Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive

Village Pump - Archive

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

Post replies at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Note: Please add new material at the bottom of the page and remove any duplicate sections.

Template windowHome

I created a new template based on an Italian Wikipedia template that I think it could be useful. You can see it in my own page User:Dejudicibus, whereas the tempalte itself is in Template:windowHome. Here is an example:

Template:WindowHome

I feel frustrated

I have been editing Wikipedia since February. Soon I realized a lot of articles were about topics such as next-door neighbours and aunt's kittens. I began searching for questionable contents... In the last weeks I found that fame and popularity implying notability, which clearly is not the spirit of WP:N. I quit editting for a couple of weeks, first arguing a travel and then arguing exams (which were true). I'm not for either discussing policies or how should they be applied; what I'm asking for is a bit of emotional support... I'm sad I had to appeal here and I would like to stay active, but I will not be able if I'm convinced that editing Wikipedia is a waste of time, because nobody cares about non-popular notable facts. Thank you. Rjgodoy 23:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, as long as someone brings the heart to editing an article, it should eventually shine. Take The Bus Uncle, for instance. It's an internet meme last year, and was the talk of the town back then. I decided to focus on the article last month and managed to recover many long lost reports about the incident. After some grammatical improvements and the application of new images, the article was nominated for a Featured Article and succeeded. Anyway, this shows that when you really take the effort, even the most awful articles can be featured one day, so don't give up.--Kylohk 10:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is plenty of goofy and/or trivial activity on wikipedia. Personally I just don't worry about the existence of non-notable pages. Instead I find it motivating to work on articles about core subjects. You might find it helpful to take a look at the WP:Vital articles page and see if there are any topics that interest you. Many of those pages are in need of significant TLC. — RJH (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your responses =). I'll think about improving some articles and I'll try not to worry so much about trivial activities. Rjgodoy 22:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

New Task Force!

Dear Wikipedians,

Another Wikipedian and I just created a Salem Witch Trials task force. If you are interested in history, Massachusetts, colonial America, witchcraft, or instances of religiously motivated violence, then this is the task force for you!

So please check it out!

Psdubow 18:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Messages

Why do people mark large additions to discussions as minor? Simply south 21:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Then they are using minor editors incorrectly. You arne't meant to mark major edits as minor.--Kylohk 15:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

sorry I am not able to post on the article itself

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Gun_Kelly

Upon the bottom of the page is comment about George Machine Gun Kelly's brutal killings.

As far as I could determine upon researching Kelly's life, while he might have been a bad person, he had not killed in the commission of crimes (or otherwise).

http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/kelly/kelly.htm http://www.alcatrazhistory.com/mgk.htm

I am not attempting to "rewrite" history, but as a degree holding historian with an interest historic crimes, and the gangster era I think that the comment is incorrect and is an attempt to make the article reflective of the commonly held beliefs about Kelly rather than the historical person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.165.159 (talk)

• Why can't you? It seems the page is not protected. Rjgodoy 22:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

List of RMS Titanic passengers

On the French WP we have an article Liste des passagers du Titanic. We think there is a copyvo from Encyclopedia Titanica.

I thought WP:en had such an article near RMS Titanic . Am I right or I have a dream?

Did you already meet such an issue? If yes, how did you solve it?

Regards Jpm2112 15:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If you suspect a copyvio, then rewrite the whole thing in your own words, citing that page as a reference. Then it will be your own word with referenecs.--Kylohk 16:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Under US law lists of "facts" are not protected by copyright. Under US law it doesn't matter how much effort the original author put into compiling the list. A list of "facts" lacks a "creative spark". A creator can claim copyright on a list of facts — if there was something creative about how it is presented. But obvious orders, like alphabetic order, or order by date, don't count.

See Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service.

This seems counter-intuitive. And other nations, Australia, IIRC for one, made the other choice. Geo Swan 12:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Once more, for each country, a particular law. Well... Thanks for your answers. Jpm2112 06:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank You Creaters and user

I just want to say thank you to the creaters and users of wikipedia. This is a great site and has the usefull information I need to get things done. I wish I could make a donation, but I don't have paypal or anything. HAHA!

Thanks a bunch guys. This is helping me out with my English exam very much.

05:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You can make a donation in the form of useful edits to our articles. Paul Carpenter 11:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Dokdo

Dokdo - See WP:RM(May 21) poll at Talk:Dokdo#Requested Move May 2007. Candidates for a new article name are Liancourt Rocks, Takeshima, Takeshima/Dokdo, and Dokdo/Takeshima. We are trying to "get as many disinterested editors as possible to express an opinion" there. 12:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The requested move made Front page news on Chosun Ilbo, South Korea's largest newspaper. Says something (not sure what) about the growing influence of Wikipedia. (This is not the first time that this page has made the news in Korea see Kim Tae-gyu (staff reporter on The Korea Times) "Winning Over Takeshima in Cyberspace --Philip Baird Shearer 20:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, but: "A couple of years ago, the usages of Takeshima overwhelmed those of Dokdo in cyberspace ... However, recent news reports and Web pages embrace the title of Dokdo more frequently. Obviously, it is an encouraging sign for us - the world is beginning to buy the Korean idea" - Doesn't that justify the article being located at Takeshima, if Dokdo is only "beginning" to be used? I have no dog in this fight, I say use Liancourt, that's the only name I know, but I was amused that a pro-Dokdo source would give pro-Takeshima folks their best ammo - acknowledging what the most common name is. --Golbez 12:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of X...

Surely everyone's seen an article by the name "Criticism of X...". I was just reading Criticism of Windows Vista, for instance. That got me wondering, would it be out of line to make an article called "Support of X..."? It seems only right that if we have criticism articles, we should have support articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by .V. (talk • contribs) 23:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think both of them should be allowed, per WP:NPOV. However, I'm not sure about writing separate articles for each POV. Rjgodoy 23:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Surely by WP:NPOV you meant to say WP:POVFORK, and by "both" you meant "neither unless it is a notable subject in its own right". --tjstrf talk 23:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• • I was thinking aloud since I didn't know about WP:POVFORK.
    • "There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ... " article." (from WP:POVFORK)
    • " "Criticism of" type articles should generally start as sections of the main article and be spun off by agreement among the editors." (from WP:POVFORK)
    • As I understand it, support arguments may be included in "Criticism..." because they are constructive criticism. Is this correct?

Rjgodoy 02:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• It depends on whether there really is significant criticism of the item in question, and whether they are verified. However, it is always best to have rebuttals with each criticism to sound neutral.--Kylohk 13:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • A cautionary note here. The credibility of a rebuttal needs to be taken into account as well and sources provided so credibility can be determined. There are far too many people with pet theories of gravity and websites who would happily fill Gravity with their "rebuttals" explaining why they are the only one who actually knows what is going on, for example - BanyanTree 00:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Research about the self-correcting mechanism

The internet is still a fairly recent phenomenon. Whereas communities and groups enjoyed thorough research, theories and knowledge about virtual communities are relatively limited. I am busy with researching how virtual communities communicate, interact and exchange knowledge and information. Most importantly, I am interested in the relation between virtual communities and knowledge creation, especially the correcting mechanism of Wikipedia-the users.

As Wikipedia is one of the biggest and most popular virtual communities, and as it is focused on knowledge creation and knowledge exchange is it perfect to contribute to this research.

I can get lots of data and information from the site it self. But in this context, people are crucial. Crucial for understanding the motivators and visions which are necessary to have a website as successful as Wikipedia.

I am therefore looking for people who are active on Wikipedia who would find it interesting to give interviews. These interviews are necessary to complete this research successfully. Obviously you will be able to express your own opinion and illustrate Wikipedia as you see it.

Just put your name on my user page or send me a message,

thanks NeniPogarcic 13:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)