although there are mailing lists and a weekly internal newsletter; no, there is no web forum (at least officially; Wikipedia is certainly discussed in places other than Wikipedia). On the other hand, if you post a question on the user talk page of an editor, you're pretty likely to get a quick answer.

For more information on the encyclopedia, you might want to take a look at an index. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

And also, when you choose to "Watch" a page using the Watch tab up the top, it doesn't mean you get email updates, it means that when the page changes it gets listed on your Watchlist, listed up the very top of the page whenever you are logged in. See Help:Watching pages, I believe. Confusing Manifestation 05:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Or, as I've just realised, you may have chosen to watch the page by ticking the box under the edit box, of course. Confusing Manifestation 05:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Are Info Boxes mandatory?

I see that info boxes can be helpful in many situations. However, in some cases, I find them redundant and too much like "lists". In the case of theatrical plays, for example, some editors are insisting on listing all or many of the characters in a play, or every producer of a movie (which can be quite a few these days). I also feel that the over use of these boxes gives a feeling of dumbing down of an article - sort of like using cliff notes to write a report instead of reading the whole article. Listing all the scene locations for many plays would be equally cumbersome. In fact, for the most part, all the information in these boxes is typically found in the first paragraph or two of the article itself. Isn't this redundant? Are not these just more lists that duplicate the information in the articles? Are these boxes mandatory for plays and musicals? I am concerned that we are turning some articles from encyclopedia entries into USA TODAY stories with these little boxes that make it easier to avoid actually learning about the subject, as opposed to simply getting a few quick facts.Smatprt 16:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Use your judgement, and keep infoboxes informative, short, and relevant. Remove trivia and use the infobox to summarise the important points of an article. Think of it like a tabular form of the lead section, with a few stats, images and figures as well. The crucial thing though is for it to complement the article, not to compete with it. Good luck though, as many editors do like to focus on infoboxes as a series linking across articles, rather than treating the infobox as an integral part of the article. Carcharoth 17:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As a box and tag antagonist, let me speak up for a moment. There are times and places where such things are entirely appropriate, but the most central question to ask is whether the subject of the article can be standardized. For example, there is little doubt that toxicity is a thing all want to know about a snake, that genus and phylum is a thing all readers want for a plant, that location and time are things all those who read battles want to know. If the subject has such universals, then it's possible for there to be a box or template. However, if the questions and salient features of the subject will not conform to uniformity, the presence of a template or box is likely false, if not an outright assertion of POV. People, in my experience, differ from each other wildly. In my experience, lives cannot be reduced to meaningful feature points. Even birth and death dates are not reliably important. Novels and plays and artworks of all sorts have a compulsion to originality, and, other than who made them (and maybe not that), there isn't a great deal that is reliable across all iterations. The goal of boxes and templates is "consistency." Well, if the objects are not meaningful in a consistent way, then there is no way to achieve this goal, and even making the attempt is a refashioning of the subject into a limited form.

Additionally, if the important thing about the subject is an illustration other than the one the box/template wants, then the box or template is counter-productive. A picture of Cædmon is useless. A picture of most authors is really not to the point, while a picture of an actor/actress is vital. It might be that, in Orrmulum, the most important thing is a picture of the manuscript, while in Peterborough Chronicle the most important thing is a picture of the abbey (or even a map of England). Someone coming along with a "these are both books, so the form requires a picture of the author" would be silly.

Use your judgment and inquire carefully. Geogre 20:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bring up Scientology again. But its info box is a good example of info box abuse, IMO. Steve Dufour 00:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Compare it to the info box on Hezbollah. Steve Dufour 01:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The sighted and unsighted application of tags.

Just an ironic coincidence that this occurred just after making those comments above, but today I wrote William Rainborowe. I had some time with the DNB, took notes, and thought it an interesting figure. Very quickly, a person came in to minister to the article. I have nothing but good feelings about this, even if I disagreed with both improvements. One was grammatical. The other, though, was to put a tag on the article saying that few articles link to this one.

Well, what is the purpose of such a tag? Normally, tags like that tell us that the article may be a hoax or nonsense or trivia. When an article on J-ball funk (fictional) gets created and the author says that it's a very important type of music found only in Roxbury in Boston, the New Pages patrollers might miss it. They might let it stick around. (They shouldn't, even with the claim, but that's an WP:AN issue.) So a tag saying that nothing links to this will alert readers to the fact that this was probably some dude's hoax or, at best, some local slang or, most likely, a pure ideolectical term. Therefore, the article may go to AfD. In other words, the tag acts like a bullsh*t detector.

In the case of someone like William Rainborowe, we're dealing with, first, a brand new article, so extant links could be missing for honest reasons, but we're also dealing with an article that has references and establishes the case for the figure's notability quite well. However, the historical figure is a very good example of a number of things. He is very interesting. He helps us understand the Ranters, the Levellers, the New Model Army, and all sorts of other things. However, he is not a person who is going to generate many links to. He is not indispensable for understanding Oliver Cromwell, or the Rump, or the Restoration, etc. In other words, while I can think of places to insert his name to generate links (please...no one needs to advise me there, because I can think of them myself), honesty would dictate that I not do it. In other words, his article really shouldn't have very many links-to.

Again, nothing but wikilove for those who minister to the article. It needs help and can benefit from all. However, a guided tag, a tag put in upon consideration of the content and circumstances of the article is very different from an automatic tag. The same is true of boxes and templates. There is no way to automate them, even if there are too many new articles a day to do them by hand and be complete. The one principle that's paramount is that every action with regard to tags, boxes, and templates is that they must be carefully considered. Geogre 01:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Polite way to remind people to take care when reverting vandalism?

Is there a polite way to remind people to take care when reverting vandalism? I just spent some time repairing Francis Bacon. I found it in an obviously truncated state, and eventually tracked down the major vandalism, the effects of which can be seen here. That loss of a massive chunk of the article lasted for over 5 days. Would it be rude of me to ask those who part-reverted the vandalism, but failed to restore the cut sections, to be more careful next time? It is this sort of vandalism that is difficult to spot after a few weeks have passed, and very difficult to repair if the page has been heavily edited since. Increasingly, I get the impression that the history of an article may often contain relevant information that is not in the current version. If I may put my crystal ball spectacle on for a moment, a future industry may grow up around mining the history of Wikipedia pages for little nuggets of information not recorded anywhere else... Carcharoth 17:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as somebody who has made that very error myself - mea culpa - nothing beats a polite note on the user's Talk page, pointing out exactly what you've just said. That takes a bit of your time, though. - DavidWBrooks 19:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This is why I almost never revert when dealing with vandalism. Throw out the baby with the bathwater? No, sir! Reverting is often the lazy solution, and can be as harmful as (or more than) the original vandal's work. Better to rewrite or cut-and-paste. Rhinoracer 20:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

User pages as redirects to article space

This is interesting. We have the article Yury Chernavsky. We have the user User:Chernavsky George Yury. Apparently the same person. The user page redirects to the article; it appears the user page was moved to article space. (User talk:Chernavsky George Yury likewise redirects to Talk:Yury Chernavsky.) The primary contributor (almost sole contributor) to the article is the user. Possible WP:AUTO problem there, but that's not what I'm interested in right now. For the sake of discussion, let's assume the article stays. My question is, is there any precedent that shows the community's opinion on having a notable Wikipedian's user page and talk page redirect to the article pages? It seems wrong to me, but I'm having trouble articulating why. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 07:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There should indeed be a separation between the user page and the article. For one thing, the article is open to anyone to edit, while the user page is not (it is considered very bad form to edit another user's user page). The talk pages are for very different purposes as well (one is to discuss the article, the other to leave messages for the user). I would undo the redirect. Blueboar 13:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've started an AFD as the person appears non-notable. GDonato (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Plug-in hybrid

I want to offer my heartfelt thanks to the many who've seriously improved Plug-in hybrid over the past week, and ask for your help in copy-editing. Could you have a look through the article, please, for unclear prose, and try to make it more clear if you find any? Thanks in advance. James S. 13:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you posted this request on the talk page? Also, you can try two things. For one, you can put a {{[[tl|copyedit}} tag at the top. This is not a very common cleanup tag, and people do look at these articles sooner or later. (I think there's a Wikiproject for copyediting.) Second, the article is well structured and referenced, and if you really wanted a swarm of ants around it, you could try a peer review. YechielMan 21:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

writing a fiction book

does anyone know anything about writing a fiction book? i have tried to find out but i am overwhemeld and can't find a free leason or article to help me write my book.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclindsay007 (talk • contribs)

What sort of help do you need? Do you need help getting a book you've written printed? Finding a topic to write about? Actually writing it? Your question is so nebulous I don't know where to start to answer it. You might want to look at our article on Fiction writing, but keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. For future reference, questions of this sort belong at the reference desk. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Check out your local library too. Steve Dufour 00:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The best featured article

What do users think is the best featured article? --Hadz^Talk 11:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You excpect an answer? Alphabetagamma 00:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Try the random generator at Wikipedia:Featured content. Carcharoth 03:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't answer what's best because I've only read a few of them. My favorites are chess and The Turk. YechielMan 05:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sesame Street rocks! -- Zanimum 17:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC) (doing shameless self promotion)

National debt/Soc. Sec. clock

What exactly would the script that I would type into my User page to get the clock from http://zfacts.com/p/793.html onto the page? Alphabetagamma 00:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

none. mediawiki won't let you do that.Geni 03:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Humourous barnstars

Is there a barnstar I can award to the funny guy who put the "future event" tag on the following articles? I can sort of understand 22nd century, but 23rd century, 24th century, 25th century, 26th century, 27th century, 28th century, 29th century, and 30th century? "This article or section contains information about scheduled or expected future events. It may contain information of a tentative nature and the content may change dramatically as the event approaches and more information becomes available." Oh, please!! I wonder if those tags will be a candidate for the longest-lasting tags, hanging around for nearly a thousand years until the events take place? I think Talk:8th millennium sums things up quite nicely. Well, actually, I learnt something from that, so ferreting through those pages wasn't entirely useless. And thank goodness someone eventually ran out of steam... It took Ultimate fate of the universe to bring me back to reality. Nice navboxes though, making it easy to click through the whole series from 10th millennium BC up to the 11th millennium and beyond (and nearer our own time, clicking through the centuries is nice and informative as well). Unfortunately, going a bit further back, I discovered some original synthesis going on at Timetable of the Precambrian, with theories presented as actually happening as part of a historical timeline... The final part of this impromtu tour, from there to the Big Bang, will have to await another night. Carcharoth 03:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's possible to design your own custom barnstar. Just fool around with the source code of the standard barnstars and see what you can come up with. YechielMan 05:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

user:Gurch is the one who added them. -- Zanimum 17:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I did what, when? At least on 23rd century the tag was added by an anonymous user who is certainly not me. If I did add it to one or two (though I don't remember doing so), then it was for consistency. By all means remove them if you don't like them – Gurch 18:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Stupidity on the increase?

Hello all. I've returned to WP after some time, with a fresh ID.

I used to look at the NewPages list now and again. There was a lot of junk there, but a significant amount of stuff that looked as if it could be worthwhile. Even some articles that already were worthwhile.

Now I look there and almost all I see is kiddy talk. It's a mixture of (1) possibly earnest attempts at writing up trivia/juvenilia, and (2) mere babble.

Are people becoming stupider? Is WP attracting the under-ten demographic? Have most of the worthwhile articles already been started? Really, I wonder.

I thought of marking this stuff with the "speedy this, it's obviously vapid" template. But I'd mark 90% of it. Some team of sysops might as well go through the whole lot, rather than the tagged 90%. But what a waste of their time that would be.

I'm starting to wonder if first edits should be made to follow a short general knowledge test: Five questions, like "Name the person who first reached the south pole." The knowledge (derivable from non-vandalized WP articles wouldn't be an issue but what might be is the need for an attention span of more than just a few seconds. Then most of the silly people, drunks, infants, etc. could stay with Myspace or Neopets; less timewasting for people who actually want to improve articles, less silliness for people who actually want to be informed. Morenoodles 08:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the big problems is we've got pretty much no way of making most guidelines noticeable before edits are made. -- Ned Scott 08:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There is MediaWiki:Newarticletext but evidences suggest not a lot of people read that.Geni 09:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the way to do it would be to replace the content of MediaWiki:Newarticletext with <span style="text-decoration: blink; font-size: 20pt"><font color=red>[[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is neither myspace nor an advertising service!]]</font></span> Using it as such will get your pages deleted. , which produces

Wikipedia is neither myspace nor an advertising service! Using it as such will get your pages deleted.

I can't see anyone ignoring that. MER-C 09:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should put that on my talk page header... MER-C 09:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Remember the blink tag has ne effect in ie.Geni 09:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about the CSS, which is what this is. MER-C 09:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it doesn't in IE6.Geni 09:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

We can also do something like this. MER-C 09:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that text makes Wikipedia look like MySpace... x42bn6 Talk 21:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar Graphics

I just want to know how do users used to make barnstars and make them into different colours. Do users use free softwares or not? Thanks! --Jacklau96 10:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The GIMP will do most of the stuff. There other programs but the GIMP is probably the best free one.Geni 13:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Jim in News Headlines

Just a story on News.com.au but thought it maybe of interest. Wikipedia guru opens new era -- Bidgee 01:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That link doesn't work any more. Try this one -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Also: http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/save-wales-from-chasers-spruiker/2007/04/26/1177459849504.html Rafy 06:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

talk page of anonymous user

I found a WP article which is, well, questionable, in my opinion. As per the instructions I found on the RFC page, I posted to the talk page. The writer of the questionable phrase in anonymous. If he wasn't, would he be notified (by email?) of my post? So where do I discuss this? Is this the right forum? Should I post an RFC? Is there any point in my talk page post at all? The page in question, BTW, is "Hitachi Travelstar". Sailor.nir 12:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it. A claim like that needs (must have) a citation for it. If you see suspect claim like that without a reliable citation, be bold and revert it and then leave a message as to why you've removed it. - X201 12:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Your help is needed

Wikipedia:Vital articles. These are articles essential to an encyclopedia. Please help out. Expand any stubs. Cleanup the messy articles. Make sure the articles are comprehensive and well-written. That list is a shame. Let's all work together to bring all of those articles up to quality standards. Vassyana 13:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. We're too busy working on the Scientology articles. Xenu was a featured article. Or else Pokemon and The Simpsons. Steve Dufour 05:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana, I'll help out when I can. I'm currently tied up. Its good to know about that list! I was unfamiliar with it previously. --Iamunknown 23:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

IFD Problem

I posted Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_April_7#Image:North_American_hardiness_zones.jpg some time ago. I understand that there might be back log (although it's the only file from this date which has not been addressed). More distressing though, is that someone keeps clobbering the ifd template and discussion comments on the NA hardiness image itself; with no history. I can only imagine that it is P199 who was tipped off by my adherence to policy (posting to his talk), and is somehow displeased yet unwillingly to share his thoughts on the matter. --Belg4mit 14:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the circumstances surrounding the situation, but I tagged Image:North American hardiness zones.jpg as a duplicate of Image:USDA Hardiness zone map.jpg that should be deleted, reason being that the latter name is, AFAIK, more descriptive, accurate, scaleable and already has another image with the prefix Image:USDA Hardiness. --Iamunknown 23:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone wonders: the image is still there but it's tagged for deletion as a duplicate on commons: it has been deleted from en.wikipedia. Mangojuice^talk 14:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Commons admins generally do (eventually) delete duplicate works; we'll see what happens with this. --Iamunknown 19:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I Need A Source For A Story

I'm working on my final project for my Multimedia Reporting class at KU. It's over Wikipedia editing and how much it re-establishes the site's credibility. I'm looking for editors who would be interested in being interviewed for my story. I need both involved volunteer editors and hired staff. If interested, please message me back. My username is Luke J-School. Luke J-School 15:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that hired staff generally aren't hired to edit the wikipedia (though some do edit in their free time). If possible, please share a copy of your final report with us when done. Maybe we can learn useful things! :-) --Kim Bruning 15:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No solution

There is no solution to the edit-warring problem. Every tactic we use can be used by our opponents. As Wikipedia grows to encompass the world it will be riven by conflict just as the world is.

Information can be shared, but control cannot. In the end, someone gets their way and someone doesn't. Stability requires totalitarianism; freedom implies chaos.

Some people cannot share the same world. If they cannot be given different worlds (different Wikipedias) they will fight over what is available.

I am sorry I cannot help you.

--Ideogram 10:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Um... yes, someone gets their way and someone does not. It is logically impossible for two people to simultaneously get their way, if they want different things. Why is that bad? -Amarkov moo! 15:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

We have to live together or die together. We no longer live in a world where we can simply exterminate our enemies. --Fuarco 19:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Consensus. Corvus cornix 20:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of Wikipedia editors who refuse to accept that principle. What do we do with them? --Fuarco 20:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you do with rude co-workers, family members who won't get along, apartment dwellers who are too noisy, etc. etc.? You work with them, live with it, persuade them, wait them out, and a dozen other strategies. No magic bullet - in life or wiki-editing, alas. - DavidWBrooks 21:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I never was good at compromise. --Fuarco 21:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Brazil Collaboration

Wikipedia:Brazil Collaboration was created!!! JoãoFelipe ^{( Let's talk! )} 21:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Cancelling my Account

If I decide to cancel my Wikipedia Account what would I need to do? John R G 20:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Just quit using it. There is no provision for deleting Wikipedia accounts, as all edits made by the account need to be attributed for copyright purposes. Corvus cornix 20:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Lets see what if I want to cancel my account and not be able to log back on. John R G 21:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)