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, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197

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.

Template:LocateMe

There is discussion in a number of places (e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#LocateMe bot WikiProject Geographical coordinates and here) as to whether Template:LocateMe should be placed on the article page or the talk page. 540 articles have been tagged with this template to date (e.g. User:SatyrBot/Project log 31). If you're interested in whether & when nagging templates can be placed in the article space, please consider adding your thoughts at Template talk:LocateMe. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Suggest CSD U4 for chat pages

I have proposed to add a new rule for speedy deletion, which will cover all user and user talk pages which are devoted exclusively to communicating with other people about topics nothing to do with Wikipedia. It's hard to quantify that, but for something like "Hey Pikeyboy, Where R U? OMG WTF BBQ SOS" (which I tagged for deletion just now), I know it when I see it. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Suggest new criterion for chat pages.

Use of <noinclude>{{pp-move|small=yes}}</noinclude> on move protected pages?

Is this a recent development? Because it seems like seeing this in the corner of a page might suggest to new users and anons that a page is sprotected, when in fact it's just move protected. It seems like this might discourage new users from editing certain pages, would it be possible to remove this from pages such as the Help Desk which is frequented by new users and anons? --VectorPotential^Talk 12:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the helpdesk page and I see what you mean. I think a lock in the top right corner of such a page is a bad idea. We should either have another picture for move protection, or remove it from this page specifically or something. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The icon seems to do more harm than good, and most people probably don't worry about moving a page when they visit it. You can tell whether it's move protected by the absence of the move tab. –Pomte 19:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We could just use a new image. The only thing I can think of is an arrow with a line through it, like this (though less ugly): File:No arrow.svg -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm worried that an image with a crossout or red on it will scare new users, and since new users can't move pages anyway, I don't see the benefits of that icon over the risk of alienating users. — The Storm Surfer 04:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think no icon is probably the way to go. — The Storm Surfer 08:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, move protection doesn't need an icon. >Radiant< 13:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Quotations - editing and amending

Is there any guidance or policy on Quotations? I ask as I keep coming across instances where the original quote (as stated in the source) has been edited or amended to either change it to a different style of English, edited for grammar or cropped to reflect a POV. Is a quote still a quote when it's been altered? 82.11.41.163 13:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No... if a quote has been modified it is no longer a quote. The only modification that should be allowed is to omit extranious words that do not change the meaning of what we are quoting. For example, take the following sentence:

• "Yesterday, after waking up and doing my usual morning routine of brushing my teeth, showering, and having breakfast, I walked to work instead of driving in my car as I had always done before."<ref>citation</ref>

We can legitimately quote this as:

• "Yesterday, ... I walked to work instead of driving in my car as I had always done before."<ref>citation</ref>

That said, it is not wrong to paraphrase a source (so long as we include a citation so it can be compared to the original), but then quotation marks should not be used. To use my example, you could say:

• According to Blueboar, yesterday was the first time he walked to work. He states that prior to that he had always driven in his car.<ref>citation</ref>

What is definitely NOT ok is to ammend a statement so it does not accurately reflect the meaning and intent of the original. Blueboar 13:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Man, thank goodness someone else realizes that lol. Jmlk17 07:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, if the quote contains a grammatical error or such, leave it as is and include [sic] next to it. Confusing Manifestation 04:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is "poop" considered a swear word on Wikipedia?

My regular username, POOPTURTLE, was blocked due to being an "inappropriate" name. Why is this? I see nothing inappropriate about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AirPumpClock (talk • contribs)

The username policy includes "Usernames that include slurs, or references to reproductive or excretory bodily functions" as offensive usernames. That's why it was blocked...not because it's a "swear word" --OnoremDil 15:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, excretory. Understood. Thanks for answering in such a timely fashion.

AirPumpClock 15:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• "Poop" is a childish word. Little kids shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, nor should we be using that word in our articles. — Deckiller 16:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree. d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Although poop deck always seems more trouble than it's worth... Trebor 17:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It's my internet alias; I don't go around wikipedia going POOP POOP POOP POOP, it's just my 'net name. Nevertheless, the rules do say that you can't use an excretion word in your name, so whatever. P.S. POOP POOP POOP IM SUCH A LITTLE KID (lol internet) My point is, I found that comment unnecessary because I already got the point. AirPumpClock 16:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

As the book says, Everyone Poops. I think its a little overbearing to outlaw poop references from usernames. —Gaff ^ταλκ 17:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Overbearing? How? Badlydrawnjeff's point with that link was that there is at least one article where we can use the word poop, because it's part of the subject of the article. It doesn't mean you should be able to put it in your username. If the idea of not being able to use your obnoxious puerile nickname on an encyclopedia is too much for you to bear, you should probably find a different website. --tjstrf talk 17:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Says someone whose screenname includes a reference to a popular series of children's books... (intentionally not signing - not that you can't easily figure out who I am)

And a most excellent series it is, at that. --tjstrf talk 07:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I find no correlation between "poop" in a username and the fact that tjstrf enjoys the Redwall series. Besides, I am sure many of us still enjoy many things people claim to be "children's materials." In any case, no personal attacks please. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The guy who posted that happens to be in the Redwall WikiProject, it was intended as a joke. --tjstrf talk 07:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I sincerely hope no respected Egyptologist, specialising in religious iconography, joins WP and wants to call him/herself Dung Beetle... even a particularly old and venerable Egyptologist. LessHeard vanU 23:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

But remember how academically-oriented Wikipedia is...we'd probably make an exception if it were Professor Dung Beetle. The more formal title just conjures up instant respect doesn't it? : ) Doc Tropics 23:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"Poop" doesn't necessarily refer to a bodily function, as the poop page makes clear. There is such a thing as a poop deck, and of course there's Mr. Toad's famous expression, "Poop Poop!" (Hmm, perhaps a user name of POOPTOAD would have been allowed?) AdorableRuffian 14:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, one must admit that the majority of edits that contain the word "poop" are vandalism. Jmlk17 04:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How to handle mass vandalism

I was on RC patrol last night and hit with a deluge of "Librarians are hiding something" vandalism thanks to Steven Colbert. When this happened, I found some admins helpful and willing to promptly block the mass vandals. Meanwhile, another admin told me that I needed to give the "proper set of warnings." In such an environment, the standard policy of warnings of increasing severity seems absurd. In addition, I am wondering how established users taking part in such a campaign should be handled. This morning, I reverted a POV edit on Iraq War by User:McGrupp10799. I looked at his edit log to find that he participated in the vandal-fest of '07. How should editors like this be handled? Are there set procedures on responding to a mass vandal campaign to make it easy for admins to block many or even all WP articles at once? thanks. —Gaff ^ταλκ 17:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a great question that probably deserves its own policy. My rough idea is that perhaps we can have a test template specifically designed for mass vandals, and set a rule that when there is a mass vandal event related to, say, Colbert-induced visits to wikipedia, noob vandal users are directed to a friendly page that does not bite them but tells them what harm they are doing and what the penalty is for participating in the mass vandal attack. If we need to block them after only one or two edits I think that is fine but wikipedia should come to some consensus on that penalty. MPS 18:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Very good question, as stated above. It seems to come to the personal decisions of the users and the responding admins at times. But sometimes, a vandal just goes off the hook, and before you know it, they still are not blocked, and there are dozens of pages to revert. I agree that something need s to be done, but it's a question of how are we as a community going to reach a consensus? Jmlk17 20:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm relatively new, so take my comments as you will, but I think that users which have demonstrated that they participate in mass vandalism, and ignore warnings not to continue (i.e. by participating in two vandalisms, ignoring the first warning entirely) should be considered for a short block and then forced to make their case. I do like the idea of a test page. --Edwin Herdman 21:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}} was designed just for this kind of thing. One warning before blocking. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Once that template is popped onto their page and they are blocked, then the discussion about not engaging in "funny" vandalism can commence. --Edwin Herdman 23:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

In other news, I adapted this discussion into a question for an RfA candidate. Thanks for the idea! --Edwin Herdman 02:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I propose that wikipedia now should adopt a fully admin dependent system where every edit to an article, no matter how small or minor, has to be checked and given the approval of a administrator before it is included into the article. I know that the implementation will slow down the progression of wikipedia and make editing a far longer process, but, alas, to stop the hordes of vandals it should be done. Also, maybe a harder line to vandals should be taken in cases where it is clear that the edit was deliberately done to vandalise an article, maybe a lifetime ban for a IP plus a specialist page on the vandals posting there information (e-mail and IP) so that other websites can ban vandals from there site as well, making the consequences of there actions more severe. TheJackle 01:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Holy god, no. That would be horrible. Admins are backlogged as it is on the bureaucracy we have set up now. Something like that would just be ridiculous. As for the IP thing, IP addresses are rarely used by one person alone. Such an action would be wholly harmful to the project. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No, we kneed to take a hard line on the issue, the aidmins may have there work increased, yet I argue that the benefits are worth the sacrifice. I suppose the administration may form a group of wikipedians who are allowed go through the edits and query / censor them, but not have full administration privileges.Also a lifetime or year ban would act as a deterant to any vandal and if a IP used by a group of people is blocked, then the offender whom got that IP banned would have severe social issues presented further aiding in stopping a re offence.TheJackle 21:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I find this user's contributions to be quite revealing. --Carnildo 21:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal on attack sites

I propose an alternative to WP:BADSITES. My proposal is that an official Wikipedia anti-attack site bot is to be established and it automatically alter or remove the link to attack sites whenever the bot detects it. The bot shall be logged on Wikimedia foundation server and operate 24/7. This would decrease the human, manual, and controversial burden to remove "attack sites". Of course, in extraordinary circumstances where a link is needed, there is ways to get around it. This proposal can solve the long attack site controversy, regards. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 02:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

So instead of warring at individual pages, you suggest a separate list be set up (similar to the blacklist)? This would only intensify the debate, as it would be solely focused on one page. Or do you suggest that the bot be smart enough to automatically detect such sites? --- RockMFR 02:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If having humans act in a robotic way to remove links without regard to purpose or context, why is it any better to have an actual robot do it? See my essay for my position on the whole issue. *Dan T.* 03:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Dan, the reason is, when humans erroneously removes a site as attack site, they are subconsciously unwilling to admit that a mistake was done, and they war over and defend the removal. When a robot makes a mistake and an editor sees it, he would have no hesitation to change it back and use ways to get around the bot, people would just say "keep the link in another way (like using a space and indicate so), it's a robotic error". It's about human psychology. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 03:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Now, if this proposal were accepted, Shadowbot could do it. However, I'm not sure how this is an alternative to BADSITES: it puts the focus on certain selected sites, rather than on attack pages in general, which is less effective for truly protecting Wikipedians. Gracenotes^T § 03:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If we knew all the bad sites well enough to make a blacklist, we wouldn't need people to enforce the policy. Sites need to be judged case by case. Anything universally unacceptable can be enforced by existing anti-spam measures. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The blacklist only list sites, which doesn't work. The bot I propose would detect a link that has the word "Wikipedia" or "Wiki" with an editor's name/a insulting word, meaning that the site attacks Wikipedia and "out" the identity of editors. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 03:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That's way too broad. You'd end up blocking links to news stories about wikipedia. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It would come back around and bite us in the end. Jmlk17 06:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

A bot based on the premise of

...a link that has the word "Wikipedia" or "Wiki" with an editor's name/a insulting word, meaning that the site attacks Wikipedia and "out" the identity of editors...

is precisely not the kind of automated listing (and delisting) function to have. Firstly, "Wiki(pedia)/Username/Bad word" is not exclusively a combination used by attack sites, and will result in very many sites containing comment being tagged e.g. any site mentioning WP, Jimbo Wales (he has a username and is thus an editor), and using a bad word in any context. That would likely list half of all mentions of WP on the 'net. Secondly, how on earth does this combination of parameters define an outing site (which would be a much more legitimate area of concern)? Outing sites are far more dangerous, and do need to be dealt with with the greatest of expediency, and I would support deployment of a bot that searches for such links, but the parameters need to be much more clearly defined. A thought that occurs to me is that if such a bot were succesful then there would be a repository of site addresses that anyone with access and a grudge could easily access (and post off-site).

Rather than addressing the problem the use of a bot may create more nuisance. I would rather place my trust in a group of fallible humans, who are able to make decisions based on nuances and application of commonsense. LessHeard vanU 09:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as the actual history of such erasures is concerned, a fair number consisted of nothing more than a bare link. Now, this brings us back to the problem of whether these erasures are justified in the first place, but if they are, then the only solution is a blacklist. Mangoe 12:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• I would strongly oppose the creation of any such a bot, and would be inclined to revert its edits on sight. See User:Dtobias/Why BADSITES is bad policy for an excellant essay on why such blanket bans are bad policy. DES ^(talk) 04:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Um... regardless of whether or not BADSITES is in fact a bad policy, why would we do this? The solution when a policy is rejected is not to create a bot and enforce it anyway. -Amarkov moo! 04:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Because some editors are in effect trying to revive and enforce the policy anyway, look at WT:NPA where there is a LOT of discussion about those who want to incorpate language that has pretty much the same effect as the rejected WP:BADSITES proposal into the WP:NPA policy page. DES ^(talk) 04:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

POV-forking inside an article?

After yet another round of reversals at Ethnocracy, User:Petri_Krohn appeared to propose a weird compromise. In this edit, along with the reversal, he attached the following hidden comments around a disputed section:

<!-- Argument - If you disagree, please contribute to the "counterargument section below. -->

<!-- Counterargument - Nationalists, feel free to edit below this line -->

This is an interesting approach, and while it is certainly against the *spirit* of WP:POVFORK, I'm not convinced it's against the *letter* of the policy. What is the official position on such "close forks"? Digwuren 19:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm probably not the person to ask—I think every criticism section is a POV fork—but you can tag it with this: Template:Criticism-section. Aaron Bowen 20:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be added to the talk page of an article instead perhaps? Jmlk17 22:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Album cover images in discographies -- fair use?

There's currently a dispute about whether or not small images of album covers are fair use in discography articles. Some editors say they are not allowed. As one editor said here, "People own the rights to those images, and we have had to set up policies to determine when we believe images to be fair use for a work such as Wikipedia. Specifically, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #8 speaks to the discographies and episode lists, since it says explicitly that non-free images may not be used in galleries or lists. Further, Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images states that album covers, like screenshots, require critical commentary in order to be included." Others say that the images are allowed, since discography articles are not galleries or lists, and the images are not decorative, but, on the contrary, are needed for identification purposes. As another editor, discussing the Beatles discography, said here, "But... the primary goal of Wikipedia is to educate, and the covers serve an educational purpose and improve the article by their presence. One purpose of this page is to help people find particular albums when they don't know (or can't remember) the title. For example, a reader who is not familiar with the Beatles but who remembers an album cover as "the one with them crossing the street" or "the one with them in costumes" might look at the discography page to find the album with the given cover. Otherwise, they have to hunt through multiple articles." To see what the Beatles discography looked like before the images were removed, click here. — Mudwater 20:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The relevant policies are Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, specifically #3 and #8, and Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images. The last one, in my mind, is the most substantial reason why these are not permitted - there isn't any critical commentary in a discography, period. There's even less commentary of any sort than in the lists of TV episodes whose fair-use claims were soundly rejected already.

New Policy

This proposal was not mentioned on this page. Fyi Wikipedia:Right to Edit is a new proposed policy/guideline. Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Right to Edit is a now red link with this message in the the deletion log 10:28, 28 May 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Right to Edit" (Jeffrey, this is a crusade, and you lost.) Jeepday (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, JzG has deleted the proposal and blocked the author.--Runcorn 15:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Probably worth providing a link to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey2. Steve block Talk 15:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the proposed "policy" was certian to be rejected, but I don't see any reason fro having deleted it, and I wonder what the block reason was. DES ^(talk) 04:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Merkey. Steve block Talk 08:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirected to the editing policy. >Radiant< 12:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools)

See talk page for this guideline: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (schools). I'm somewhat concerned that this proposed guideline has gone from a proposal to gaining consensus and adoption in a few short weeks with only about three contributors, and has not been reported here for wider community input. My concern is that the adopted guideline for the naming convention for schools, viz. to use municipality and geographical area in parentheses to disambiguate *all* school names (e.g. The Petersfield School (Petersfield, Hampshire)), is excessive over-disambiguation and conflicts with the basic principles of naming conventions to use the simplest unambiguous title, and thereby avoid unnecessary disambiguation where it is not required. Otherwise, we will end up with bizarre pagenames such as Eton College (Eton, Berkshire), where there is no ambiguity or dispute over the current page name of Eton College. The opinons of the wider community are requested. Cheers, DWaterson 22:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

this is the same debate as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) where people want cities like Chicago and Los Angeles to not have the US state listed even though the canonical form for city listing is is [[city, state]]>. In the case of cities, the naming convention is the a guideline but there is license to WP:IAR and use common sense. I don't know how to change naming convention policy but my recommendation would be to contact the three people and point out the dilemma... ask them how you might join the debate. MPS 15:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This guideline proposal probably should have come to the Village Pump earlier; but I can assure you that a lot more than three contributers have been involved in building this guideline. Note the fact that a lot of discussion on this has been occurring away from WT:NC(S) such as on WikiProject pages. Anyone is free to raise concerns about this guideline - most raised currently have been looked at or addressed. Camaron1 | Chris 17:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This is actually a reformed guideline, and the consensus for it's creation was in a sens longstanding. The lack of a naming guideline within the schools project has been a longstanding issue, and how to address the problems that have arisen naturally by a lack of guideline has been discussed over and over again. If you look through the archives of the various school wikiprojects, this issue has been brought up and re-addressed on a regular basis for the past two years, sometimes as often as once a month. When creating the new guidelines, I went through the talk page archives and tried to figure out what ideas had been ruled out, where their was consensus and where we didn't know how things would yet work. And I created a guideline from that--use whatever cliche you want, I personally like on the shoulders of, but the initial draft came from two years of figuring out what did and didn't work and of discussions and straw polls.

I then posted notes informing all of the related wikiprojects (except Education in Canada which wasn't linked to from the WikiProject:Education page--I commented there a week or two latter and have since fixed the page) and waited for people to address their complaints--to figure out what did and didn't work. We did manage to get input from at least a couple of the projects, and hopefully we'll get more now that this is posted here. I wasn't familiar with the village pump at the time--and as such I didn't post here.

In my personal opinion, the issues that people are raising really need to be dealt with by the disambiguation project (the guideline shouldn't and was never meant to go into that level of nitty gritty), and so I'd really like to set-up a task-force and start working on those issues. Miss Mondegreen talk  21:41, May 29 2007 (UTC)

Download prices in video game articles

I've been trying for a bit to get the prices removed (or at least a compromise of some sort), but it doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. There is a discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Not_a_sales_catalogue_or_price_guide. Plus a few old discussions about it as well: here and here. To sum this up: several video game articles list download prices. In the case of Virtual Console games: they are constant (for now at least): so people think they should be kept. But in my opinion, Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a price guide. Also it should be noted, several users clearly ignore these discussions and assume a poll result controls the article forever. An admin clearly stated that's not the case. When there is an official source, plus many video game sites listing the price... people shouldn't be abusing Wikipedia by making it a price guide because they think it's useful. If a list of the articles with the prices listed needs to be posted, I will post them. RobJ1981 22:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've seen several discussions on the topic. More to the point, is there anyone edit warring to keep that pricing information on the articles? >Radiant< 12:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As of right now: the prices have been removed, then re-added: removed, then re-added. It's an edit war now here: List of Virtual Console games (North America). It should be noted: all the people reverting the points back on the article: are people that are assuming the poll (on the talk page of the link I gave) controls the article, which isn't the case. An admin posted on that talk page, and cleared that up already. So because of a few stubborn editors: the points remain, and will keep getting reverted I bet. A new talk discussion has started at the talk page (of the article I listed), but I can somehow bet it will lean towards yet another poll. RobJ1981 23:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Overuse of wrongtitle templates

As I understand it, templates like {{wrongtitle}} are to facilitate rare cases where capitalisation would be incorrect, or look too clumsy (e.g. pH, iPod, µ-law), and not to excuse abuses of grammar common in commercial branding (e.g. wagn, STAPLES). In particular, they are being used to endorse stylized typography such as odd capitalization or particular formatting (bmibaby - some egregious examples in Category:Articles with titles unsupported by Unicode which are pure typography). In the last few days, I have removed {{lowercase}} and {{no unicode character}} from a few clearly gratuitous uses (including one case where it was used because the letter O in the title was "the wrong colour"). Am I the only one who finds our rules on stylized typography in the MOS are not strictly enough enforced, and these templates overused? I would do so myself, but suspect that the proprietors would ignore it in the usual "Oh, that doesn't apply to this article" way (generally with the justification of "because I said so"). 81.104.175.145 22:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Reluctant agree. –Pomte 03:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

At least 75% agreed. If I was writing the names of these companies down on paper as part of a sentence, I would use normal typography. Yes, I would write pH, iPod, µ-law, but I would also write bmibaby or possibly Bmibaby - and I wouldn't pull out a blue and a red pen to do so just because that's what the logo has. Confusing Manifestation 06:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It confuses me that the original poster thinks "iPod" is fair cop, but "wagn" or "bmibaby" are not. They are exactly the same. It seems like one rule for the "big guys", another for the rest?

Going on a crusade and "fixing" multiple articles is very counter-productive and disruptive to the articles - leave it to the article's editors. It's not a big deal.

In the bmibaby example is really does piss me off when people go to the article and change en-masse. The article currently has "Bmibaby Limited holds a United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority Type A Operating Licence, and is permitted to carry passengers, cargo and mail on aircraft with 20 or more seats." where the reference actually says "bmibaby Limited". Thanks/wangi 07:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD

I've noticed the 'US Generations' articles a while back, and now I see that in the present state they are totally unmanageable, provide no information and are impossible to source. I was going to nominate many for deletion and keep the 'vital' ones (GenX, etc.). Little did I know of the horrors of the AfD process, which can be (relatively) simple for one article, but turns to a horrific process for something as large as this. I still have no idea what the hell I'm supposed to do, which of the thousands of templates I'm supposed to place where and why. The bloody process need to be hugely simplified, we have two huge and bland help pages (1 and 2) that couldn't be less helpful, especially for someone familiar with the major policies and rules in question who just wants a one sentence "Place this there, that there and you're done" hint on how to actually nominate the bloody thing. So, in brief, the process is a bureaucratic nightmare (and you thought Esperanza was bad) that needs major simplification. Sorry for ranting. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The articles should probably be nominated individually. Very few articles are truly so homogenous that one decision applies to all (although some people seem to think they are). -Amarkov moo! 01:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've given up on the articles for now, the main purpose of my rant above was to say that I am unsatisfied with AfD policies. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate that it is difficult to delete articles... we shouldn't take article deletion lightly. Also, if you ever want it to be slightly easier, check out Template:AfD in 3 steps. Peace, MPS 14:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject memberships

An interesting discussion has popped up between myself and another user about WikiProjects and the authority of "members". Basically, is "membership" required for an editor to be involved in project-level tasks and decision making? See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject reform#Membership authority. -- Ned Scott 04:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Without beeing privy to any prior debate my initial reaction would be that no part of a Wikiproject should be "members only". Wikiprojects merely serve as "hubs" where users with simmilar interests can meet to coordinate efforts and discuss issues related to particular topics, "membership" IMHO only means that a user choose to self-identify as spending a lot of time working on stuff within the scope of a project, that's all. Beeing a "userbox carrying" member of a particular project does not grant anyone any special authority to descide anyting, any interested user may participate in debates regariding "project issues" and arguments should be judged on theyr merit, not by whether or not whoever made them is listed as a project member. --Sherool (talk) 07:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, giving any sort of authority borders on WP:OWN. The only reason I guess that a membership list (or category) exists is so that people can look for editors to contact directly if they have problems or queries about related articles or the Wikiproject they might already know. By "signing-up" for a Wikiproject, you are not bound nor given anything - you are simply saying you are interested in helping to organise the articles within the scope of that Wikiproject. x42bn6 Talk Mess 11:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above opinions. Wikiproject rosters and infoboxes only serve to allow wikipedians to network and collaborate better; they have no objective automatic sway value. MPS 14:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProjects are just like clubs. It consists of editors who have the same interests, and would like to collaborate to improve on the things they are interested in. Of cousrse, any outsider can ask them for assistance provided the article is within the scope, and can join at will.--Kylohk 16:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed...anyone is free to join, and to come and go as they please. It's just a more simple and concise way to organize articles together of certain topics and areas of interest. Jmlk17 04:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If we're talking about working and collaborating on articles (the central purpose of the Wikipedia), then, of course, joining any wikiproject is never required, as article development itself is a task for all Wikipedia editors, and wikiprojects don't own articles -- they merely coordinate efforts on sets of articles related to a subject. However, in terms of internal project matters, participation in project decision making depends on how a project is set up and what the project's coordinators and membership have worked out for that process; some projects are more open than others. Certainly, if one has joined a project, their views on matters specific to the workings of the project naturally will have more weight. I think there are some who for some unknown reason are prone to misconstrue direct article development with wikiproject coordination -- they aren't the same thing in that they have different scopes, and the latter's efforts normally requires consensus before group actions are taken. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 07:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Even internal project matters are open to everyone. It's done all the time, and is a benefit to both the project and the community at large. Being a "member" does not give more weight, not on the article or on "internal affairs". -- Ned Scott 07:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That's your continued assertion, yes. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 07:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not just my assertion. Maybe you'd like to find me a single situation where an outsider is prevented from discussing internal affairs to a WikiProject? -- Ned Scott 07:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It nearly sounds like you are saying that somebody can just pop into a group from nowhere and take it over and run roughshod over its group consensus on project matters. I hope you aren't implying this.

I've never said that an "outsider is prevented from discussing internal affairs to a wikiproject". This is a straw man and of course, that would be silly. I'm talking about decision-making by actual members of the project. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 07:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia is to be open to everyone. That has been demonstrated most clearly in the mfd on Esperanza. Everyone editing Wikipedia is by de facto a member of every WikiProject. those who sign the membership pages are simply more committed. This does not grant their opinion any more weight than any other editor. Decision-making is open to all, at all times, otherwise the WikiProject in question will be dismantled per previous precedents. Steve block Talk 08:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There isn't anything wrong with having a minority view, but you shuld honor the current consensus if you fail to persuage the community. Ideally, consensus means agreed by everyone, but in the real world, it's impossible/very difficult for this to happen since at least one person will have a different view. So, I'd say taht consensus adjusted for real world conditions would be like an obvious supermajority with the same view of the subject.--Kylohk 17:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It will depend on the exact thing that wants to be done. For example, some Wikiprojects include their own internal "article collaboration" article to improve until a featured level. Any user, member or not, can work on that article, on another article of the topic, or join the debates about wich article should be in that place... but changing the reference to that article for another one without debate should be avoided.

It's correct that articles do not "belong" to users (or to wikiproyects, for that matter), but the rules about consensus and civility should be followed as well. Perón 18:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

List articles full of links as 'references'

I have come across a couple of these 'articles' now, they consist of a list of something (eg. pieces of software) and then each item is given a reference to the origin website in the form of a citation link. There has been some discussion regarding it over at WT:EL and on the talk pages of the articles themselves (namely Talk:List of mind mapping software and Talk:Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities) regarding the legitimacy of such lists and I thought I'd bring it here for a more wide ranging discussion.

The problem, as I see it, is that many of the programs in these lists do not have sufficient notability for inclusion in the site on their own, so the editors are saying an external link is required to reference them. This all then goes to go against WP:NOT.

What do others think? Should we be building such lists of software? Or is it simply a method of turning Wikipedia into a link farm/internet directory?-Localzuk^(talk) 13:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been thoroughly discussed at Wikipedia talk:External links. A group of editors is going around deleting sourced info and reference/citation links for it. From lists and charts. There are thousands of these lists and charts. From WP:NOT#DIR:

"Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. This site search, and this one, pull up thousands of examples of lists and comparison tables. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted."

The articles are not link farms. People can read the article on link farms to see this. --Timeshifter 13:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This is why I brought it here - the issue spans multiple policies (WP:NOT, WP:EL, WP:CITE etc...). It also would be nice to have some other views as your voice has been the loudest in all of this, so can some other people also comment? It would help enormously with a seemingly controversial issue.-Localzuk^(talk) 13:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say the loudest voices are a group of editors who parachute into talk pages for lists and charts, and loudly proclaim their mistaken interpretations of wikipedia guidelines/policies, and then proceed (usually without genuine discussion) to blank large parts of lists and charts. Claiming incorrectly that every item on a list or chart has to be notable. All that does is support oligopolies in the case of software lists and charts. Only the topic of a software list or chart has to be notable. --Timeshifter 14:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the loudest voice is definitely User:Timeshifter who has been a major disruption over at WP:EL for the past couple weeks. Why can't Timeshifter understand that Wikipedia is not a linkfarm? Another thing, could someone please tell Timeshifter that breaking chronological threading and bumping comments to the top, as was done above, is extremely rude and bad form? (Requestion 15:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Requestion is in the minority at Wikipedia talk:External links‎. --Timeshifter 16:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that timeshifter has been rude here. I checked what's going on over at WP:EL and on the list talk page and timeshifter seems (to me) to have been behaving appropriately there as well. What I see timeshifter doing is pointing out three main things (1) if you are going to participate in a policy discussion and reach consensus on the policy interpretation, you have to acknowledge the other person's "good points made" rather than just quote "what the policy says" ... the policy was written by people like you and me, through discussions like what we are having now, and at the talk pages of various policies. (2) in many cases, relevant facts are deleted from list pages because they are unsourced, and the reason they are unsourced is because other people have deleted their corresponding links, citing WP:EL. (3) the national press may have little interest in publishing large lists of mind mapping software, but it is within the scope of wikipedia to compile and list information from various sources. IMHO, Timeshifter is not trying to be annoying or rude, but is diligently raising these three points to an audience that may consider him hostile. In any case, both of you (timeshifter, requestion) ought to count to ten before posting in frustration, and if necessary, please take your interpersonal disputes to each others' talk pages or mediation. Thanks to both of you for your sincere efforts at trying to make this a better encyclopedia. Peace, MPS 16:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind analysis. I did take a break. But when I came back yet another list was being mangled. We are talking years of work on some of these list pages that Requestion and others have blanked large parts of. One editor completely gave up on an excellent list page he worked on from scratch. Many hours of work. And he seems to be a pretty knowledgeable in his field. Such a waste. Other pages with multiple editors seem to have been abandoned for the most part also. Many times that someone tried to add something, a reason was found to revert. They were oftentimes deleted with unkind edit summaries and comments on the talk page. I think we need some kind of WP:NPOV WikiProject like Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps to work collaboratively, and to avoid a lot of duplicated arguing. --Timeshifter 16:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a tension between WP:EL and WP:CS/WP:NOR... I mean you want to cite sources of things in articles, right? It seems to me that these links establish notability and the shows that the author(s) did not make things up themselves. Do you want people to link every fact and if not how do you want to ensure verifiability? IMHO, links are good if they have something to do with the written text as long as they are not spammy sorts of links. MPS 13:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by 'these links establish notability'? I would say that a lot of the software in the mind mapping list doesn't establish notability...-Localzuk^(talk) 14:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

See my quote from WP:NOT#DIR higher up. Only the topic of the list or chart has to be notable. Think about it. Much freeware, shareware, and open-source programs do not get the press that the other better-funded, commercial software can get (or buy). --Timeshifter 14:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Localzuk, I see your point... I shouldn't have said notability... I should have said "establish the independent existence of this software." My framework here is having looked at old versions of List of content management systems develop over time. In 2004, it was an emerging link farm about software, but today the article is solid and linkless. Digression alert Someday I am going to write a wiki-essay about how everything in wikipedia is in draft. When I was in high school, we had to write a rough draft, and sometimes I think these "software lists" are wikipedians' first drafts at content on emerging subjects. mind mapping software is relatively new, and the first step is finding out what's out there and the second step is putting it down on the article and the third is collectively determining what stays or goes. end of digression I know this is a wordy response but my pithy response would be something like "the links establish that the product is not made up." I think I am a an eventialist when it comes to this sort of article. Eventually, I expect the links to go away, but for the time being I am not opposed to having links. Maybe they should be moved to the discussion page. I definitely think that there is room for both opinions (keep/delete links) but my impression is that the editors who want them in are largely making a good faith effort at developing a comprehensive, verifiable, sourced list of mind-mapping software. MPS 14:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

But we aren't supposed to be simply documenting something because it just 'exists', it has to be notable. Lists of random software that does the same thing is not a function of an encyclopedia, it is the function of a link directory such as dmoz. What would happen if we listed every calculator software available, or every text editor software package available? We would end up with giant lists of non-notable programs.-Localzuk^(talk) 20:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point... do we have a wikipolicy on software notability? minimum number of users? minimum time it has been under development? Does it HAVE to be cited in PC magazine to be notable, or is there some other software-specific metric we can use to gauge notability. That is the discussion we need to have -- here or elsewhere -- if we haven't had it somewhere already. I think one criterion for notability is that there has to be a citeable source (read, "external link") that establishes that it really exists. What else? Maybe we need to reactivate Wikipedia:Notability (software) Peace, MPS 21:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

But this discussion occurs for all wikipedia pages. I have been through many AfDs (article for deletion) reviews, and it often comes down to common sense. People know it would be unfair to only list the commercial software that can buy reviews in the mainstream media. But there is a specialist media too. And most of that is web-driven with long histories in the open source and freeware community. There is notability there too. But it is much harder to track down, even though many in that community recognize the various programs. The guideline is already fleshed out to some degree at WP:NOT#DIR. The rest seems to be fleshed out by the rough consensus of hundreds/thousands of AfDs concerning the thousands of lists and charts. Wikipedia's base is its consensus system. And the spirit of the guidelines, and basic WP:NPOV fairness. --Timeshifter 02:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

An inline external link to the webpage of a product (especially in a list) supports no other fact than the simple existence of that product. The existence of a product is not a controversial fact and does not require a reference. I have have less problem with the inclusion of "non-notable" items in a list than with adding external links to them. External links belong on the articles of notable subject. In these list situations, it ends up that all the non-notable list items get the advantage of having a external next to their name. This in no way constitutes a "reference." It is simply a misuse of external links. It also encourages the addition of promotional material and discourages the creation of appropriate red links to articles of notable items that should be written. Nposs 14:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Inline citations/references are called embedded citations. See Wikipedia:Embedded citations. Wikipedia does not allow using wikipedia pages as a reference/citation. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:CITE. So even if there is a wikilink to a wikipedia article for an entry, that is not enough. I don't think an embedded citation on wikipedia is spam. That may be the only link that program's site gets on wikipedia anyway in most cases. I don't see why one would want to link more than once to a program's site. Maybe if it had a page with some particular specialist info relevant to a wikipedia page on that particular info or tool or whatever. As an expert source or something. But otherwise I don't see this imagined spam problem. Not for references/citations. I am in agreement though about too many external links in external links sections of article pages. --Timeshifter 14:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I know what a citation (embedded or not) is. I suggest that these external links do not constitute references/citations. From WP:V - "attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." The existence or non-existence of a piece of software is not controversial. As you note, Wikipedia articles can't be used as citations - but in the list under discussion, some notable programs (with proper articles) are not given an external link/citation. Does this mean they are unreferenced? No, it means that they have been linked appropriately in the external link section of the relevant article. Others have claimed that such lists of links make articles "useful," but a Wikipedia article is not a replacement for a Google search. A "useful" article is a comprehensive and encyclopedic article about a given subject. Nposs 14:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Nposs wrote: "The existence or non-existence of a piece of software is not controversial." It can be. I have seen whole sections of lists or charts deleted using the excuse that they did not have wikilinks, and did not have citation links, and therefore were "probably inconsequential", or "no longer working" or some other similar phrasing. Some people are just opposed to lists and charts in general. And they use any reason to delete much of them. They are happy when there is no link to actually check if the software still exists or not. I do not insist that entries with wiki-linked articles also need citation/reference links. But they are convenient for quickly checking on features in order to keep a list or chart column updated. And they should not be deleted once someone has bothered to add the citation/reference link. "a comprehensive and encyclopedic article about a given subject" at wikipedia always has citation/reference links or it will likely be put up for an AfD (Article for Deletion) review. So it is damned if you do, and damned if you don't have the citation/reference links. --Timeshifter 15:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If there is disagreement about the existence of a piece of software, it should be taken the discussion page. Including external links because of "convenience" is a poor precedent. That is why there are extensive external link guidelines and policy regarding how external links should be used. 128.146.58.30 15:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC) (This is Nposs - logged out at the moment)

(Unindent) Wikipedia:External links does not cover citation/reference links. Wikipedia does not allow a wikipedia talk page to be used as a citation/reference. WP:CITE and WP:Verifiability cover citation/reference links. See this section of WP:Verifiability. That section, titled "Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves", states:

Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

So in an article discussing the existence and features of their program, a link to their homepage, features page, etc. is allowed.--Timeshifter 15:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(conflict) No, we aren't here to provide 'press' or to promote. We are here to document notable information. Giant lists of software which don't individually assert notability are a bad thing and turn the site into a link directory - which we are not. Te quote from WP:NOT#DIR does not give free license to create long lists of links simply because there is the potential to do so.-Localzuk^(talk) 14:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You missed my point. Wikipedia should not depend on which program has the highest advertising budget. The lists and charts are not link directories. They have many more details. That makes them encyclopedic. Read all of WP:NOT#DIR to see that it echoes what I am saying. --Timeshifter 14:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We've already gone over this. WP:NOT#LINK overrides WP:NOT#DIR in this case. The main source of the problem is that User:Timeshifter thinks that simply wrapping <ref> tags around a linkfarm changes its status as "mere collection of external links". Here [1] is an example that was architected by Timeshifter. (Requestion 16:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

I first suggested John use embedded citations. See Wikipedia:Embedded citations. But then you (Requestion) were saying that inline links were not citation/references. That was incorrect, and I said so. So I then suggested John use footnoted citations to leave no doubt. But this did not stop your continuing misinterpretations of wikipedia guidelines and policies. WP:NOT#LINK discussed "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories." That does not apply since we are discussing citation/references. --Timeshifter 16:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that there do need to be links for sourcing purposes. The question for you guys to sort out is whether the sourcing links should be embedded, ref'd, or some other format. The sourcing format doesn't really matter to me but they should be there. A list of Mind mapping software is not "indiscriminate" it is a WP:LIST with specific criteria of inclusion, viz, if listed it has to be verifiably "Mind map" software. MPS 16:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually prefer embedded citations for the most part. Some citations may need to be more detailed. Those could be made into footnoted citations. I found this wiki-project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists. --Timeshifter 17:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrapping a linkfarm in refs doesn't make them citations or references. Even if sourcing was an issue, linking to yourself is not a WP:RS. (Requestion 18:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

I agree that linking to one's own website should usually be done by others. The problem is that WP:COI does not tell people that they can suggest such links on talk pages, and let others decide whether to link or not. Many people only learn of WP:COI after being accused of being a spammer or linkfarmer by you. The real problem in many cases is your rudeness. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. If you just pointed people to WP:COI and politely told them to use the talk page instead, most people would comply. But if you just tell them not to link, and not tell them that there are correct methods, then they just feel harassed, after they make sincere efforts to put the best info they know on wikipedia. If they weren't proud of their work, why would they be doing it in most cases. Then their work gets insulted by you as being spam. --Timeshifter 02:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a link farm. stop using that word. The intent of a link farm is promotion of certain links. The fact that you have a lof or reference links on a certain page does not make it a link farm. Maybe you could explain to me/us IN YOUR OWN WORDS why you think it is bad in this particular case for wikipedia to include links to the software hompages as references proving those software items are of the "mind-mapping" type. Peace, MPS 18:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you mentioned WP:BRAIN, could you please take a look at [2] and tell me if you think it's a linkfarm? To answer your condescending question in my own words: it's bad because spam magnets on Wikipedia are next to impossible to keep clean. (Requestion 20:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

You did not answer the question. You did not say why reference links are spam. According to your logic all reference links are spam. --Timeshifter 02:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Indenting, inserting, and bumping your comment in front of others is rude and poor etiquette. If you want me to answer this question then move your comment to its proper spot in chronological threaded order. Feel free to move this comment of mine too. (Requestion 14:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

You seem to have your own personal interpretation of many wikipedia rules. Sorry, but you are incorrect. Indenting and unindenting are common on wikipedia talk pages in order to show readers to whom one is replying. There is no plot by me to bump my comment in front of others. You seem to see nefarious plots, and spam, everywhere. Feel free to avoid questions that put you on the spot. --Timeshifter 00:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(conflict) IMHO that particular article is a bit esoteric but it is notable, and it does not seem to be a prima facie linkfarm. That list of links is ugly and unwieldy and the WP:LEAD is poorly written, but I would definitely assume good faith on behalf of the author (User:John Spikowski) who apparently is bending over backwards trying to make his edits conform to wikipedia policy. The intent there is to provide comprehensive coverage of panoramas. Perhaps you could use the <!-- Comment --> markers to hide the long lists of links; that would keep them embedded in case there is a question about sourcing. Another method would be to have the URL shown but eliminate the surrounding brackets so it is not "clickable". I definitely see that we want to keep wikipedia spam free and I commend your efforts to despam articles. The question is whether there is a way to balance the need to cite sources with the need to delete spam. What we have here is a policy gap with respect to sourcing of lists, especially on esoteric technical topics that are not covered by mainstream media. Peace, MPS 21:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

PS I do question the use of "panotools wiki" as a "source" but it's up for debate whether it fits the definition of "normally to be avoided." MPS 21:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There may be too many reference links to the panotools wiki. It seems to be a stable, well-done wiki. But I think it would be better to find some other references for some of the glossary terms. --Timeshifter 02:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I fully support <!-- commenting links -->, moving links to the talk page, red linking, and even creating stub pages if the subject is mildly notable. User:John Spikowski definitely had good intentions, only the application of the WP:RULES were misguided. On the topic of WP:CITE, I have recently begun to see pro-spammers putting external links into citations and references, this is going to be a big problem in the future. (Requestion 21:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

You see spam everywhere. As one editor said, put away the pitchforks and torches. --Timeshifter 02:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, that is a funny line, but it could probably be taken the wrong way if you use it against people. I think we are all here to make wikipedia a better encyclopedia -- Requestion spends a lot of time deleting spam on various articles and I suppose he is not trying to be mean but instead he is taking the hard line against spam because because he wants wikipedia to remain a good, spam-free encyclopedia. Anyhoo, I am glad we are all staying cool as cucumbers. Peace, MPS 03:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. But Wikipedia:Assume good faith also says that "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary...." With lots of caveats, etc. :) Some of the most egregious blanking I have ever seen has been done by Requestion and some other overzealous spam fighters. Requestion has said several times that he wants WP:EL to apply to all links, not just non-citation links. And he has said that he will continue to use his (incorrect) personal interpretation of WP:EL to justify some of his blanking (he would not call it blanking). --Timeshifter 03:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not funny and that quote is out of context. Try putting 2000 articles in your watchlist and you'll see spam everywhere too. (Requestion 14:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

While spam is a concern there are other reasons as well. As I've stated above, I believe this type of "referencing" does not conform to the guidelines. Even if it is a "reference," it is a very poor one - somehow the existence of a website of a product is supposed to reference the existence of a product (which probably doesn't need to be referenced in the first place (and yes, I know that Timeshifter et al. disagree with this point of view)). Beyond that, it discourages the creation of new articles about potentially notable items within a list (the external link simply directs the reader off-site). There is also the problem of promotion. I would note that none of the "Featured lists" I browsed (via the very nice list project brought up by Timeshifter) used inline links to external websites (except as appropriate references - never as a top level domain to a general website of a product). If featured lists are what we should be striving for, I don't see how this type of "link list" could ever pass muster. Nposs 21:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

They may have started with inline links. Featured lists and charts have oftentimes been created over a long time. Many started with many redlinks, too. Then individual wikipedia pages were created for all the entries, and the reference links were transferred there. But many of the entries are not notable in themselves. If Requestion had seen those pages early on he would probably have deleted many of the non-notable entries, freeware, shareware, etc. as he has done on other list and chart pages. Destroying months and years of work by sincere editors. --Timeshifter 03:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

FWIW I am also not a fan of a inline linking... I do really like redlinking.... redlinking encourages people to write "internal wikipedia" articles on notable software and shows you that most of these software items are not notable enough to merit their own articles. MPS 21:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In the end it does not matter to me whether the citation/reference link is an inline embedded citation, or a footnoted one. Check out Comparison of wiki farms. I think embedded citations make more sense there. --Timeshifter 02:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

differently formatted section

I think these lists of links are essentially cites that is:

article makes assertion -> link to citation

article asserts that company X makes Y and it is available at Z -> link shows X makes Y and it is available at Z.

Now in terms of usefulness I find them very useful. I've used List of bicycle manufacturers to find information many times. In particular because it is detailed (that is lots and lots of companies listed) its allowed me to see the difference between:

1. X is a wholly owned subsidiary of Y
2. X is a brand name for some of Y's products
3. X is an foreign distributer for Y's products (but no ownership)
4. X is an independent company licensing Y's name.

jbolden1517^Talk 14:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The argument about nofollow tags has been brought up elsewhere, though not here yet. It appears to be an invalid argument, as only Google respects them but it is unknown to what degree: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Invisible_inkspam. -- Ronz  15:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The standard seems to fit the situation "Example.com is a maker of examples.[http://www.example.com]" (where example.com states that they make examples). In an article about "Examples" or "List of example manufacturers", is the above format mandatory or can the repeated phrase "is a maker of examples" be omitted for all the listed makers? Some basic rules of grammar and text formatting may be involved. (SEWilco 03:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

Proposal to avoid duplicate links, and to shorten page load times for dialup users

The inline citation/reference links are embedded citations. From Wikipedia:Embedded citations: "One advantage of embedded links is that it is easy for readers and editors to check sources by clicking on the links and jumping immediately to the cited articles. Another advantage is that links are easy to create and maintain."

The problem though is that when there are many citation/reference links they can significantly increase load times for dialup users. This proposal would shorten page load times.

We could make an exception to the rule about not using wikipedia articles as sources. When an entry has its own wikipedia article we could remove the citation/reference link from the list/chart, and readers can go to the individual wikipedia page for the citation/reference link. This would work as long as the individual entry article is not deleted. --Timeshifter 07:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It is unclear what you are proposing here, but this assertion "inline citation/reference links are embedded citations" is not accurate - especially in the case of general urls (to the website of a product/program) that do not support a reported fact. An external link that does not support a fact is an external link, not a reference. In the case of a list, that means that items that have their own article should not be given an external link (or "reference" or "inline citation that is actually an external link to the homepage of their website"). That link belongs in the external link section of the respective article. Even if you want to view the external link as a reference, it is redundant: the link on in the article of the program supports its existence, and its existence doesn't need to be proven again with an external link ("reference") in the list. There is an important precedent here: companies/programs/products/etc. get an external link in the article about them. When they are mentioned in other articles, a wikilink to the article is used and they are not given another external link. Just because the item is in a list, it does not provide an exception to this precedent. If there is some fact about them that is discussed in the context of another article, a specific link to the relevant information company/product/software's website may be used to support it - but the link should be a deep one to the specific information (a reliable secondary source would be better). Nposs 15:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally dislike embedded links as references, but I think I understand and agree with what Timeshifter is saying in the second part of his post... and I Nposs is saying the same thing. I see an emerging policy here: If the software item (or more generally, "list item") has its own article, it doesn't need any external link on the list page to prove that it exists. ... No embedded, no nothing. Lists don't need to be sourced with a link per item if the items on the list have the requisite sourcing elsewhere. Nposs is right that "That link belongs in the external link section of the respective article. Even if you want to view the external link as a reference". ... and then if you have a redlinked item on the list, it should be sourced somewhere, but if this is a primary source this sourcing may be <!-- hidden --> or some other method but probably not embedded. Secondary sourcing is preferred and is more acceptable to ref-link. Is this what others think as well? Support? Objections? Snarky comments? MPS 16:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

MPS wrote: "if this is a primary source this sourcing may be <!-- hidden --> or some other method but probably not embedded." WP:CITE and WP:Verifiability cover citation/reference links. See this section of WP:Verifiability. That section, titled "Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves", states:

Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

So in a wikipedia article discussing the existence and features of their program (such as a list or chart), a link to their homepage, features page, etc. is a citation showing that the program exists. --Timeshifter 00:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still far from clear on what's being proposed here, so how about an example?

1. Widget

2. Gidwet

3. Digwet [3]

4. Wugdet (url in a comment)

5. Idgwet

(added)

6. Idgwet [4]

7. Idgwet <ref>http://idgwet.com - Official website of Idgwet</ref>

Which types of list entries are being proposed as valid? -- Ronz  22:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If the widget has no separate wikipedia page, it would not be linked. But there would be an inline link (embedded citation) just after its name. If the widget has a separate wikipedia page it would be wikilinked, and there would be no inline link after its name.--Timeshifter 00:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Still not clear. #1 Widget is a valid internal link, the others are not. Which of the others do you see as valid? I think you're saying #3, Digwet, but others here are saying #4, Wugdet. -- Ronz  01:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

See my reply farther down. I think that the talk pages of lists and charts may decide to use different methods depending on their needs and preferences. Editors vary widely in their opinions of redlinks, for example. --Timeshifter 02:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I just noted a problem with the number 2 method. It is not allowed on wikipedia. Inline links can not have text labels. Only wikilinks and endlinks (in the external links section, the footnotes section, the notes section, etc.) can have text labels. I will have to find the guideline for that. --Timeshifter 02:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen the number 4 method (of a hidden URL) used as a way of putting a source link in an article. I have seen it used for editors use in instructing other editors how to update a page. For example, at Template:Summary of casualties of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a chart I have worked on. But the link there is also used as an open-view citation/reference link. A source is not much use to readers if they can not see it. --Timeshifter 02:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I would prefer #5 for items that do not have articles (since it is pretty clear to me that a general level link to the webpage of a product that does not support a specific fact is an external link). But in the spirit of consensus building, let me offer option #6: Idgwet [5] (a red-link with an inline external link). Also option #7: Idgwet <ref>http://idgwet.com - Official website of Idgwet</ref> (a red link with a reference). This is of course much more complicated, but having embedded external links in the text (especially in something like a list) makes monitoring them very difficult. So, to recap: I like #5 and #7. Nposs 01:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am happy with anything that eventually leads to Wikipedia:Verifiability. That means a link back to a primary source in many cases. In some cases secondary sources can be found also. The hallmark of spam, whether the links were added as spam, or in good faith, is multiple links from multiple locations. Back to one website. I am willing to sacrifice the convenience of having the primary-source, citation/reference link on the list page. But only if that link is found on the separate wikipedia page for an entry. That way for most entries there ends up being only one link back to the website from wikipedia. So alleged spam links on list pages, intended or not, would no longer be a problem on list pages. WP:CITE says that sources are needed on the article page when there is any doubt. But if there is a wiki-linked entry, there is little doubt as to the existence of the entry item, software, etc.. And even that little bit of doubt can be met by going to the separate wikipedia page for the entry.

I am going to discuss things also at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists since some of the editors there may also have experience with lists and charts. We can't be the only ones to have had these questions and problems, since there are thousands of lists and charts on wikipedia, and there probably have been many AfD discussions. --Timeshifter 02:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is some more info on types of source material. See No original research: Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. It says "For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." The main use in lists and charts is to show that the entry exists, and is not made up. Also, to verify features listed in a wikipedia list or chart for a software entry. --Timeshifter 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

An editor misread what I wrote here. I did not agree to remove citation/reference links for entries without separate wikipedia pages. My goal was to only have one source link on wikipedia for an entry. Not to eliminate all source links for many entries. Duplicates are the problem. Redlinked pages do not count as a separate wikipedia page. Until the redlink disappears, and there is a real wikipedia page with a source link there, then the source link should not be removed from the list or chart. Also, the addition of dozens of redlinks is highly controversial. Wikipedia guidelines conflict, and there are editors who religiously remove them, and others who religiously add them. I think the most notable entries can be redlinked as encouragement to start making separate wikipedia pages. Then the less notable entries can be redlinked later. --Timeshifter 18:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

thoose links were not removed or 'eliminated'... they were <!-- "hidden linked" --> as in the #4 idgwit example above. The sourcing didn't go away, it was just relegated to a place where any spammer would find it useless to spam. IMHO this is a good solution. ... Also, I personally think all should be redlinked. What reason is there to only link some of them? MPS 21:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The commenting and red linking are a good solution. (Requestion 21:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

The spam problem is solved. There will be only one link on wikipedia now per list entry. There will be no duplicate of that link. The link will be either at the entry's wiki-page, or next to the entry on the list. So I don't see what you are trying to do. The number of redlinks can be decided by the article editors since there is no ironclad guideline on it that I know of offhand. Maybe we need to find the various guideline info on redlinks. But a redlink is not a wiki-page with a source link.

I know of no wikipedia guideline that approves of hidden sourcing. As Requestion has learned at Wikipedia:External links one can't just go and make up new wikipedia quidelines without getting a rough consensus first at the quideline page. The guideline pages for sourcing are WP:Verifiability, WP:CITE, etc..--Timeshifter 22:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to insist that these links are citations and not external links - then they need to abide by the guidelines (which you continually cite) for references. That includes the appropriate use of a "References" section. Since this is impractical with embedded/inline links, we need to find another way to do it. Please address this issue if you are going to continue asserting that these links are in any way "sources". Nposs 22:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Embedded citations. See also: Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities. Requestion berated me for using footnoted references. Footnoted references are the gold standard for citation/references. See WP:CITE. Next down is fully-implemented embedded citations. They consist of 2 parts if they are done completely. It is rare that they are done completely. Just like footnoted references are often done with just a URL. --Timeshifter 22:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you continue to insist that I "see Wikipedia:Embedded citations". I have seen it, and this is what it says: "A separate entry in the References section is required" (emphasis mine). Following this guideline would mean that each item in a list would receive two links: embedded and in the ref. section. As you yourself have suggested, this could never work since it would be viewed as a form of spam. That means we need to find another solution - which you have yet to offer. Just because the "best" form of editing isn't always done doesn't mean we shouldn't expect it eventually and do our best to promote it. You seem to be suggesting that people are lazy and will only be willing to embed an external link inline and that is what we should be happy with. Clearly, there are many of us who are not happy with that. Nposs 00:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to insist that all embedded citations in lists and charts be done completely with a separate references section, then feel free to ask on the talk pages on those lists and charts. But in any case an incomplete embedded citation is not a reason to delete an entry. And sources are required for wikipedia. --Timeshifter 22:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of this spamfighting is completely out-of-control. Following the logic of some of the spamfighters ALL citation/reference links are spam. Possibly the majority of citations on wikipedia use the partially-filled-out embedded citation format. Good luck correcting all of wikipedia citations to use the full format with a separate references section and duplicate links. Good luck getting all the footnoted citations filled out with more than just the URL. Your comment is illogical. Spamfighters do not want duplicate links. So why are you pushing for duplicate links by using the full embedded citation format? So I think you are trying to make a WP:POINT in an effort to promote a citation-link-free wikipedia with all citation links in hidden comments. Sorry, but we don't have the authority to completely change these major wikipedia guidelines. Let me point out that the embedded citation guideline is just that - a guideline. So not filling out the reference section is not that serious. Otherwise, how come most of wikipedia does not do it? It is a goal. Just like getting people to fill out the details for footnoted citations. Footnoted citations only use one link, but are less intuitive for most editors to use. But eliminating citations altogether in lists and charts completely overthrows the citations guideline, and the Verifiability POLICY. --Timeshifter 06:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"Murder" vs "Killing"

A substantial addition to WP:NPOV has been proposed. See Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Killing NPOV. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Email addresses in article

Scum of the Earth Church#Staff lists a number of email addresses. I thought this was discouraged but I can't find an explicit policy saying so. Is there a policy on this? Brianhe 21:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, delete them. per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory MPS 21:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted them in the article, per WP:NOT as stated by MPS. Jmlk17 04:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Fact tag aging

So, how long should items with a {{fact}} tag on them be allowed to linger? After X number of months, should the item simply be removed? Not a dog 21:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Use good judgement. It is polite to let it sit there for a week to a month, but wiki-policy says ASAP is the norm.

That policy applies to living people bio pages, not everything in the project. If it's not a bio page, and the only problem is that it's unsourced (i.e. probably correct info, or even something you personally know is correct but not where you read it) then there doesn't need to be a time limit. --tjstrf talk 00:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Other things to notice. First, can it be considered insulting or blaming in some way? There are many other things that fit as "legal entities" capable of being harmed by blames and request rectification wich are not "real people". For example, if I placed a comment about an upcoming porno comic with the fictional characters Spider-Man and Mary Jane, I would have to provide a link to the source of such information just as if I were talking about a porno video with Tobey Maguirre and Kirsten Dunst (note if needed: this is just hypotetic talking, nobody is actually saying anything about such comic or videos being made).

And second, if we talk about "scientific" things, and there is such a statement with the template, consider: is it explaining how does something "work", but talking about things that may be true but seem obcure or complicated? Or is it providing another interpretation of things, different than the main accepted one? If it's the first, first reconsider how much do you really know about the topic, and then ask the user that said that or other people that know the subject. Perhaps you simply didn't know, and learn something new. If it's the second thing, if there are no important sources about people or organizations that support such view, it would have to go away. But if there are, they would have to stay. Perón 02:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't give much weight to how long a fact tag has been there. If the statement looks silly, remove it. If it looks plausible but you don't know, just leave it there in perpetuity, and caveat lector - let the reader beware. YechielMan 20:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

References in 226 BC and related articles

Is it standard practice to merely state "Wikipedia articles that link to this article" as a "reference", as in 226 BC. Seems to be circular reasoning: "the reference I'm provided that these events took place in 226 is that there are articles on Wikipedia which state these events took place in 226" If the purpose of 226 BC is to simply recap all the articles that link to it, then it should just be a category. (related discussion on my talk page). Not a dog 22:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say that such pages are superior to categories, do serve a quite useful purpose, and are not circularly referenced. Categories simply give a list of all the articles that pertain to a particular year, whereas the year articles give synopses of the important events of that year. The referencing being does is that the linked Wikipedia articles contain the actual references; this seems perfectly acceptable to me, but if you don't like it, I suppose you could copy the references and make Wikipedia even more redundant. --Philosophus ^T 22:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree... that looks tacky. If you got content from other wikipedia articles it doesn't HAVE to be cited. if you want you can put that fact in the edit summary or as an FYI on the discussion page. MPS 22:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, "tacky" is a good word. I thought it seemed quite out of sorts with the WP:MOS, and anyone coming to Wikipedia specifically to one of these articles wouldn't really understand what it means... Not a dog 22:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, each page should be well-sourced in isolation. It should not depend on sources in other articles to source itself; instead those sources should be copied to the page borrowing the information. If the information in the other article in unsourced, then it remains unsourced in the article borrowing it as well, because Wikipedia is not itself a reliable source and cannot be cited by itself. Dcoetzee 20:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Creator" vs. "Copyright holder"?

I've been looking around and I've seen a lot of different copyright tags used for flags all around the site. What is the difference between a "creator" and a "copyright holder", if any? I've thought about using a vector graphics editor to trace flags, but if I upload it, what copyright tag would I give it? I would be the "creator" of the SVG reproduction but not the original flag (since some flags are recent and might be copyrighted) and who knows where the copyright might belong to?, since oftentimes there is no specification. 70.176.93.225 00:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In general, the person who makes a "creative work" is the "copyright holder" of that work. (So creator = copyright holder, for the most part.) HOWEVER, not everything you make is "creative". For example, if you take a screenshot from a movie or make a photocopy of a book, you don't have any copyright derived from that action. When someone makes a "creative work", they own exclusive rights to authorize derivative works. So creating an SVG from a regular image is either non-creative (no additional copyright) or it is at best a derivative work. If the original flag was subject to copyright, then we would be unable to use the SVG, except under a claim of fair use. But if the original flag was public domain, then I would just tag your image with PD-self and indicate that it was an SVG tracing of the flag. --BigDT 01:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

So what if we're unsure of its copyright status? Should we assume that a flag is not copyrighted if there isn't an explicit mention of a copyright? What if there is a specific artist that created the design for the flag? 70.176.93.225 01:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Creator" and "Copyright holder" are the same when we talk about small things such as a photo, a creative wallpaper or other small things of a single person on his own. The terms begin to be set apart when we talk about bigger things. For example, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster were the "creators" of Superman, but the "Copyright holder" is DC Comics, wich can do with the character whatever they want without even asking them about their wishes. Perón 01:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The size of the object doesn't determine its ownership. Most work done for hire belongs to the employer. So news photographs, however small, belong to the newspaper. Archives like Corbis have bought the rights to large numbers of small images. On the other end of the scale there are probably examples of individuals who own the copyrights to major films, but even then most would have a holding company so it's a grey area. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 08:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

So would you (or anyone answering) recommend using the PD-self tag for svg flag reproductions? 70.176.93.225 01:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What kind of flag? The flag of a country, the flag of a US state, or the flag of McDonalds? We would need to figure out the copyright status on the original flag first, I guess. If the flag has been in use for a really long time (100 years+) or if the country doesn't copyright its official symbols, then use PD-self. Otherwise, we need to figure out whether the flag design is copyrighted. --BigDT 02:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if a flag is in the public domain, a svg version of it would also be, but not because the user made it but because of being a derivative work of a work in the public domain. Better than PD-self, I would suggest using PD-ineligible. Anyway, doesn't all this belong in Commons?. Check for example the licence used with a flag in the public domain here Perón 02:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Derivative works of PD works are copyrightable. For example, when the movie version of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn came out a while back, that movie was subject to copyright. The key is whether the work in question is sufficiently transformative. Is an SVG of a PD flag transformative? I honestly don't know the answer to that question. An SVG contains XML source code - it isn't just a bitmap representation like a PNG would be. To be on the safe side, I would suggest PD-self so that the user is explicitly disclaiming any copyright that does exist. I honestly don't know, though, whether an SVG representation of a PD image is considered transformative. --BigDT 02:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that the transformation of an image into a specific digital format is sufficiently transformative to be a new work: for instance, faithful 2d photographs of PD paintings are considered public domain, and this is the same kind of thing. But be careful: just because a flag design is in the public domain doesn't mean that the flag image you actually started with wasn't copyrighted! See, for instance {{FOTW}}: there's a whole site of flag images that are copyrighted although based on official designs. Mangojuice^talk 19:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Poll at Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections in articles

A poll has been opened here about the status of this guideline. Obviously, polling doesn't directly determine guideline status per WP:PG, but nonetheless, it's best if the poll gets a good level of participation, either way. Mangojuice^talk 14:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• No, it's not. There's a long-standing guideline with some people that don't like it, and these people have somehow gotten the impression they can revoke a guideline by setting up a vote against it. Wikipedia doesn't work that way, I see no reason to encourage that. >Radiant< 10:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, wikipedia does work that way. Guidelines can change. People edit them all the time. It's part of the phenomenon I refer to in the essay WP:BRAIN MPS 13:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Clarification... radiant is right, that it is considered bad process simply to "vote down" a guideline, but it is certainly possible for voting down to be the right thing if you have a sufficiently bad guideline and sufficient consensus to revoke it. In any case, I don't see anything wrong with advertising a vigorous discussion... especially since it is a longstanding guideline and a perenially contentious one at that. MPS 14:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Personal opinion: in this case, it was good that the poll happened, because when a handful of editors make complaints on a guideline page it can start to look like the guideline isn't well-supported by the community, but the group of editors who read the guideline talk page is skewed. So, wanting to get an unbiased sample, I advertised the poll here. Mangojuice^talk 18:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Poll at Wikipedia talk:Good articles

There's currently a poll in progress about the fate of the good article system. I feel more people should be involved, please comment if you have time. Thanks. Quadzilla99 14:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• That does not appear to be the case. Rather, there seems to be a rename request that is being shot down. >Radiant< 12:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The re-name request would not merely change the name considering what some people are proposing. Quadzilla99 13:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

template

In some places, for example Category:Wikipedia statistics, there are templates that say that "This page/category is used for the administration of the Wikipedia project. It is not part of the encyclopedia." This is a good way of informing people who are not users and do not wish to be that they have stumbled into the wrong area. However, these templates are few and far between. Shouldn't we put these on most if not every page that is not an article? Seldon1 18:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably so, but it's an issue of either being done by hand, or having a user-created bot do it. And I don't believe either has been completed as of yet. Jmlk17 21:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a collection of such category templates at Template:Namespace category. I'll work on tagging any categories that do not have these templates. For other pages, the prefix (such as User: or Help:) should make it clear. As every page outside mainspace is not an article, I don't think it's necessary to have a message on each. –Pomte 03:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

True...thank you. Jmlk17 08:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD Policy, recreation and Deletions

I've got a question regarding an AfD. Recently I recreated the article and it was deleted. I guess this was a mistake, but the deleting user claimed it didn't survive at said AfD, but that was before the recreation. Does the Deletion stand for past and present and future recreations? I'm not sure. Deletion Quality 23:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You're not allowed to recreate deleted pages unless you can show that the content you recreate is different or comprehensive enough so as to render the original verdict null and void. At least, this is how I understand the process. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I did. If you were able to see the past and supposedly present one, you'd see the difference. Deletion Quality 00:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The AfD did criticise the original writing quality of the article, but it was deleted mainly because it was a forum site for a game and similar forums had already been determined not to be encyclopedic. The version you created recently was a completely different article, but unless you can show that the forum is much more notable than it was at the time of the AfD the article will stay deleted. See WP:WEB for ways of showing that a website is notable.-gadfium 01:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I didn't even know that. Guess you learn something new everyday! Jmlk17 08:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked over the deleted versions and the debate. IMO, the debate at least partly concluded that the topic was inappropriate. Given that, I think you'd be better off requesting permission to recreate on WP:DRV. But you should be prepared to explain how the Smashboard forums meet WP:WEB or one of the other notability guidelines, or it'll be shot down. Mangojuice^talk 19:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think as long as the re-creator makes a good-faith effort to improve the article from the deleted version, and ideally to address the most important specific concerns in some way, the burden should not be on them to conclusively and unambiguously refute every problem described. After all, many factors weigh into the decision and some bad things can be tolerated in kept articles. Dcoetzee 20:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that any attempt short of that would be validly speedied under G4. But I do think that the approach I recommend is the right one if the ultimate goal is to have an article that will be kept. Mangojuice^talk 20:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

am or brit

In articles with no direct relation to an Anglophonic country, should American English or British English be used? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RockRNC (talk • contribs).

Preferably whatever is in use. Take a look at:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English - Nabla 02:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Like Nabla said, it's up to you, but try to be consistent within a particular article and not to change a style once it's there. YechielMan 05:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The language is the same; it's often just the spelling of a word (color vs. colour, center vs. centre, etc.) that differs. But as long as it's concise and in encyclopedic, all should be good. Jmlk17 08:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of consistency. Both types of English should not be used simutaneously in an article. It's either this or that. Apart from this, a popular practice is to choose the spelling type depending on the subject. E.g. if the article is something to do with Britain, Australia, etc, use British English. This is particularly true for films.--Kylohk 19:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

True. The issue seems to arise in those article in which the two dialects are intertwined. I speak fluent and native English, but for those of us who don't, I can imagine it could potentially be somewhat harder when it switches back and forth. Jmlk17 01:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia:Television episodes

This seems like an appropriate place for this. I have been redirecting single episode articles because they don't meet this guideline's requirements of real world information backed by sources, and they don't show any sort of promise for improvement. After being mass reverted for a reason of "no consensus" (though it was really for other reasons), I have placed silly messages on episode list talk pages. As I expected, few have been actually noticed, and most won't really bring in any attention. Should I just screw the people that think discussion is required for this kind of thing, or should I just wait for people not to respond to the messages for a few days in all cases? It seems really pointless because, either way, they're going to be redirected. It is only worth it for high traffic articles. TTN 18:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your interpretation of WP:EPISODE. If there is nothing notable about the episode beyond the cast info and the plot, then it should go into the list. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'll try doing it my way again. He doesn't seem that interested anymore. TTN 21:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you do this on List of Futurama episodes or List of The Simpsons episodes first, and see the reception of your "redirecting" before doing the ones that "nobody will notice". —Zachary ^talk 21:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons will stay because they have proven themselves with a few featured articles and around thirty good articles. I'll get to Futurama at some point. I'm doing smaller ones right now because I have a large load coming up with the ones that I have posted messages on. TTN 21:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons articles are featured because they have existed for YEARS! You're redirecting episodes that have only existed for a few months, not even giving them a chance to get to GA or FA status. I find that disturbing. —Zachary ^talk 22:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It is more because they have people that actually work on them. They also have an abundant amount of sources at their disposal. If these conditions are met for other series, I'm fine with their existence. Episode articles are required to have this information ready before creation anyways. TTN 22:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, it is more because they have been given the opportunity to evolve into featured articles. It has nothing to do with the quantity of editors, it has to do with the quality of articles. —Zachary ^talk 22:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, without editors, you cannot have articles; they wouldn't become anything without good editors. There are plenty of episodes articles that have done nothing but sit around for years. The amount of time doesn't matter if nothing is written. TTN 22:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Then redirect ONLY the ones that are NOT making at least SOME progress towards a GA or FA status. —Zachary ^talk 22:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you'll be doing the same to List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes, List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes, List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes, etc. —Zachary ^talk 22:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not redirected one article that could easily reach GA status with little effort. They all would require more work than people are willing to put in, and most probably don't have the resources anyways. I don't know about those yet. I haven't looked at them. TTN 22:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If we would have redirected "Homer's Enemy" back in 2006 to the episode list, it wouldn't be a FEATURED ARTICLE today. —Zachary ^talk 00:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

We have histories for a reason. Once people gained the resolve to fix it up, all they would have to do is revert. That is what anyone can do with these if that does indeed happen. TTN 00:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Please stop recklessly redirecting articles. If you have a problem with them, flag them instead of redirecting. Damn. —Zachary ^talk 22:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

With what? A cleanup tag only works if people are willing and information exists. These fail the guideline, and they shouldn't even exist until they can easily pass it. TTN 22:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is taken right from the television episode page you are linking to, and most articles are have been redirecting have followed the initial guidelines for starting a page for an episode. If clear that most articles dont have these when they are started, but given a little time to develop as more people become knowledgable about wikipedia then they have a chance to grow into decent articles. by doing what you are doing you are just messing up the process for the article to expand. As some people that come along can add a few lines from outside official sources along the way at any time...just be patient

Here are some ideas for what information to include about a television episode, where possible:

   * A brief summary of the episode's plot
   * The episode's relevance in ongoing story arcs, if any
   * How the episode was received by critics
   * Information on production and broadcasting of the episode

68.72.141.190 22:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

They cannot improved. Blanket statements cannot be used to cover that "they're starting up." The guideline requires secondary sources before creation. That hasn't happened. TTN 22:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

if you keep this reckless style up and keep editing major changes then I'll also just go back and revert the redirects and just label every episode a stub for now, until they can be improved upon. 68.72.141.190 22:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

They need to be improved before they are brought back. Unless they can satisfy the guideline, they're staying redirects. TTN 22:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

well do whatever you want, but as soon as you move on to somewhat mainstream articles be prepared to have things reverted and categorized as stubs as you are just going on what you think without even getting input from others68.72.141.190

That's why those will have discussions. People actually edit them, and more than one person will likely disagree. TTN 22:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am no fan of having these articles on episodes but I believe what you are doing is very, very wrong. If you want to redirect, you should be making sure that the important substance of the work that the editors have done on the episodes is preserved on the list of episode pages. You are deleting these at the rate of one a minute. You are never adding anything from the episode. Are you even reading them? You are spending a few minutes to delete hundreds of hours of other editor's work without even making any attempt to see if any of the content should be preserved. Do the job right if you are going to do it. Act like an editor, not like a bot. -- DS1953 ^talk 01:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The only information that could be preserved is the plot summary. In no way do I feel the need to summarize every article. Having not seen the episodes, I have no idea what is really important to their plots, I have no idea on the accuracy the information, and the regular editors can easily get it done. I give them quick glances, and they're nothing more than plot summaries, trivia, and unsourced information. They are free to work on them in a sandbox, bring them up to a decent quality, and bring them back, so it's not really that big of a deal. TTN 01:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at a few of the episode lists and I think that is many cases the description of the episode could easily be improved with a few words based on a cursory reading of the plot summary you are deleting, whether or not you have seen the episode. The concept of merging and redirecting (which I support in many cases) requires a merge, not just a redirect. Personally, I think the person doing the redirecting has an obligation to do the merger and not assume that some other editor will sift through the page history of the redirect page (which many users probably have no idea even exists) and finish the job. -- DS1953 ^talk 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to merge. Disagree with me if you would like; I don't really care. To correctly merge would require me to read over each and every single episode summary thoroughly, and assume what is important. Just removing links from the episode lists takes up a lot of time. I couldn't imagine going through that. Plus, the summaries are good enough for now anyways. If people spend all of this time on the single episodes, I'm sure they can take the time to do it on the lists. TTN 01:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I should probably clarify "correctly merge." I could take the time to add a couple sentences here and there like you seem to have suggested, but that would be worthless. Correctly merging would require detailed, but brief summaries. People that are active with the series can do a much better job than I can with that. TTN 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"Correctly merging would require detailed, but brief summaries." Exactly my point. You are deleting content, not just restructuring the coverage. You are asking someone to recreate the content because you can't be bothered to slow down and do it. You are not improving the encyclopedia. Instead of pruning overgrown shrubbery with shears, you are using a chain saw and assuming someone else will come along and replant the hedge. To me, that is plain wrong. -- DS1953 ^talk 02:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That would take me many months (possibly a good year) to do, and it would be a complete waste of time. I'm just cleaning up. I'm not promising quality. It's sort of like the people that have expected me to bring a character list up to FA standards because I merged some stubs. It isn't my job to do anything. I'm just placing one piece of the puzzle. And trust me, the fans won't have problems with it after they cope with the loss of the articles. If anons are willing to take a while to build single articles, it won't trouble them too much to type a few summaries (which is why I would be wasting time). And really, most of these don't need more than a sentence or two, which most already have. TTN 02:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"That would take me many months (possibly a good year) to do, and it would be a complete waste of time." What's the rush to do this? Does it have to be done immediately? You make it sound like the world will end if you don't redirect these by next week. If it has to be done, at least use the {{merge}} tag, and then someone else (NOT YOU) can either properly merge them or improve them.

"I'm just cleaning up." The way you're doing it is making an even bigger mess that someone else has to clean up. These "stubs" aren't hurting anything; they may need some work done, but it's hardly poor enough to clear the articles.

"It isn't my job to do anything." It should be your responsibility as an editor to not disrupt Wikipedia just because

"We have histories for a reason. Once people gained the resolve to fix it up, all they would have to do is revert." (from above) Redirecting discourages people from working on these articles. How can they improve something that's not there? And not everybody (newly registered users and anon editors) knows how to look through the history to see the old versions of the page.

It's noble that you feel so strongly about a Wikipedia guideline, but your method of "enforcement" leaves something to be desired. Especially the use of AWB at an edit every minute. Makes me wonder if you are actually examining what you're removing. I strongly suggest you begin using the {{merge}} tag instead, or adding another applicable tag like {{refimprove}} or {{cleanup}}. —Zachary ^talk 06:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop acting like this will ever go like an actual merger. People don't care. They'll edit the articles if they exist, and move on if they don't exist. In all honesty, I never have expected people to actually get episodes up to standards. There is just not enough coverage on most. It's going to take "specialists." IPs or new users don't really care enough.

Stubs aren't hurting or helping people; they're just sitting around and collecting junk. They won't stop with that unless real editors really want to take the time on them and sources exist. There is no point in sitting down and summarizing them. Again, it would take forever, making me give up a quarter of the way through. The lists already have a good amount of information much of the time. They aren't going to get much from my interference. I remove the old links most of the time, so that is enough for me. And I'm not using AWB (I don't even know how that really works). I'm just using tabs and coping and pasting, so I have to take a quick look. TTN 10:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"silly messages on episode list talk pages ... few have been actually noticed"!! Please see WP:POINT "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point." Squidfryerchef 02:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I'm not. I'm just saying discussion is worthless in the case of episodes because there is no one to discuss with ninety percent of the time. TTN 02:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If you post on the episode talk pages, you'll usually find there's no one to discuss with. If you post on the talk page of the main TV series, you'll probably get a response. Finally, you can always contact the episode article's creator or contributors. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It the same for both articles. If no one bothers with episodes, they don't bother checking the main article. People really don't watchlist the stuff most of the time. If someone has the main article watchlisted and they really contribute enough to care for the episodes, I'm sure they also have the episode list. Why would I really want to contact the people? I have contacted four people in the past. Two yelled at me, and the other two never replied. There is no need to force unneeded discussion just because people want "by the book" action. If people want to discuss it, it's fine to do it after (which only one of thirty does). TTN 10:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't this just show you are right, this episodes shouldn't have an article each? Black Falcon, when you say he should post on the talk page of the main TV series, don't you admit it is over the top to give this epsides an article each? And, Related: Generally, when I click for random articles, I get up a lot of records or TV episodes, I don't want that. We should be tougher - much tougher - in merging this things. A popgroup with five records shouldn't have six pages, but one. Greswik 14:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

TTN, why would you want to contact people? Because what you're doing is controversial (if nothing else, this thread proves it). Sure, some may not react well and some may not respond, but some will. Rather than performing an action that you know to be controversial and then waiting for it to be reverted, is it not better to produce at a more relaxed pace, encourage discussion, and preempt unnecessary controversy? Just my opinion... -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Greswik, I think episodes of some shows should have individual articles and episodes of others shouldn't. I don't think that episode articles as a whole are either good or bad. If a good article could be written on an episode, then keep it; if not, redirect it. I think it is this step which TTN has skipped; he has only checked whether a good article exists and not whether one could be written. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Contacting the primary editors does nothing. Again, I get the whole discussion and consensus thing, but sometimes we're just forcing it for no other reason than "playing nice." I get that this is contraversial, but it cannot be discussed with groups or single people most of the time. At most, talking to a single editor is just to say "don't create any more." After they realize that the articles have been redirected, a discussion can be held. So far, I have only been reverted once on a mass scale by one user who had nothing to do with the episodes. Otherwise, they have just contacted me, left a note on the episode list talk page, or ignored it. This is showing me that a discussion beforehand is just a pointless formality. I'm sure I'll eventually run into someone who will revert them off the bat, but then it can be discussed. To your other reply, I am thinking of the future. It's just that is not full of episodes; only a small number of them have real hope. TTN 19:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

section break

TTN, I think this is being a little too strict. Episodes are fine to have their own pages, and you'd be surprised how much they can be sourced, especially for popular shows: in cases like that, don't redirect but let them improve organically. Articles don't have to be perfect. For shows that aren't as popular, it may not make sense to cover every episode separately, as the critical analysis may not exist in reliable sources. But then, the right thing to do would be to merge the articles together into larger ones, like an annotated list of episodes or articles on an entire season. I think that by redirecting in those cases you're doing the wrong thing. What you should do in that case is explain the situation on the talk page for the show or its list of episodes, or whever the merge would happen, and explain that you don't think the individual episodes in this case are covered enough in sources to be able to meet WP:EPISODE, and try to work out a solution. You might get people finding sources (which would be a good thing), or you might get people to reach an agreement that the episodes should be merged together. Or, you might find that people feel it's okay to have just a list, you never know. Or, they may disagree with you and you may have to work harder to come to a decision, such as through an WP:AFD debate or a {{merge}} tag or an WP:RFC. But if you just go around redirecting, it'll simply remove content until someone gets around to disagreeing with you and reverting it, so it won't really lead to any improvement in the long run, just a little less cruft right now. Mangojuice^talk 14:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

And to respond to your response to Black Falcon, you are proposing to follow the "Be bold - revert - discuss" process here; I think that process is generally good, but it's not so good when the changes you make are massive or hard to undo; in cases like that, more caution is warranted. Mangojuice^talk 14:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

We need to be strict or we end up with junk. If we can just say "oh, they can get sources later", people will just continue to put it off. By placing the restriction (which is set by WP:EPISODE - secondary sources are required before they are created), people will need to provide the necessary sources up front. If they do that, it isn't a big deal leaving some "meh" articles. This is the case with the Simpsons. They have achieved a plentiful amount of FAs and GAs, and they have a varied amount of sources. That shows that the rest can eventually improve. Though they're crappy now, they can stay due to that fact. There is no merging to be done. Plot summaries need to be small, so what is already on the list is fine most of the time. Otherwise, others can improve them, but just copying and pasting bloated summaries to the list wouldn't work.

In general, episodes cannot improve. That is pretty much fact. Popular shows (like FOX stuff) may have the possibility for sources, but sitcoms, child geared cartoons, soap operas, and the like don't even have the possibility (in most cases). There is no need for discussion due to that, and because nobody replies to even the larger ones. On the 24 that I have proposed, I have gotten like five replies. Wasting time to follow the book on every case is pointless. If a series is likely to need discussion, I have done it in the past. But to propose something on shows that have less than thirteen episode articles will lead to nothing. It is much easier to wait and address concerns after it has happened. I understand that discussion is good, but when there is no actual discussion, time is just being wasted. TTN 16:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Use your judgement, I think. WP:BRD is fine if you believe in good faith that your edits will be agreed with by those who might be interested; if you're not sure, I'd make the effort to discuss... that may seem like a waste of time, but someone reverting all your changes because you hadn't discussed would also be a waste of time. I think the phrase of WP:EPISODE you're basing this on probably goes a little too far, as it doesn't describe common practice (which a guideline is supposed to do): generally, WP:EPISODE is just WP:SUMMARY as it would naturally apply to television shows, but you'll notice that WP:SUMMARY (a much more established guideline) doesn't make any kind of specification about how well something has to be sourced before it is forked out. Sure, the content forked out should be verifiable; because everything should be verifiable. But requiring secondary sources to be in place beforehand is novel and not common practice. Mangojuice^talk 17:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I take it back: WP:EPISODE doesn't go too far, you're over-reading it. The clause says "If there is enough verifiable information from secondary sources about individual episodes, create separate articles for them." - it doesn't say the information has to be sourced, just verifiable from secondary sources. So, I think your approach is only okay if you think the information isn't verifiable from secondary sources, not just that it isn't currently sourced. As for the existence of sources on TV shows, sadly, I think you're mistaken. People write loads of stuff about loads of topics: there are whole magazines devoted to soap operas, for instance, and episode guides exist for a surprising variety of shows, although you may not always be able to find them in a bookstore. Mangojuice^talk 17:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I will discuss when necessary as I have been doing. If you can have verified information, it's most likely going to be sourced in the articles (most people don't just keep them lying around). That's why I have said that I am fine if sources are available. None of these have shown that, and none seem to have it any information anywhere. Shows are written about, but more often than not, it's just trivia (goofs, very minor production details) or about the series on a wider scale. People need to have these sources beforehand, and they should be able to put them right to work if necessary. With this kind of thing, we need high standards because we'll just end up with the thousands of unimprovable stubs that we currently have if we use the "wait and see" method. TTN 17:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How are you to decide that a stub is "unimprovable" (which is not even a word, by the way)? You're not giving anybody an opportunity to improve them, and when they DO make an attempt, you say "that's not good enough" and redirect anyways. There ARE featured articles for episodes, and they started out as nothing more than a stub only containing "in universe information", so don't say that it's not possible. Sure, it may take a while to get an article to evolve from stub to FA, in some cases even years, but to say that it is not possible is prejudging the articles. These need to be decided on a case-by-case basis (an episode-by-episode basis to be specific). I have not yet seen one episode list where you left even one episode article intact. You're also not merging information to the target article (perhaps a quick read at WP:MERGE is in order), reducing 3 good paragraphs about an hour long television episode into a single sentence, flashing WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT in front of the faces of hard working editors when they revert like it's your badge for the FBI. I'm not saying that there should be nothing done about these (and have not once disagreed with the policiesguidelines in any way), but your method of enforcing this policyguideline is not cool, and I think that you should stop. —Zachary ^talk 07:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You have to keep in mind, while it's very possible for an episode to be a great article, for the vast majority of these articles.. very little of what they are now will contribute to the better article. To put it bluntly, starting from scratch would be less work and more productive. Anyone can summarize an episode, and we are never in short supply of people to do that. It's everything else, like reception, real world impact, and so on, that we need to make these articles good. For many episodes there will be nothing different to say from one episode to the next, other than what happened in the plot, so even if we have notable info it still might not mean that every episode gets it's own article. -- Ned Scott 08:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice Mangojuice said "..as it doesn't describe common practice (which a guideline is supposed to do)..". Ok, lets get this cleared up, common practice is not always what a guideline should be, because common practice can be a very bad thing. Common practice or behavior isn't always consensus. Consensus suggests that people have been able to reasonably consider all sides of the issue and come to a conclusion. Sometimes people just do "monkey see monkey do", or they just assume that it's ok to put up nothing but plot summary and trivial information. Guidelines do not describe common practice, they describe what should be common practice. -- Ned Scott 08:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't disagree with Black Falcon about the part that the good episodes could have articles. But we will have a hard time decide what is a good episode based on objective criteria, even if we might very well agree on the subjective one. I must admit something though: I jumped in to advocate a point of view in something I thought was related (the popgroup with one extra article for each record.) Perhaps I should have sticked to the original plan and started a new debate under a new subject. Anyhow, it's a problem when to decide whats an important TV-episode: db-TV? If you see what I mean: "It is an article about a TV-episode that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject." How can that be: this TV-episode is not a subject of enough interest? Should there be a usenet-newsgroup for the series before it was allowed to have articles for it's episodes, or should there be so and so many newspaper articles? Objective criteria (not just "this one is good" and "this one is just another mass-produced episode".) Anyhow, and to get back to what I planned to suggest: I wonder if there could be some sort of mecanism for not removing, but reducing their hope of getting choicen, episodes and records from the random article algorithm, at least. As I said: I think I get up far to much of this if I sit and push the button. I get the impression Wikipedia is not like an ordinary encyclopdia in this, if you look at a random page in a written one you will not end up with pop-culture (who does not deserve to be called so) in nearly the same degree.Greswik 17:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:TTN and User talk:Chris 42

Why this project of yours to remove episode pages? Many are works in progress, and a note on the talk page to suggest they should be improved according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episodes guidelines would be more constructive. I note you redirected all the Foyle's War episodes without even the courtesy of a note on the talk page. Admittedly, most were stubs, but others were being worked on. You are destroying hours of work by many conscientious contributors without even engaging with them about the rationale, or discussing your actions with the wikiproject most concerned.Gwinva 06:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I put a great deal of work into making the Yes Minister/Yes, Prime Minister pages. Are you making this a personal vendetta against all TV series on Wikipedia? It's downright disrespectful to the efforts of others. Chris 42 09:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

When you speak of quality, what are you talking about? The writing qualityof the plot summaries is fine, but if that's all you can do, it isn't quality in an encyclopedic view. You need reception and development to have any sort of quality there. Your plot summaries belong on tv.com or Wikia, not here. TTN 12:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my comments above. If the articles are insufficient in your view, then let them be improved by others. You can't just delete episode articles wholesale and expect the people who create/maintain them to accept it without question. How many other shows' episode articles do you intend to obliterate? Lost, The Sopranos, House, Star Trek and Doctor Who (to name just a few) all have them, and most follow a similar format. Supposing someone wanted to add the extra info you describe to the Yes Minister articles? Are you really suggesting they should start from the ground up and recreate them from scratch? Chris 42 12:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently trying to get many redirected at Smallville, but I'm holding a discussion on the season's talk page. There, I've proposed a new layout for the season page that addresses the concern about non-free images, keeps plots in check, and allows for an area where you would put production and critical reaction type information. Sometimes it's easier to find reactions for an entire season, than for every episode in a given season, because many episodes do not even come close to what was decided in the debate over them. I'm curious about what you guys would think of my propose season page layout, since it appears that I'm not alone in my concern for the rush to create individual episode pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

TTN, please read Wikipedia:Editing policy#Major changes, in particular the following: "So, whatever you do, try to preserve information [...] If, in your considered judgment, a page simply needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do that." Chris 42 13:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Chris is right. It was rather unfair for you to mindlessly redirect those pages without the creator(s) consent. Angie Y. 14:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Flagged revisions

Please feel free to join in and comment on the talk page or touch up the proposal page. Voice-of-All 19:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Add Notes as well as References

The <ref>/<references> system was a godsend, and I kiss the devs every day for it. I am asking for a second, identical system - one for footnotes, which would use <note>/<notelist> or what not. For example, take a look at List of Governors of Alabama. The only use for references is as footnotes to the long table; I intend to start using this on my congressional tables articles, to replace things like the 'passages table' (This is an example, the senate part).

However, this ceases to be great when you have a situation with notes AND references, an example being List of Governors of Colorado.

Should I submit a bugzilla feature request, or what? This would be great for list/table articles, where we need both footnotes and separate references. I think it's unfair to the reader to mix the two, especially in the common tiny font size for references.

An added bonus would be if we could trigger refs from inside notes, keeping the list/table that much cleaner. --Golbez 22:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at how it was done in Harisu. Adrian M. H. 22:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Where is the use of that wiki-code explained?

{{ref_label|A|a|none}}

{{note_label|A|a|none}}

I think the code is similar to that used on this template:

Template:Summary of casualties of the 2003 invasion of Iraq --Timeshifter 23:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I ... apparently submitted this to Bugzilla a year ago. =p --Golbez 22:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but I accidentally put this into policy, not proposals. :( --Golbez 23:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol, it happens. At least you caught the mistake :). Jmlk17 04:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That just shows that it is still a valid need. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at the Wikipedia:articles about footnotes and you'll find things such as m:WikiCite (which I think is currently being tested). (SEWilco 12:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

Response to Timeshifter's question: I'm not sure, actually; I wasn't aware of that method until I saw that article at RFF. Adrian M. H. 21:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sanctioning users for not contributing to the encyclopedia

It seems that admins have taken to speedy deleting userpages and/or indefinitely blocking users for not having enough contributions to the encyclopedia. I'm not convinced that this is a good idea, so let's have some discussion on it. -Amarkov moo! 04:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocking the lost myspacers is a good thing imo. --tjstrf talk 04:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, if someone persists in using Wikipedia as MySpace v2, then yes, they should be blocked. But what about those who just have to be told that they are expected to edit the encyclopedia, and not just userspace? If I log on one day and all my pages are deleted, I'm going to assume that Wikipedia is just stupid and never edit again. But maybe if I'm just told "hey, how 'bout some encyclopedia work?", I'll be a productive contributor. -Amarkov moo! 04:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the issue is also why would someone join Wikipedia and not edit? I mean, there are plenty of other websites out there that are just socially based (Facebook, MySpace, etc.). Wikipedia is for editing and expanding knowledge first and foremost, and a social gathering secondly. Keep in mind that this is just my opinion, and while I do enjoy the social interaction here, I am here to edit mainly. Otherwise, I'd be spending my time on my Facebook account. :) Jmlk17 04:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There are blocks being handed out? Deleting useless pages I can understand but blocking? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it once or twise, but usualy only when someone persist in re-creating such userpages, or otherwise keep pestering users with requests for signing guestbooks and what not. --Sherool (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What blocks are you referring to? I remember seeing a couple but those were users who were really trying to use Wikipedia as a chatroom, and had been talked to about it, but persisted. If WP:NOT#BLOG means anything, we have to block users that persistently try to use Wikipedia in this way. But I agree we shouldn't be blocking these users without talking to them first: you never know, someone could spend a lot of time on their user page and then start working on the encyclopedia. Mangojuice^talk 13:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, without some specific examples, I can't get too worked up over this... if someone is turning their userpages into MySpace profiles, then yes, they deserve to have their pages deleted. Blocks, I dunno... depends on their reactions to the "this isn't MySpace" comments, I suppose. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

These blocks are not punitive. They are simply preventative so that these users are stopped from not contributing. ... but maybe that is not quite as clear as I'd like it to be. Thincat 15:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A block to stop someone from not contributing? Isn't it more like a block to stop someone from contributing the wrong kind of material? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So ... the purpose of the blocks is to prevent contributions from users who already do not contribute? Huh? :) Since I don't know the specific circumstances of the blocks, my comment is intended more in jest than anything else, but I do not think blocking users for inactivity is appropriate. First, it seems to go against current blocking policy. Second, it does not seem to have any value (it just wastes time). Third, it can be counterproductive. I registered an account and edited in July 2005, making only 4 edits to an article talk page. I didn't really start actively contributing until October 2006. I don't know what I would have done if I'd come back to discover that I'd been blocked, but I probably wouldn't have been too pleased.

The speedy deletion of userpages that are not test pages, vandalism, advertising, copyvios, or attack pages (or that meet any of the other CSD criteria) also seems unnecessary ... why not just {{prod}} them? If the user is inactive, the page will most likely be deleted anyway. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If a user has been inactive for a long time, consider adding a "Former Wikipedian" tag on the user page. There isn't any need to block them if they did not contribute to the encyclopedia, while keeping their user pages complying with the user page guidelines.--Kylohk 18:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

My reaction is similar to Night Gyr. I routinely nominate userpages for deletion on the basis that they're unencyclopedic and the user hasn't contributed to the project at all. (Users with solid contributions generally get a free pass from me to have a little fun in userspace.) But it takes repeated violations of this rule to warrant a block. YechielMan 05:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletable signatures proposal

Since I'm canvasing for opinions, and trying to avoid the bad kind of canvasing, I'm mentioning Wikipedia:Deletable signatures proposal here. Anybody care to comment? ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 14:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Policy on really strong A.I.s

If someone created an artificial intelligence that was so human that it has all the rights of a human being, maybe, though a Supreme Court decision in the U.S., or, if it makes a difference, all the rights of a human in Florida where the English Wikipedia servers are, would it be able to be a contributor, or even an administrator even if the A.I. could make hundreds or even thousands of edits per hour like a bot because it is just a computer or could plug it's "brain" directly into a computer. It might be a bit stupid to ask this question now, but eventually it might become something to think about, Jeffrey.Kleykamp 17:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say that it could certainly be a contributor, but only if it agreed to restrict itself to making edits at a non-bot rate until approved like a bot would have to be approved (only because we'd have to trust before allowing it to make edits at such a high rate). The approval for bot-rate contributions would be needed because if it was in fact indistinguishable from a human, it could potentially just want to vandalize the encyclopedia. Sancho 18:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who passes the Turing test is permitted to edit. --Kim Bruning 18:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC) (But what to do about Voight-Kampf or Boten Anna?)

Is that final or just your opinion? Jeffrey.Kleykamp 18:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't come in and ask you if you are a human being, or an A.I. who is making the changes. If the A.I. would sign up for an account, start editing, and eventually would run for administrator, nobody would ever have to know it was an A.I. at all. If wikipedia can't tell the difference, then they can't make a different policy either. (I think this is what Kim Brunsing meant with his remark about the Turing test. Martijn Hoekstra 18:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I sometimes fail the Turing test :-( Sancho 15:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Then you will need to obtain bot permissions O:-) --Kim Bruning 15:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC) seriously, there's a number of people who should really be blocked under the "Turing rule" , as they have really weak NI :-P

An AI wouldn't even need to have "human" rights to edit Wikipedia - lots of people live in countries which deny human rights, yet their subjects are allowed to edit Wikipedia. Presumably, if a jail allowed access to Wikipedia to its inmates - people deprived of human right by judicial process - the inmates would have the same standing as anyone else to contribute. Αργυριου (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

My point is that A.I. could, potentially, make hundreds of thousands of meaningful edits per day and would therefore stand out, and it doesn't really seem fair to limit a human being, or in this case an A.I., to a certain number of edits per day and I also don't think that there is a rule saying that there's a limit either. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 18:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course there's no rule about it. We don't really have rules covering situations that have never come up. It's a consequence of where our rules come from, namely, from experience. The question wouldn't be whether or not we've got a pre-existing rule; the question would be what people think about it when and if it happens. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

We may need to be particularly careful of nanobot vanity articles, as I pointed out on the (now-deleted) eleventy-billionth article pool.-gadfium 22:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright situation would be interesting.

I suspect that we'll have the ability to edit via cybernetic interface before we have an A.I. capable of running for adminship, so by that point being able to edit at bot speeds will be nothing special. --tjstrf talk 21:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe on the rest of the Internet. We'll still be typing curly brackets in 2045. — Omegatron 01:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Discuss this when the A.I. can speak for itself. Don't ban the user before it contributes. (SEWilco 03:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC))

Don't be silly. Everyone knows the first viable AI to edit Wikipedia will be modelled after a profilic vandal (take your pick). 81.104.175.145 16:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by the "Copyright situation would be interesting"? Jeffrey.Kleykamp 14:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

only humans can legaly own property so it is a bit problimaticaly working out who would hold the copyright on any contributions.Geni 03:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point tjstrf. Sancho 15:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of arrested Bengals. Is copying something from here to sportsargumentwiki.com a copyright violation? Especially since the copy was done without attribution to the Wikipedia article as required by GFDL, and since the sportsargumentwiki is not using a compatible license. If so, is there anything that can be done about it now? Corvus cornix 06:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as I understand it's a copyvio to transwiki the material to a non-Wikimedia wiki that doesn't use GFDL. No, I don't think there's anything we can do about it, except to advise the user not to do that again. YechielMan 05:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)