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 other than a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.

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

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

UK, England, Scotland...

As I read through Wikipedia articles, I noticed something I wasn't familiar to. It is the high level of nationalism British people have for their respective constituent country and a rejection of the "UK" entity. While I'm not writing here to argue this, but to discuss some of the inconsistency and confusion in Wikipedia articles any non-British reader might encounter. First, non-British are only familiar with the UK, they might be able to identify England and Scotland but rarely Wales; I find it odd that there isn't any page in Wikipedia that clarifies this issue, instead, it takes for granted that regular reader share the way of thinking of British people and find it perfectly normal to reference locations by their consitituent country (instead of UK); nationalities (English, Scottish, instead of British) and flags (flag of England instead of the UK flag). In addition, this leads to some inconstistencies between pages maintained by UK Wikipedians and others that don't (take a look at List of counties in Rhode Island).Could someone clarify this issue, and maybe write a guideline, policy, page about it. Thank you. CG 12:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. You might want to read the 'Nationality' debate further up, though it doesn't seem to have come to any particular conclusion, unfortunately.

I agree that the sovereign state (i.e. United Kingdom) should always be included at the end. I would also say, though, that it looks odd to me to just have "Newport, United Kingdom" Would you say, "Boston, USA", rather than "Boston, Massachusetts, USA"? I would have thought that you at least want "Newport, Wales, United Kingdom", if not "Newport, Monmouthshire, Wales, United Kingdom". TSP 12:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. I would probably just say Boston, Massachusetts or Newport, Wales. If an English speaker doesn't know where Wales is, it only takes one click to learn. The argument is a bit weaker for U.S. states (since there's 50 of them, instead of four), but I think Boston, Massachusetts is probably the most common on Wikipedia today. — The Storm Surfer 00:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad example, Mass and Wales don't compare, since Wales is a country, Mass is a state within a federal system.ALR 15:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not that bad of an analogy. The US states actually have more autonomy than the countries in the UK. David D. (Talk) 15:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult discussing this using Wales as the example, but I'd see autonomy as different from existence as a state entity. ALR 14:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a very obvious solution here - 'Newport, Monmouthshire, Wales' may well be tolerable in a UK context, however when speaking internationally I think it's complete idiocy to maintain that approach. If we're talking about international twinned towns etc, it ought to be like every other country on wikipedia and have 'UK' at the end. I find that British people have an odd habit of inflating their Home Nations and pretending they have some sort of unique status - they don't. I really see Wales, with its strong identity, as no different from the likes of Texas or Quebec. Anyway, how difficult or insulting is it to tack two letters on to the end of a placename to ensure it is recognised and for the sake of consistency? I can think of few times when 'Newport, United Kingdom' would be used alone, so it's certainly not about trying to exclude the Home Nations from their positions - although certain edit warriors would doubtless like to pretend this is a fact. --Breadandcheese 05:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering if you mean 'Newport, Pembs', 'Newport, Mons', 'Newport, IOW' or any one of the other 'Newports' that could claim to be 'Newport, United Kingdom'. To that end the UK is an anomoly when it comes to naming conventions.

I think the issue is interesting at the very least though. Jmlk17 05:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the analogy overall, however, the problem with the state/country analogy (and correct me if I'm wrong), is that there are more common city names in America. There are at least two well known by the name Lexington, many Springfields, and plenty of British city/county names (Suffolk, Essex, Oxford, etc.), so the state names are more important. It's not about the ease of knowledge, because the convention is perpetuated by those who use it. We shouldn't say "Newport, UK" because Americans are ignorant, or "Boston, USA" because it's not worth a European's time to memorize the states. The convention is determined by the people who use it because they need it quickly determine what city they are talking about, and adding "USA" to the end of cities is just superfluous for most Americans. tdmg 23:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles relating to places in Cornwall present special problems. There is a certain degree of debate about the Constitutional status of Cornwall, particularly whether or not it should be considered a part of England, and about how to refer to locations within Cornwall. A rough consensus to use the formula "Cornwall, England, United Kingdom" has been hammered out at WikiProject Cornwall (after much debate at various other locations). There are periodic outbreaks of edit-warring relating to this, and I would ask & hope that any policy or guidance as suggested above take this into account. DuncanHill 23:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There may be an issue here with being neutral in our treatment of different countries. Personally, I find both "Boston, Massachusetts" and "Newport, Wales" entirely clear and unambiguous. But would we say (in an internationally-focused article) "Shillong, Meghalaya" and equally expect people to know where that is? Meghalaya has a population comparable to Wales or to, say, Nevada, and English is one of its official languages. If we wouldn't expect our readers to know where Meghalaya is, should we expect them to know where Wales or Nevada are? TSP 14:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

England used to be broken down into smaller countries, known as the heptarchy. The seven kingdoms were unified into England in 927. Could East Anglian, Kentish etc be valid nationalities for contemporary people on Wikipedia? Now fast forward to 1707. The same thing has happened, only England and Scotland have merged into one country, the United Kingdom. This was 300 years ago. I don't want Kentish being used as a valid nationality for recent folk, and by the same logic I'd rather have British used as a nationality than English or Scottish. For nationalities, it is my opinion that only the sovereign state at the time the person was around should be used. If we start breaking down a sovereign state into subdivisions then what limit is there? It would then become subjective and there is no place for subjectivity in Wikipedia articles. Readro 15:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that my post has initiated some discussion, but I think that my point hasn't been understood clearly. I wasn't looking for a change in convention and usage but for a clarification. I think that the usage of city, constituent country is pretty clear and analogous to city, state. However I don't understand, and this what needs to be clarified, is primarly why the flags of the constituent countries are used instead of the UK flag. And why UK isn't treated as a country like non-british people would view it. CG 19:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Because that's not how people view it, most people will refer to their individual nationality rather than identifying themselves as British. In the interests of disclosure I'm an expat Scot living in England.

ALR 19:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The UK isn't a nation, it's a country. Not every state is a nation-state, nor does every nationality have its own nation-state. Taking the Kentish example above, Kentish nationality may no longer exist today, but I suspect it did in the year 1200 -- nationalities change much more slowly than statehoods, especially for geographically-stable populations.

The page you want is British Isles (terminology). Perebourne 14:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the biggest sticking point in the debate is that we are oversimplifying the situation in most cases. As Perebourne alluded to above, while the U.K. is a sovereign state, it is not a nation. A sovereign state is one with a government that is recognized and accepted by other sovereign states as representing the entire land and population under the jurisdiction of that sovereign state in international relations. That's it. A nation is something very different. A nation represents a group of people with a common culture, language, and geographical ties. In some cases, we have nation-states (like say, France) where the sovereign state and teh nation coincide. Other times, they don't. We have nations without sovereign states (Palestine, the Basque, Quebec); we have sovereign states that bear little in common with any nations (Almost the entire continent of Africa comes to mind; Iraq is another) nations that spill over sovereign state borders (Kurdistan, for example), and multinational soveriegn states (the U.K.) There are numerous situations politically and culturally in the world. To constrain all situations to the simplified "Country-State-County" model is rediculous. Each situation should be adjudged against its own standard and not constrained to an artificial and overly simplified model. Does being a Scot and being a Virginian mean the same thing? Nope. Does being a Scot and being an American mean the same thing. Nope. The relationship between being a Scot to being a Brit is unique to that situation and should not be constrained to a model that may work in other nations. Is Scotland a nation. Yes. Is the U.K. a sovereign state that contains the nation of Scotland. Yes. Why is that hard to understand?--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

To deny that Britain is a nation seems absolutely ludicrous to me. A nation is a distinct cultural community filled with people who self-identify. The vast majority of people in the UK (and a majority in every single one of its Home Nations, when presented with a full range of options) cite themselves as having some British identity. It also has a very distinct culture which spreads across the UK, and arguably into the Irish Republic (which is not a foreign state, by virtue of the Ireland Act). Objectively, you'd have a far easier time arguing that Britain was a distinct nation than Scotland or England, which are almost identical culturally save for a few historical quicks and donning kilts at weddings. I, like damn near everybody else, recognises that multiple identities do exist and therefore both Scottish and English nations can exist alongside a British nation. --Breadandcheese 05:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You are right about the problem of oversimplification -- but it works in ways beyond the original question whether it is correct to call someone "British" or to one of the recognized subgroups in the UK -- which arguably extend beyond "English", "Scots", "Welsh" or "Northern Ireland" not only to "Cornish" but to "Manx" & "Channel Islanders" to even arguably "Yorkshire". IMHO, while providing the nationality of a person assigns her/him to a state (e.g. "British"="U.K."), more importantly this term provides a cultural context for the person. For example, while it would be correct to say Dylan Thomas was a "Welsh poet" (he was born in Wales) or an "English poet" (that is the language he wrote in), each term puts him in a different context. (BTW, there is still a living corpus of Welsh literature, some of it written in English). In short, it is a complex issue, with a many possible points of view -- which suggests how we should approach this problem. (Yes, WP:NPOV) -- llywrch 19:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Use of "British" I'd have thought was more NPOV than using the subdivisions. Readro 14:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Why would you think that? Being Scottish, English or so forth is exclusively an emotional allegiance which, if included in Wikipedia, has to be inferred simply from conduct. If there was a Wikipedia article on me, I may well be labelled as Scottish - however I don't identify as such, and therefore am not. However to state that I was British, even if I did not have a British identity, would be cold, objective fact if I was a British citizen born in the United Kingdom. An example: Gerry Adams if factually British, however Tony Blair is not factually Scottish and doesn't seem to identify himself as such. I'd rather have something correct and explain how it may be inappropriate than to risk inaccuracy and resort to wild supposition. The obvious issue here is that British, despite also being identifying with a cultural nation (like Scottish, English, Welsh...) also has another attribute - it's political status. --Breadandcheese 05:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts. I've recently been swayed away from "completism" in specifying locations, especially in article leads. A typical bio article might begin: Stanton McCandlish (b. January 1, 1901, Someplace, Somestate) is a curmudgeonly American Wikipedian... To add USA after Somestate is just redundant, since the very next clause makes it clear I'm an American, and as pointed out by others above, one can simply click on Somestate to find out where it is. I think an exception would be when the birthplace is not the nationality (many people are born abroad, and failure to fully specify the birth location could be reader-misleading), and another would be cases of ambiguity, such as Punjab, which is the name of a major region in both India and Pakistan. On the Britain matter in particular, the UK is just plain strange in this regard, and we just have to live with it. The UK government itself recognizes England, Scotland and Wales as "countries" within the British "union", but does not afford this level of recognition to Cornwall despite its Wales-like separate ethnicity, culture and (flagging) language. Northern Ireland I don't even want to get into. Scotland and to a lesser extent Wales have strong nationalist movements, and in Scotland's case in particular they maintain their own unique legal system (and have all along), and have semi-recently re-established their own Parliament; they clearly have at least a passable government of their own, even if it must answer on some levels to that of the UK. Taking this stuff too seriously will lead one inexorably down the path of the declaring that the UK, and France, etc., are no longer nations but are simply subdivisions of the European Union/EEC and that modern bio articles should call Europeans "European" instead of "French" or whatever. There are other pitfalls. Many Native Americans belong to tribes that have a curious form of independent nationality, that doesn't really map onto the Wikipedia concepts "nation/country" and "nationality". Some territories are disputed. Some governments and the country names they assert (e.g. Myanmar vs. Burma) are internationally disputed. And so forth and so on. Just go with the flow, and where reasonable defer to the preferences of people who are actually from the region being written about.

Scotland has no more 'it's own government' than a county, state or province anywhere in the world. As for the European issue, I'd actually rather a page stated someone to be a European than a Scotsman: at least with the advent of European citizenship, it would be objectively accurate. However I think that would be far too great a flight of intellectual fancy contrary to common conceptions of nationality - and of course it was specifically stated that European citizenship was derivative to member-state citizenship when it was created. --Breadandcheese 03:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody think there's even the slightest chance that a consensus will be reached on this? It's just that I'm greatly worried not only by the massive inconsistency that this is causing but also by the strong levels of nationalism and "national ownership" (for lack of a better term) that are arising. Here's an example of something I noticed a while ago, long before any of this even occured to me. I stumbled across the Royal Bank of Scotland article and noticed that the headquarters were listed as being in "Edinburgh, Scotland". Having not noticed any other UK addresses in my wiki-travels that ended thusly I edited it to say "Edinburgh, Scotland, UK" which was instantly met with reversion. I found that quite odd as my edit was factually correct so I did some further snooping and noticed that for non-English, UK-related articles it seems to be the norm to place emphasis on the constituent country and virtually ignore mentioning the UK e.g. "Scotish inventor", "Welsh town" etc. So I naturally assumed that for consistency's sake the same would apply to English articles and yet in my experience that hasn't been the case. A good example is the J. K. Rowling article; the heated discussion of her nationality seems to arise every week. There's a concerted effort by editors who, interestingly seem to be largely uninvolved in Wiki Project Harry Potter, to change the existing text from "English author" to "British author" and occasionally even "Scotish author". I've always argued against that on the basis that 1) it's inconsistent with my experience of established practice relating to the rest of the UK and 2) in the case of "Scotish", J. K. was born in England to English parents (but that's another argument). If it comes down to it I suppose I don't really care which way the consensus falls so long as the outcome is applied consistently to all relevant articles but somehow I do feel that going with the constituent country rather than the UK as a whole is more informative and it's certainly how UK-natives refer to things/people/themselves in meatspace. Is there a way to drive things forward with, perhaps, a view to adding the issue to the MOS? Aula^TPN 22:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If you like, we're attempting to discuss a world-(wiki)-wide single disambiguation method for settlement names here. Please join in. THEPROMENADER 10:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how likely a consensus is, but I do think that there should be consistency across Wikipedia with regard to referring to people as British or English/Scottish/Welsh etc. I have no opinion as to what should be used, but I would rather there be consistency. Readro 00:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It's a bit disappointing that this discussion hasn't progressed much. Personally I'd like to see inclusion of both British and then more local identities, but with the first taking priority. Infoboxes could very easily carry British (English) or something similar. Equally for placenames, in a UK context, only county is really required. Speaking globally and in infoboxes etc, I think UK should certainly be shown. It's creating a whole universe of problems not having a consensus on the matter and it basically becomes a battleground for those with political opinions. --Breadandcheese 03:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that on the JK Rowling page the editors are adament that she be referred to as English opposed to British. Now, if I was to change the Tony Blair page to show him as a Scottish Politician it would be reverted to British right away wouldn't it? I think the only solution is to create policy which forces the use of British. Can I just add, the idea of being Scottish or English is romantic fantasy the UK Government does not recognize its citizens as being English or Scottish but British, thus these nationalities don't exist. Gavin Scott 01:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I just had a proper look at my passport. There is a field in there which reads "Nationality: British Citizen". If by law my nationality is defined as British then that is what Wikipedia should use for all Brits. Readro 01:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to say, whatever your feelings, you are what your passport says you are. Afaik, there is no such thing as a Scottish or Welsh Passport atm. pschemp | talk 03:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the legal status of these peoples' nationalities has sealed the argument, we must push for consensus.Gavin Scott 08:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. As I've said before, it is completely fine to note that someone is English-born, lives in England, and any other verifiable fact; but as far as nationality goes, I think it must follow their citizenship(s), as on their passport. TSP 09:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree but if the decision is going to fall that way then there's got to be some kind of official gulideline or policy to backup the correcting edits to non-English, UK articles which will almost certainly be instantly reverted. Aula^TPN 12:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree. Readro 12:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Can a GFDL version of a logo exist?

I've noticed that several university articles use images of the respective coats of arms that have been drawn up by Wikipedians from the original blazons and have been uploaded as GFDL content. Various possible examples can be found here, here, but I'll just examine Image:Cambridge University Crest - flat.png here as a test case. This coat of arms will almost certainly be a trademark of the University of Cambridge; so how is it possible to redraw a copy of the arms, modelled as closely as possible on the original design described within the blazon, and release the image under the GFDL? --Kwekubo 16:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• I can't really answer your question, but I noticed something similar recently. Consider Image:Blue horseshoe.svg - okay, just a generic object from the real world, right? Notice the similarity to Image:IndianapolisColts 1001.png though, and consider the generic free image is used on various Colts templates, so the intent is obvious... I wonder about the real legality there. Not that the NFL would really ever act even if we were using the copyrighted logo but that's not what image copyright policy is about. --W.marsh 16:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If the blazon is in the public domain (typically by virtue of being very old), then yes one can create a GFDL version of the coat of arms. However, copyright and trademark law operate independently, so that if you use that logo in a way that is likely to create confusion between yourself and the true trademark holder then you would have infringed upon their trademark rights even though the coat of arms is GFDL. I feel the Colts example is probably similar, as I doubt "blue horseshoe" in general is a sustainable copyright, but "blue horseshoe used represent an athletic team" is certainly a sustainable trademark. In general we do not do a good job of identifying materials that may be subject to trademark law. Dragons flight 17:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That Colts logo is without a doubt a copyright violation, and its use in tons of Userboxen to indicate Colts fans is troubling. Corvus cornix 22:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually it's the blue horseshoe (full disclosure: I uploaded it) that's being used in the userbox. As Dragons flight as said, this is a trademark issue, not a copyright one. howcheng {chat} 23:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • But to make it more confusing, that does not mean that this particular work cannot be licensed. When you get down to the basics, the "design" is copyrighted, but so is this specific expression of the design. That expression may not be enough of a derivative to be a useful copyright to have, because the derivative image is too much subject to the original copyright, but that does not mean is does not exist and that the maker cannot license it. It just means that the original copyright is so much "stronger", so much so that there is little point in expressing/using those rights. Because for others (we wikipedians) the rights on the "original work" are too restrictive and more important. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, such logos would likely violate copyright law. It is not uncommon to be unable to license a derivative work. >Radiant< 12:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Even where the work that the new work is derivative of is several hundred years old? It seems to me clear that the arms of the University of Cambridge (granted 1573) are no longer in copyright; the only question seems to be whether displaying them violates any trademark law. TSP 13:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • That's an interesting question. I believe that coats of arms are protected under a similar law that allows only the owner to use them. But IANAL. Perhaps an inquiry on WP:CP might help? >Radiant< 10:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• As I understand, in the case of 'proper' British coats-of-arms it's that much more complicated, as the 'owner' of the coat-of-arms doesn't own the copyright and isn't the creator. They do, however, have control of usage basically comparable to that in trademark law. The college of heralds might have some clear information. SamBC 13:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • But does any of that law apply in the US, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted? Certainly a lot of the other copyright law we operate under doesn't apply in the UK (e.g. the Corel v. Bridgeman principle) but we don't feel limited by that even when hosting UK-originated works. TSP 22:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• You'd need some serious intellectual property law advice to answer this question (and its many latent subquestions) with any authority. Trademark law and copyright law are essentially unrelated, but they cross over each other in some ways when it comes to things like logos. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Along these lines, it would be nice if the Foundation and its lawyers could get together and come up with a "this is our interpretation of the relevant law" statement for several of these IP questions. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 09:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Manual of style: capitalization of institution names

Should congress be capitalized in the uses below and why?

Clinton ran for Congress. Congress meets in Washington. The term "Congress" may also refer to a particular meeting of Congress; that is, a "Congress" covers two years.

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Institutions, all these should be lower case, just like "The university offers financial aid.". But almost all such uses of congress and similar words are capitalized in Wikipedia articles. -Pgan002 04:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

"Congress" taken alone refers to a single, specific institution, so it acts as a proper noun. It ought to be capitalized. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The first instance is very similar to "Clinton ran for office", where "office" should not be capitalized, surely. So does "Congress" really there refer to a specific institution? The third and fifth instances refer to any meeting of the institution, as in "a congress...". Surely that should not be capitalized? As for the second instance, does it make any difference if it read "The congress meets in Washington."? -Pgan002 07:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It does refer to a specific institution - when we say "Clinton ran for Congress", that is simply shorthand for "Clinton ran for office in Congress" - a sentence where office should be small, you're correct, but where Congress must be capitalized. We don't actually say "office in" because it's obvious/assumed - a multitude of such shortcuts are taken in English, but the assumed part is still a part of the structure of the grammar. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 07:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What about when congress refers to a meeting, as in "a Congress covers two years"? Pgan002 08:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the specific case. If the word "congress" is referring to a specific institution (as in "Bill Clinton ran for Congress", where it refers to the United States Congress) it should be capitalized. If it refers to the general concept ("the institution has developed recommendations for how a congress should be set up and run"), it should be lowercased. The same would apply to other similar concepts—"member of Parliament", where the term refers to a specific country's parliament, would be capitalized, but "the plans for the new government include establishment of a parliament" would be lowercase. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

So in the sentence "The term Congress may also refer to a particular sitting of the US Congress; that is, a Congress covers two years.", do the first and third instances of congress refer to a specific institution or not? -Pgan002 22:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't, because "congress" is not being used as a proper noun. To reiterate what has been said, capitalize congress if it refers to a specific organization, don't capitalize it if it is being used as a regular noun. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's fairly simple isn't it? If "Congress" is short for "United States Congress" or a session thereof, then capitalize. Likewise any other legislatures. If it refers to meeting of academics etc, then don't except when giving the full name as a proper name. Johnbod 19:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems simple, but your reply contradicts the one above. Is a sitting or session of the US Congress that lasts 2 years an institution in its own right that should be referred to by a proper name ("Congress")? I wonder if this rule holds: if it can be preceded by the indefinite particle "a", then it should not be capitalized. -Pgan002 00:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Here, click this link. A practical application for your understanding. A "Congress", a two-year session of the Congress, is also a proper noun. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's the same proper noun - it's still short for "United States Congress" whether it sits for two years or five minutes. Johnbod 03:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for the help. I sense annoyance in your answer, and I assure you I did not mean to annoy. I suppose I could have found that link on my own once I had realized what the answer hinged on. But I think the answer is far from obvious, and since the replies sounded so confident, I tried to clarify them first. -Pgan002 17:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn't intend to express annoyance. But regardless, that link should solve your troubles, at least from an official use standpoint. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait until you ask if Congress is singular or plural. Dan Beale 21:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

PageRank and Wikipedia's Nofollow

I was just reading about Wikipedia's nofollow policy on a blog. I find it irresponsible of Wikipedia to graciously accept so much incoming page rank from the web, but to return none. In short, it's like Wikipedia is saying, "don't trust our links, Google." Why is this still being used? Is there still an open forum to discuss this policy? Thanks -18:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It discourages link spam and Google representatives have said they actually prefer this approach. Dragons flight 18:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a huge fight about it and more than one change to the setting in the face of a lack of consensus. I personally strongly oppose the use of nofollow, since it takes away volumes of valuable backlink information that could be gleaned from our huge human investment in selecting authoritative links. I favored compromise solutions where new links may be marked nofollow for a while. But this is the end result and not much I can do but fork, which I won't. Dcoetzee 09:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like to implement (or describe in sufficient detail to allow straightforward implementation) a reasonable technical solution for marking new links nofollow for a while — preferably in such a way that it cannot be trivially circumvented, does not require excessive bureucracy nor more editor vigilance than is currently in evidence, and won't put an unreasonable burder on the database servers — I think a lot of people would be more than willing to consider it. I'm not just saying this facetiously; I'd really like to see such a solution. (Then again, I'd really like to see stable versions up and running too. In fact, having a good implementation of stable versions might go a long way towards keeping our external links spam-free. At the moment, I think, both are stalling for similar reasons.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

How about: take the externallinks table that's currently used for Special:Linksearch and add a column to it which stores the date the link was added. Every time a page is saved, as part of the normal routine of adding/removing links from that table, the date field is set to the current date for all of the links that are added. When a page is purged, the table can be queried again and for all the links that are more than n days old (this number can be set in a configuration file), nofollow is removed, whilst nofollow is added for all the other links. One problem with this solution, however, is that if a link is removed and re-added to a page, its age will 'reset' and this could perhaps be exploited by spammers. This also increases the number of database queries when purging a page which may or may not have a significant impact on performance. Tra (Talk) 19:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning

I beleive that a Spoiler Warning should be manditory for all plot summaries that give away all or most important details. For those many who have never been on Wikipedia and think that a plot summary is just an overview like on the back or front of a book. It takes like only 5 seconds to add. It is kind to all. Rembrant12 22:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SW. — Bob • (talk) • 04:12, July 24, 2007 (UTC)

After a lot of recent discussion, the general consensus is that plot summary sections should not carry a generic warning template, since the section title makes it clear there are pot details. See the link above (the talk page) for links to the discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the template was initially listed for deletion, and that triggered an intense discussion about spoiler warnings, which resulted in them being no longer required in articles on movies, tv episodes and the like.--Kylohk 05:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

But it does not make that clear everywhere. No offence but you are doing something that many people do. You beleive that if you know something that seems obvious to you, it is obvious to everyone. IT IS NOT! It is not clear in saying "Plot Summary" it gives awway details. I myself first believed it was an overview with no important details put up. And I am not saying put up a template but just "SPOILER WARNING, gives away important information" will make it clear to everyone that it gives away details. Rembrant12 23:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

By going on Wikipedia and trying to find plot details, any sensible person would expect that there will be spoilers on the book. It's simple intuition. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

When 70-80% of all sections titled plot summery, or some variation of, had a spoiler warning of some sort, mostly because it was titled as a plot summery or some variation of, it just proved that it was a pointless warning. --Farix (Talk) 23:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

As I have said, you are still being short minded. IT IS NOT OBVIOUS!!!!! It is not a pointless warning! Many people including myself thought it to be an overview with no details given away. You must specify these things! Rembrant12 19:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, to NOT give the plot away would be a serious lapse. The subject of the article has to be discussed in detail in a fair and balanced manner as with all encyclopaedia's. The fact that it includes a large number of popular history, literary and televisual articles should really not impact on it being a store of factual information. Would readers of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica expect to be warned that a page they are about to read may give away the plot of book? Not likely, they would expect the article to examine the whole plot in depth and give information on it's creation, real-life equivalents, social impact and literary impact. Why should Wikipedia be different? - Foxhill 19:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Encyclopedia entries most of the time have no legitimate reason to give the whole plot away. Encyclopedias typically don;t go into that level of detail on fiction works, and shouldn't. If someone does it either should be removed or should be tagged to warn people. One or the other. DreamGuy 09:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Why shouldn't they go into that much detail? Choosing some B-class articles of books that I particularly like; Nineteen Eighty-Four contains all of the above, as does The Lord of the Rings. The LOTR's component books all contain extensive plot details even down to chapter summaries as at The Two Towers, something used also in Brave New World. The article on Fahrenheit 451 provides the plot (including the ending) as well as exploring the themes and cultural impact of the book, and yet none of these seem to require spoiler warnings. Foxhill 10:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Allright. You are being short-minded still so I will give you insight on a mind like mine. I did not first beleive Wikipedia to be and encyclopedia. I believed it to be a website with good and yet totally horrible information. Not many people are genius's like you believe yourself to be or are. You must delve into the mind of others to actually help and be kind to them. You refuse to look into the subject and put it in lamen terms. You must learn that to keep people happy and coming to Wikipedia you must be kind to those and understand those less intillegnt that you. You must learn that to must people plot summary is an overview and till you know this, as I have been trying to explain, Wikipedia will never, I repeat NEVER cease to make people disappointed and angry. Rembrant12 19:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[deleting myself -- wrong page, sorry] Claudia 19:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's job to "keep people happy". If it was, we would have deleted all images of Mohammed long ago and we wouldn't we have this content disclaimer. --Farix (Talk) 19:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That is true but, we need to try to be kind to people so they come back. 10 seconds of time and it makes all the difference. Rembrant12 19:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree wi/ all. Razorclaw (talk · contribs) 21:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is the place to discuss this. — The Storm Surfer 14:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• As has been said before, Warning: Wikipedia may contain information. If you do not wish to learn about stuff, might I suggest you not use the internet. >Radiant< 11:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Untranslated foreign language on article talk page

I just came across Talk:Termite, which has an enormous amount of untranslated text in some language written with the Arabic alphabet. Is it appropriate to delete this text, since the large majority of the talk page's users (including me) can't possibly benefit from the text? Nyttend 14:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that the text was added by an IP editor as their only edit [1]], I would say remove it. If it was added by someone with a longer record, I would think asking them about it first would be a better choice. 14:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree, but you can do a show/hide thingy if you want, with a note to say what it is. Johnbod 12:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You could ask someone to translate it for you. — The Storm Surfer 10:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's a foreign language it serves absolutely no purpose per the principles of what the talk page on an English Wikipedia is for and can be removed without notice. DreamGuy 09:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that is true here, but for articles on many types of non-English subjects short quotes in foreign languages may be valid and important, and it is certainly wrong to say they can all be removed at whim. Would you approve of the removal of all Greek/Hebrew quotes on Biblical talk pages for example? Johnbod 19:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You can always remove it to the talk page too. pschemp | talk 13:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

IP editors should be blocked…

I would like to propose a new guideline:

IP editors should be blocked for 2 weeks each time 10 different users suggest that they create an account, a user may suggest account creation any number of times as long as they suggest once per "10 suggest cycle." An IP editor must have 1 month to try out Wikipedia before being blocked for this reason, after the IP editor's block has expired the editor must have an additional 2 weeks to continue to try out Wikipedia before they can be blocked again for this reason. When an IP editor has not made any contributions for 1 month and then makes another contribution an editor with blocking powers cannot block the editor again for this reason for 1 month then 2 weeks each "10 suggest cycle" again.

What do you think?  Tcrow777  talk  06:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No. It's a foundation issue. We can't change it. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This would be a guideline, the IP editors would still be able to try out Wikipedia before registering.  Tcrow777  talk  06:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No, there's no "try-out". "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is a founding principle. Your idea seeks to change that. That's not happening, plain and simple. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think of "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" differently, if this becomes a guideline then anyone can still edit, even IP editors, after an IP editor trys out Wikipedia, they can create an account, anyone could still edit Wikipedia, anyone can create an account.  Tcrow777  talk  07:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If you take The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit at face value, it's against policy to block anyone ever. — The Storm Surfer 07:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What this suggests is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit until enough people bitch at them to register". Sorry for being frank, but that's what it's saying. This isn't a difficult concept to understand. IP users get to edit same as you or me. So long as they follow the rules, there is nothing harmful about them editing anomalously. If they break the rules, they get blocked. Plus, your guideline would be woefully ineffective against dynamic IPs, and would hamper a number of decent IP editors. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is a founding principle. Your idea seeks to change that. No it doesn't, because anyone can get a UID and use that for editing. But this in turn shows how this proposal would anyway be ineffectual (unless implemented in conjunction with lots of other changes): Dimwits, nitwits, fools, pseudoscience-pushers, advertisers, vandals etc who now edit as IPs would instead just get one new UID after another and edit via those UIDs. Incidentally, for a person who wants to reform WP for the better, Tcrow777 has an extraordinarily bulky signature. -- Hoary 07:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I can say that I am tired of the "Do you want me to register? Sorry, not interested. A string of numbers is all I need:}" attitude that many IP editors have, this guideline will not efect dynamic IPs (we have ways of telling the difference).  Tcrow777  talk  07:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

For someone with so few article edits, why does it concern you so much that some IP have a name? IP editing hurts no one, and as Hoery points out it wouldn't stop people from making throwaway accounts over and over. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

My artlcle edit count is irrelevant. Tcrow777 (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So is your signature, but it's still annoying and something brought up. Also, you didn't answer the rest of my question. Is your only reason for proposing this guideline annoyance? Is there any merit to this proposal beside your annoyance? There's nothing wrong with IPs editing, and in fact it makes policing the bag eggs among them all the more simple. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Goodnight! Tcrow777 (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"...luverlee, "IP's Should Be Banned!", that, the Norwegien Blue!"(With apologies to Monty & Friends) LessHeard vanU 12:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do IP editors refuse to get an account so many times when it is suggested? Oh, by the way, I changed my sig, even when there was nothing wrong with it. Tcrow777 (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, no, there was nothing wrong with your sig - and it was a pointless arguement to refer to it. There is nothing in the rules, policies and guidelines that meant you should have needed to alter it... as there is nothing in said rules, policies or guidelines that say you must register to edit Wikipedia. I suggest you revert your sig to the way you had it, and you grit your teeth and allow the contributions of ip's. LessHeard vanU 20:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I like IP editors and think they have the right to contribute to Wikipedia, but when a really good IP editor gets many suggestions to register and they turn them all down, I think that is just wrong.  Tcrow777  talk  22:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

And they should be banned because you think it's wrong? — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the point of this guideline. What's to be gained? -Chunky Rice 22:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Those stubborn IP editors get an account. They will not be banned, they will just get a 2 week block.  Tcrow777  talk  22:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What's it to you if they don't register? Is it harming you in some way? If not, Wikipedia doesn't cater to your annoyances. Maybe they don't want to register. It's not up to us to force it on them. Regardless, this has about as much chance of happening as your "ban bad language" proposal a while back. You should turn your attention to other, more helpful pursuits, rather than harping on an issue you can't change. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

IP editors who refuse to register are harmful to Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales said himself in response to a complaint by an IP editor:

"Sorry, but anon ip numbers do not have the same civil rights as logged in members of the community. If you want to be a good editor, get an account, make good edits. I really don't care about your complaint as currently stated." -- Jimbo Wales

 Tcrow777  talk  23:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Really? I don't see the word harmful. I don't even see the implication. I see a lack of importance, which is not the same as harmful. I suggest you not misinterpret selective quotes to suit your needs. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, this is the source of Tcrow's complaints: User talk:24.20.69.240. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Prove it! Why are you against IP editors registering?  Tcrow777  talk  23:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No one is against it. However, no one should be required to make an account in order to edit. If someone does not wish to register, then so be it. Does it really matter in the end? No - they make their edits irregardless of what name they are under. Drop it. This topic is a beaten bush. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it is you either want them to register, or you are against them registering.  Tcrow777  talk  23:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hit a nerve, did I? One, you quote the first line on that talk page: "Sorry, not interested. A string of numbers is all I need:}". Two, you act like a troll and remove his userboxes under a flimsy pretext. As for your other question, again you have a way of misinterpreting words. I did not say I'm against it. I said it's their choice. If they do not want to register, we have no right to force it upon them, not when their ability to edit is a fundamental part of Wikipedia. Now, I ask you once more, what do you have against them editing anonymously, aside from simply finding their refusal to register annoying? — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm clarifying that no one here is against someone getting an account, which you accused Someguy0830 of above. I am against a proposal that requires people to register, as it is ultimately futile. What is the point of requiring them to register? If someone is going to vandalize, they will vandalize whether it is with or without an account. Someone is not going to become a better editor merely by getting an account either. What is the reasoning behind your proposal? Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I will never be able to get you to understand my point of view, so I give up!  Tcrow777  talk  00:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Not only am I against any sort of forced or required registration but the above "formula" is needlessly complicated and would be hard to practically enforce. Any block would require an admin to count the number of requests since the last block, see how long they have been editing since being blocked, and then check their own block log to make sure they have not blocked that IP in the last month. It also seems sort of rude, blocking people who are making constructive contributions but not registering. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I have edited since the start of 2007 but only created an account recently - Pheonix15 14:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#LINK

• Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#WP:NOT#LINK - Many users at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion are advancing this section of policy as grounds for deleting lists. This seems to be a case of WP:Point to me, and is not something the guideline at all intends. Well over 90% of lists would face deletion given this interpretation.

Ah, the old "Deletionists vs. Inclusionists" debate... some would argue that well over 90% of lists should face deletion. This is an difference of opinion that is not going to be resolved anytime soon. As a general comment, I have noticed that those lists that are focused on a clearly stated reason for existance, include citations and brief exposition on each item, or a clear structure (for example: listing their items in chronological order) tend to survive attacks by the "deletionists", while those that are nothing more than a list of links to other articles tend not to survive. Blueboar 17:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as a list satisfies the criteria at WP:LIST, it should be fine. If it doesn't, then... Well, WP:NOT#LINK is there for a reason. -Chunky Rice 22:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell you the amount of lists that follow the guidelines set up by WP:LIST that come up for deletion all the time. The arguments? They range from WP:Listcruft (an essay), the list will never be complete (wtf?), WP:NOT#LINK (which says except lists!), on and on. I'm just tired of neanderthals that are told over and over what policy and guidelines state yet continuously nominate lists that follow all criteria with one of these bogus ass rationales above. It gets old, and the same "pack of deletionists" have been using them forever. Hell, some just say, delete per WP:NOT. Nothing more, just per WP:NOT. Lmao. And that counts as a vote. It kills me. If someone can't take the time to explain their vote, it should not count. (Mind meal 10:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

I vote with the deletionists on this one as WP:Categorization is a lot more useful method of sorting related articles together. Take for example the random List of accounting topics, which are covered under Category:Accountancy or Category:Accounting stubs. However, I could support the inclusionists on this, if a delete proposal is not backed up with a check to ensure that a useful category exists to take its place, then this may be grounds to disallow the AfD. --Gavin Collins 16:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed Proposal

It seems to gain a concensus of support (see talk page) since the creation of the proposal, but it hasn't been updated in over 3 weeks. I decided to revive this proposal in the village pump for people to give lasting comments/objection. Can anybody give some lasting comments in the proposal's talk page so we can decide whether it should be a policy or not?--PrestonH 16:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a great proposal. All this proposal will do is require new registered users to make a minimum amount of edits (ideally around 30) IN ADDITION to the required 4 day waiting period prior to being able to edit semi-protected articles. See Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed Proposal for a long discussion and Q/A from me and other editors addressing objections and gathering a consensus of support. There aren't any flaws in this proposal as far as I can see and it would greatly improve the protection of semi-protected articles on Wikipedia. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability

The single most poisonous rule on the entire site that allows for mob rule on what a plurality cares about. If someone cares enough to write about it, and it's verifiable, it should have a space. This is the bloody 21st century Library of Alexandria, we shouldn't turn anything away. This article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-notability/Essay says it all. Thanos6 01:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should. Any random person might care to write about themselves, and their existence, at least, is verifiable from the government. So we get millions of articles saying "Bob is a guy" (or even worse, they accumulate bad things, because we can't monitor that much). -Amarkov moo! 01:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This has been addressed in Uncle G's essay, User:Uncle G/On notability. At any rate, for the most part, meeting the concepts in Uncle G's essay guarantees someone or something an article or merger somewhere nowadays, unless it's a WP:BLP then who knows. I'm not really sure what this thread hopes to accomplish though... we've had many, many debates on this subject. --W.marsh 02:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

And I'll keep debating it until it changes, the site dies, or I do. Thanos6 05:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Then debate it, please. The alternative to notability is having a bunch of articles verified solely from random official records, which means the aforementioned millions of "Bob is a guy" articles. Why is this good? -Amarkov moo! 05:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it's information. If it's true, if it exists, there is no such thing as bad information. Our goal should be nothing less than the sum total of all human knowledge. Thanos6 06:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but the collection of all human knowledge is not the job of an encyclopedia, it's the job of a database or databank of some sort. The American Heritage Dictionary starts its definition of encyclopedia with "A comprehensive reference work" - I'd suggest that you're focusing too much on the comprehensive part and are forgetting the reference part. You can, of course, argue the degree of notability required for a certain type of article - I think certain restrictions in WP:BIO could be loosened, for instance - but you're never going to be able to convince people that the notability restrictions should be eliminated completely, because many of the resultant articles would be irrelevant to the purpose of an encyclopedia. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 07:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how All Human Knowledge (AHK) would compromise this site's purpose as a reference work. You look up, say, a restaurant (whether world-famous or known just in its hometown) and from there go on to a list of similar restaurants or a list of restaurants in that town or neighborhood. And each of those in turn branches off to dozens if not hundreds of other articles, much as paper encyclopedias will direct you to other related articles. Will all the "Bob is a guy" articles be like this? No, not at first, but like all articles on this site, they could and would be improved. Thanos6 07:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There would be millions of these "Bob is a guy" articles. There is no possible way you could possibly improve all of them. Those numbers would increase exponentially due to vandals creating articles for malicious purpoess. Wikipedia would become absolutely unmanageable. In any case, all of those articles would violate WP:NOT#INFO and simply be irrelevant to the casual viewer in every way possible. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Not forgetting, of course, that Bob(bie) may be a gal... The lynchpin is not what you know should go in an encyclopedia but the potential need for it to be searched by someone who doesn't. Bobby/ie doesn't meet that need. LessHeard vanU 09:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

For me, the line is drawn by the question: what is the likelihood that someone (unconnected to "Bob") will need to look up information about "Bob"? If we think that this is likely, then we should have an article on "Bob"... if we think it is not likely, then we should not have an article. Blueboar 15:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Also keep in mind that to verify information about "Bob" or "Bobbie" you would have to use public records, data bases, etc. Doesn't that constitute "original research" from "primary sources"--something we are not supposed to do? So we would have to change the guidelines not only for notability, but also for verifiability. --Eriastrum 17:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If it needs be changed, then let it change. Don't keep a useless rule around simply because it's been around. *sighs* It bitterly amuses me that one of the principles of this place is alledgedly be bold but then everyone clings to the poisonous Notability rule like a piece of driftwood in the open sea as an excuse NOT to be bold and go beyond what any reference work or database in history has been. Thanos6 17:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone stopping you from starting a "wiki of all existing knowledge"? No. If the Wikipedia suddenly changed to allowing all possible bits of knowledge, would the Wikipedia collapse upon itself with a huge amount of unverifiable tripe? Yes. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The answer to this is the long-standing policy that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Or, to put it another way, just because something happens to be true doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. We have standards, after all. My goldfish does not meet them. >Radiant< 11:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

World Settlements - the drive for a Wiki-Wide naming convention

Hello. A few of us have become concerned with the present trend for naming Wiki "settlement" articles: each country seems to impose its own method of disambiguation (and local geography for the same), and this tends to make Wiki look chaotic as a whole - especially to readers researching a subject that covers several countries unfamiliar to them.

Would it be possible to make a single Wiki-wide naming convention for all placenames? A few of us are looking into the question here. Please join in! THEPROMENADER 10:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright of certain works of modern art

I've noticed that a number of images depicting works of modern art are tagged as copyrighted and included in WP under fair use, despite the fact that the artists have died more than 70 years ago. Shouldn't these images be considered as being in the Public Domain? I've seen this pattern in quite a few images and have inquired in the relevant Image talk pages, however (a) I want to know if my reasoning is correct and (b) if it is correct, it would be interesting to find out weather this is a generalized pattern with more such images of works of art whose creators died more than 70 years ago and have been inappropriately tagged as copyrighted.

The images I've spotted so far are these:

• Image:'PIÉTA', drypoint by Lovis Corinth, 1920.jpg, creator Lovis Corinth died in 1925
• Image:Deer in the Woods II.jpg, crator Franz Marc died in 1916
• Image:The Fate of the Animals.jpg, as above
• Image:Fighting Forms.jpg, as above
• Image:Franz Marc The Lamb.jpg, as above
• Image:'Standing Youth', cast stone sculpture by Wilhelm Lehmbruck, 1913, Museum of Modern Art (New York City).jpg, creator Wilhelm Lehmbruck died in 1919

--Michalis Famelis (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If they died over 70 years ago then they are public domain. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that a photograph of a sculpture such as "Standing Youth" above will have its own copyright separatefrom the sculpture. Dsmdgold 12:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

So, the 70 year limit is correct? Is it safe to re-tag at least the above images? Oh, and is there any other place on WP I could inquire about this? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That is my understanding. In my opinion the apropriate tag would be {{pd-art}} for everything except the picture of the Lembruck sculpture. Dsmdgold 02:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Image/media hotlinking

When a non-Wikimedia site places an image from Wikipedia or the Commons directly on one of their pages, users likely won't know that it comes from Wikipedia or the Commons or who originally created the image. They might think it was created by the site's own staff or comes from a commercial stock-image collection. Although I don't think we should ban hotlinking, given the headaches it would create for webmasters with limited disk space, I think it would be a good idea to at least add the image-description-page URL to the metadata, where possible. It also means bandwidth gets used up without bringing in any name recognition or visibility for the Edit This Page links. There are thus four options:

• Do nothing.
• Add a metadata watermark.
• Add a visible/audible watermark.
• Ban hotlinking. A file cannot be downloaded with a non-Wikimedia referrer.

Which option do you all like best? NeonMerlin 18:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't think this is a Wikipedia issue, but rather a foundation issue. — The Storm Surfer 19:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Shouldn't we have, you know, a discussion first, before we jump to straw polls? how should we expect people to make informed choices without seeing some people flesh out a genuine discussion. --Ybbor^Talk 19:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Yep, what Ybbor said. Plus, the community cannot meaningfully decide on this, as it requires a software upgrade. I suggest that you bring up your issue with the devs, at WP:BUG. >Radiant< 11:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

protection & welcoming of young teen and child editors

Today in following a talk page link, I found myself at an editor's user page and saw that he stated he is 15 years old, that he had posted his full name, and that he has email enabled on his account. I left him a welcome message and asked him to remove his last name from his page and advised him to keep his personal information private.

This got me thinking about how many editors there must be who are children or young teens, and how Wikipedia policy and practice addresses that concern.

Does anyone know if Wikipedia has statistics on how many children or young teens are actively editing?

I did some searching and found this essay: Wikipedia:Youth protection. It is not a policy or a guideline, though it does contain some important information.

I was not able to find anything else about this. Does anyone know of a current policy or guideline on this topic? If so, please provide the link.

If there is not such a guideline, there should be. We need it both for adult editors-in-general to know the parameters of interacting with self-identified child editors, and we also should have a special welcome template that is written for child editors - or maybe two versions - one for children and one for young teens.

For example, it doesn't help to have a guideline that experienced Wikipedia adult editors know about if the children editors are not aware of it and themselves make the mistake of posting their photograph or personal information on their user pages. If we had a welcome template for young editors, and we made sure that editors in general are aware of it - for example by adding a link to it in the basic welcome templates - then when an editor goes to post on a user's talk page, if they see that the user is a self-identified child editor, they could add the template, which would explain to the child that they should protect their own identity, not use their real name, not post their birthday or school name, photo, etc.

We might consider a procedure or guideline to allow editors, or administrators, within guidlines, to remove personally identifiable information from user pages of children.

In addition to the details listed in the Wikipedia:Youth protection essay, we should also consider what happens when a child encounters the various kinds of Wikipedia editor personalities or challenges on talk pages, etc, and how the child or young teen communicates themselves. For example, most of us have encountered disruptive or tendentious editors, and sometimes their comments can be quite insulting or even downright mean. How would a child experience comments like that directed at them? Maybe the child editor welcome template should include some advice on how to not take that personally, or what to do if someone is mean to them.

The child-editor welcome template could also include instructions for a child about what to do if someone tries to email them from their user page, or if someone posts inappropriate content on their page. We do have the Wikipedia:Youth protection essay for adults to read, but that doesn't help the child know what to do if someone contacts them inappropriately.

As it is now, do we even have a place for a child to report a problem? WP:AN could be, but it's pretty complicated for someone young and inexperienced. Maybe a simpler page would be better for this. It would probably not be very active, but if something appeared there, it could be important.

I'm not sure about where to draw the lines on this, so I am posting the concern here to generate some discussion.

Maybe this is a non-issue because we don't have many child-editors, or maybe this has already been worked out, so if it has, please let me know.

But if not, let's discuss it and come up with some guidelines. --Parzival418 _Hello 22:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all I will say "Wikipedia is not censored", just to get it out of the way, and secondly it is the parents responsibility to ensure that a child/young teen does not interact on inappropriate websites (and it should be the parents decision whether Wikipedia is appropriate.)

Now that I have got those out of the way, I think the best area to place information to assist younger contributors would be a dedicated help page in the help section. It should contain useful info such as not giving out your real name (first names either) or personal details, and how to deal with rude adults, and the fact that they may be exposed to content that may upset them (or their parents if they found out), and to get further help dealing with the issues. With the best will in the world I don't think we should even encourage young people to edit, but have some place where they can find out how best to contribute if they insist on doing so. In no way should we compromise the ethics of wikipedia, but the community has to recognise its responsibility toward the younger members. LessHeard vanU 22:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right to raise this issue. I agree with LessHeard vanU as well. To be honest, as I'm not a parent, I have never thought about this issue in relation to WP before; that might well be the case for a lot of editors. From the talk page of that essay, I saw Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy, so there have clearly been some attempts to raise this issue more than once. I'm sure not why it wasn't sufficiently well received to progress further, but if it can do so now, I think it would be a very good thing. Ethics and the safety of minors are very important indeed (stating the obvious there, really) and being free of censorship need not get in the way of that at all. Adrian M. H. 23:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There was an ArbCom ruling related to this but it was rejected - but the community was encouraged to find a (alternative?) way to protect minors - or worded to that effect. Perhaps a page, such as Wikipedia:Information for minors, could be linked to the registration page or something. x42bn6 Talk Mess 09:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea - that would be a place where everyone registering an account would see it. We could combine that idea with LessHeard vanU's idea of a dedicated page in the help area, perhaps by adding the information in the help area, but putting the link to that page in the registration page. It seems to me we need three pages, and a policy or guideline consensus (I don't know how that process works). The pages I think we need are:

(1) policy or guideline page, similar to Wikipedia:Youth protection, but improved to the point of being an official page, and also including information for parents.

(2) child-friendly help page, linked from the registration page, written for minors, to introduce them to Wikipedia and give them the basics they need, like - don't post your photo, don't use your real name, where to report problems, etc... That page could also include a section for parents to read.

(3) help page for adults, added to the various informal welcome templates, with information about what to do if they run across a child-editor in a problem situation, such as - personal info on their user page, or being harrassed by rude editors, or perhaps a young editor violating policy unintentionally, but just because they are not likely to have read and/or understood the rules.

I'm not saying we should be going way out of our way to make Wikipedia a place for minors, but we do have young editors already, so there is a need for our system to manage their involvement in a way that's safe, friendly and effective.

A few questions -

• I'm not a parent either (someone else above also mentioned they are not) - It would be good to request help with this from editors who have experience with kids, perhaps editors on education articles or articles about parenting, who may be teachers or parents with direct experience. Does anyone have any ideas about the best place to post that request?
• If the pages listed above get some consensus and I or someone else creates the pages, what kind of process would we need to go through to get the link added to the registration page, or to get the pages accepted as formal guidelines? I can do some work on this, but I can't do it all myself, and I need to know how big a project it could become.
• Do you think this is the right place to continue this discussion, or is there a better forum for this? I'd like to invite editors from education or parenting and need a place to link the invitation to. Maybe some of the welcoming committee editors would be interested in this as well. Thanks for the responses on this so far. --Parzival418 _Hello 19:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speaking as an editor considered a "young teen" by your definition, I don't want to be "protected and welcomed". I want to be treated like anyone else. -Amarkov moo! 19:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I hear you. But please consider that you are probably tougher and smarter than many other young teens or even younger kids. The reason I posted this whole section is that I saw an example of a problem with a young editor who did not understand why he was being warned about being blocked, by an adult who was rude to him - The kid was upset that a page he had worked hard on was being changed, and he didn't seem to understand why that was happening. You are clearly tough and smart enough to handle that kind of thing, but some kids are younger or less tough and might need some help or advice.

I am not suggesting that there would be different rules for kids (other than not posting their photos or personal identifying information), I am only suggesting that we have a page or two for kids to read - if they need it. If you don't need that, you could just skip it. Also, if a young editor does not identify themselves as being a kid or young teen, then none of this applies, because no-one would know. This only applies to users who identify themselves as kids or young teens. As soon as they do that, we need to consider their safety and try to prevent any real-life problems that could result from their posting their information here. (By young teens, I mean minors legally, but especially younger teens). Google for example indexes Wikipedia, so if a kid posts private personal information here, it can be found by anyone using Google. --Parzival418 _Hello 20:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm creating Wikipedia:Young Users. Can you help make it longer? (P.S. Can someone make the help page too?) ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 17:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting that started, good idea. I can't work on it at this moment, but I will help with it as soon as I can. --Parzival418 _Hello 18:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion continued at: Wikipedia talk:Young Users

Interested editors, please visit with your comments at Wikipedia talk:Young Users. If anyone knows editors who are parents or educators, please invite them as well. Thank you. --Parzival418 _Hello 20:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Smile

I recently got this template on my talk page, making me think I had an important new message (which I did get one of soon after). User:Connell66, and possibly other users, is spreading this template to other users' talk pages, seemingly chosen at random, for the purpose of "WikiLove". Is this a good idea? --NE2 02:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with that, but when I saw the new messages bar I thought someone had seen my bot playing up and my commenting on it. However that template was nominated for deletion due to users spamming other users talk pages with it. --Chris ^g 04:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a great break for users like me doing a lot of repetitive work. I personally love them :) Anyone who doesn't like it should put a notice or something on their page, maybe we need a Template:Nosmilesplease. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 06:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

He's probably inspired by User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward, wich is an "award" given to people completely at random, complete with a disclaimer saying that smiling on a bad editor should not be taken as an endorcement of said user... Complete waste of space if you ask me, but aparently I'm just grumpy and don't get it. Enough people seem to like getting uncolicited messages at random from unknown people for no reason that the project continues unphazed by the occational complaint by grumpy people like me who don't like to be interupted by the "new message" bar unless it's actualy someone who that want me to respond to or answer something or give me some relevant information. I like getting "thank you"'s and such as much as the next guy naturaly, but only as long as they actualy mean something, some guy messaging 10 people at random is not my idea of what Wikilove is about, sounds more like a scheme to increase editcount than anyting.</end rant> --Sherool (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Second that. Appreciation is welcome; questions will be answered; complaints dealt with; spam gets reverted on sight. Adrian M. H. 20:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In addtion to reverting, is there anyway to put, say, a warning on the Smile Spammer's talk page? I am a bit grumpy from time to time as well, and would like to know if there is a particular template that I could use to protest against the random use of Smiles. --Gavin Collins 15:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be taking things too far and would only serve to aggravate unnecessarily. Better to ignore it and/or remove it, and perhaps leave a polite comment to say that you don't wish to receive such things. There are, after all, bigger things to be concerned about. Adrian M. H. 15:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to AfD process

To try to improve the signal-to-noise ratio at AfD, I have posted a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Require_discussion_before_deletion that would require initiating a discussion on an article's talk page prior to initiating an AfD discussion. The reasons behind this proposal are in the discusion at the link above, and a previous discussion linked from there. Additional input from the community is requested in that forum. Dhaluza 13:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirects into middle of articles now work. Implications for WP:FICT, WP:BAND

At long last, the bug that prevented using a redirect with a tag into the middle of an article, such as Dynasty (TV series)#Main characters has been fixed in Wikimedia. This is useful for dealing with characters and items in fiction that don't rate a separate article. Per WP:FICT, characters and such that don't meet the standards for notability by themselves are supposed to be mentioned as paragraphs in the main article, rather than as separate articles. I suggest that redirects into the main article be used when this situation comes up, and someone creates an article that doesn't really meet WP:FICT but refers to something bigger that does. It's a useful tool for RC patrollers.

We might want to consider extending this to music. For bands and musicians that are just barely notable per WP:BAND, one article for the band, with redirects for band members and albums, might be sufficient. I'd suggest that notability for a specific song or album is there only if the song or album reached some official threshold of notability, like going gold or platinum. If a song or album didn't make it big, it only needs a paragraph in the band's article. --John Nagle 16:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of the proposal itself, I would just like to point out that it can often take some work to maintain these types of links. The anchors available are pretty much only those of ==headlines==, and as such can change, meaning many of those redirects will likely change sometime over the life of the article.

(As an aside, I'm pretty sure we've been able to use anchors in redirects for some time now.)--Ybbor^Talk 19:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Using <span id="NAME" /> creates a permanent anchor that will avoid the problems of editors changing headers. Just link to the "NAME" tag rather than the sub-title. Dhaluza 22:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is a bot that adds a comment after the heading when there is a redirect to the heading. So an editor would be aware of this potential problem. If the span solution is better, then maybe the bot could be modified to add that instead of the comment. Vegaswikian 22:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merging overly short articles is often a good idea. So yes, list albums under the band, list characters under the book, et cetera. >Radiant< 11:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Murdering doctors

I find it distasteful that two doctors who were never thought of murderers but assisted two famous people to die (Max Schur for Sigmund Freud and Bertrand Dawson, 1st Viscount Dawson of Penn for George V of the United Kingdom) are in a category with Josef Mengele and Harold Shipman. The category was created by Special:Contributions/Malick78 who keeps on reverting me when I try and remove the categories from these two doctors. I would appreciate other opinions on whether I am in the right here. Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The Categories For Discussion debate on Category:American murderers may be relevant here.

The basic problem is that the category does not provide a verifiable standard for inclusion; so can never be a verifiable and NPOV category.

I would suggest that, like the above, it should be renamed Doctors convicted of murder, and exclude all that do not fit this. In the case of euthanasia, Doctors who have performed euthanasia would in any case be more useful, and avoid POV questions of terminology, even in jurisdictions where euthanasia inevitably puts the doctor in danger of a murder conviction.

Murder is not a synonym for killing, and should generally, I think, be saved for legal judgements. Many factors can lead a court to decide that something brought before them as murder is in fact manslaughter or no crime at all; I don't think it's a term that should be applied indiscriminately to all forms of killing in the absence of any legal judgement. TSP 13:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree this is too wide a category, making it open to abuse such as inapporiate labelling that the nominator is objecting to. In my view, this is a valid candidate for WP:AfD, as the subject is a WP:POV fork and should be redirected to a more appropriate Category such as Doctors of Medicine convicted of murder, of which only Harold Shipman might justifiably qualify. --Gavin Collins 17:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's good to have a verifiable standard for inclusion. But to simplify the category name, how about 'Medical doctors convicted of murder.' EdJohnston 17:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. (Also, 'medical doctor' is an occupation, whereas 'doctor of medicine' is a qualification; I think what we care about here is people who practiced as doctors, not people who happened to hold an MD.)

'Medical practitioners' might be a viable alternative, to broaden the scope a little - for the purposes of the category, nurses are probably as relevant as doctors. TSP 10:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've taken this to WP:CFD to suggest a rename. >Radiant< 11:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Image policy

Helo, I'm from Indonesian Wikipedia. Lately, there is an electronic magazine who are willing to provide us photos, mostly celebrities. They used copyright license but permitting wikipedia to use those photos. And they have their web address printed above the photos. I would like to know the policy in english wikipedia (or maybe general policy of wikipedia, if any)? Thanks. roscoe_x 13:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Our policy is at Wikipedia:Image use policy. If it's a picture of a living person, generally we only accept GDFL'ed or free use images, though occasionally a fair use image is allowed. I would note that "Wikipedia only" images are considered as normal fair use images - because the mirrors, etc - including some for-profit mirrors have to be able to use the images as well. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 14:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Images that are licensed as permission for a certain project are not allowed on any Wikimedia project, including Wikipedia. See the message at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kat Walsh's statement. The aim of all Wikimedia projects is to produce free content images and text, so having a license of Wikipedia only or commercial use only does not help that goal. Graham87 04:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirect question

I wanted to link PSSI to be redirected to Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity, but I find instead that someone has used this for a foreign acronym:[2]. I know a disambiguation page can be created, but what is the policy on this? Seems that English should take precedence on English Wikipedia.--Filll 16:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there's any policy on this, but I would say that, to avoid WP:BIAS, a disambiguation page should probably be used, or redirect to your PSSI and include a note at the top pointing to either a disumabiguation page (if there's any more expansions than these two) or to the Indonesian football thing. SamBC 17:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Blogs etc as references

I am wondering about when blogs become useful as references. Some blogs are written by known figures who are notable already from their other writing, or from their qualifications or expertise. Some are associated with people who give their real names and professional positions and credentials. Some science blogs have been highly rated. For example, Nature magazine placed a "review of some of the best blogs written by working scientists" on its website in July 2006.[3][4].

Some examples:

• Pharyngula (weblog) by PZ Myers, a biologist from the University of Minnesota, science category winner in the 2006 Weblogs Awards
• Panda's Thumb (weblog), with many professional scientist posters, also highly rated (second place winner?). Almost every poster I have seen on there already has a WP article, and is noted for other writing already. Usually with good sources.
• talkorigins not a blog exactly, but with many articles written by well-known professional scientists and well-sourced
• RealClimate, a blog produced by "real climate scientists at the American Geophysical Union"
• Aetiology, found at [5], written by Tara C. Smith, Assistant Professor of Epidemiology in Iowa
• scienceblogs, a provider of science blogs includes many interesting and useful blogs [6]. Note that they are selective in who gets to blog, in fact.
• Nature itself hosts assorted science-related blogs [7]

Comments? Ideas? Suggestions?--Filll 16:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that any blog is inherently self-published, which is considered a problem in some circumstances (see WP:SPS). Of course, in this as in everything, discretion and common-sense are king. SamBC 17:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There are many "blogs" these days, hosted by newspapers and whatnot, that are not self published and that have some level of editorial oversight. -Chunky Rice 17:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the question shoudln't be whether or not the source is a "blog." But rather, whether the author is an acknoweldged expert and whether or not the blog has editorial oversight. If the author is a notable expert in the field, then we can certainly cite their blog as to their opinion, which could be relevant to the article, though we probably shouldn't use it to cite a statement of fact. If the blog is by an expert and has editorial oversight, then I don't see how it's different from any other reliable source. -Chunky Rice 17:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, however, there is still a fairly strongly worded ban on all blogs (see WP:V and WP:RS). The consensus on this is, however, changing... I think most people would agree that it depends on the blog in question (who the blogger is, where the blog is hosted, what sort of oversite occurs, etc.), but I don't think there is yet a clear consensus as to where to draw the line between acceptable blogs and unaccpetable blogs (which makes the policy wonks warry of changing the policies and guidelines that relate to blogs.) Perhaps it may be time to raise the issue again and see if a consensus can be reached to change the policy... I would suggest doing so at WP:V first (as RS is a guideline that is subservient to WP:V, and more policy editors are involved there than at RS). Blueboar 18:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

In actual practice, when an article pops up on your watchlist, and what's being added is an external link to a blog, it will not be one of these high-quality blogs. More than 95% of the time, it will be a personal blog by someone who believes they have information to contribute. These usually don't meet our sourcing guidelines. EdJohnston 22:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ben Folds/Frally Hynes divorce: Is a podcast a reliable source? Violate WP:BLP?

• I'm very busy in RL. If this is not the approp. forum, would someone pls copy it to the best forum? Question: Is a podcast a reliable source? I have no speakers & wouldn't know if it were legitimate or not anyhow... I'm inclined to say a podcast is NOT a reliable source, Thanks. Ling.Nut 19:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A Podcast, in most instances, is a self-published source. As such, it cannot be used as a source to support claims about third-parties. See WP:SELFPUB ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Depends who published it, same as any other source. I listen to NPR and BBC podcasts... those are considered reliable, while Bobcast (example) would not be. -Nard 19:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This particular podcast has no value to confirm events in the life of Ben Folds. In the final minute, Folds says 'I'm going through a divorce.' That's it! I deleted the sentence in the article for which that was a reference. EdJohnston 22:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

International Phonetic Alphabet

why does wikipedia only use the International Phonetic Alphabet i have never seen a dictionary in which they use the International Phonetic Alphabet and the wikipedia page for it is very confusing. if someone with knowledge in the subject could make a simple chart for the it and make a conversion chrt for IPA symbols and other common Phonetic Alphabets that would be great.

This will probably be useful to you. Atropos 06:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Attacks on userpage

User:DrVarkey has, on his userpage, a list of "Good Things" and "Bad Things". The only item in the Bad Things list is Stephen C. Sillett, a scientist whose research this user has been disputing. How does this compare to Wikipedia:User page's bits about what may not be on a userpage, especially the Jimbo quote "libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea"? Nyttend 14:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

About what I would expect from someone who publicly announces a liking for "badonkadonk". Seriously, though, this would appear to be contrary to the user page content guideline. If it was good and bad articles that would be different, but it reads like an opinion about the subject, not the article. Maybe you should have a polite word with him on his talk page if you want to. Adrian M. H. 14:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that simply listing someone under "Bad Things" counts as an "Attack". All it says is that the user does not like Mr. Sillett. They are entitled to their opinion after all. If the user went on to rant and rave about Mr. Sillett, and made accusations about him, then I could see taking some action. But not for simply listing him under the heading "Bad Things". Blueboar 18:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability for places?

Honestly, I've looked long and hard but I just can't find any guidance on what makes a place notable enough to be in Wikipedia. I'm amazed at some of the tiny places around where I live which have entries on here, places that I doubt even the people who actually live there regard as terribly significant. Crimond, for example, barely even exists. I know Crimond - it's the sort of place you'd cycle through and not notice it was there (as I do, frequently). 7 kilobytes on pretty much nothing? That looks likes a vanity page to me. -88.110.150.100 16:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Towns and villages are inherently notable (see here), although there does not seem to be anywhere that it is written down as a policy/guideline. Discussions at Articles for Deletion definitely show that places are considered inherently notable. Certainly if there are census records for a place, like Crimond, it should be notable. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a bot to create articles like Cherry Valley, Pennsylvania, which is far smaller than Crimond. This is a fairly powerful precedent. WilyD 17:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Walk away from the New World, and consider the Old. Places of human habitation may have existed for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, and what may now be a collection of a few homes with no local amenities may once have been then world focal point of some industry a few centuries back (i.e. like the village I live in!). If such places in Europe, Asia, Arabia and Africa are notable as places of habitation because of a likelihood of long occupation then the same notability needs to be extended toward those in the Americas and Australisia, if only for continuity. Lastly, and this is perhaps the clincher, nearly every settlement is easily and comprehensively verifiable. LessHeard vanU 18:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

True, but the fact that I exist if verifiable, but I don't have an article. Although a small town, Crimond has a nice sized article. What I really hate is articles that say "So-and-so is a villiage in the XYZ department of Brazil" or something like that and no other information. True, it may be notable, but I'd say to delete it and recreate the article when there's some useful information. Crimond may be useful, but Seyeds and Osinniki are not. Reywas92^Talk 18:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I say keep it until a Brazilian with enough English and knowledge to expand it arrives on WP. As it is it is factual and not violating anything (i.e. = stub). There are better uses of editing time than deleting stuff because it is too sparse, IMO. LessHeard vanU 20:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

On reflection, I was probably a bit harsh on Crimond. But look at the other places listed as Villages in Aberdeenshire and a lot of them are just little stubs and sub-stubs, and for many there doesn't seem much hope of there being any "notable" information to put in them. -88.109.59.160 08:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an old argument... and one that has long been settled in favor of the "inclusionist" view. There have been numerous AfD debates on such places, and the resulting consenus is that all towns, villages, hamlets, etc. (no matter how small they are or how stubby the article on them is) are "Keepers". They are considered notable just by existing. The argument that this is not consistent with the notablility requirements for other topics (the "I exist, and there isn't an article on me." argument) is not relevant... we simply have different criteria for different topics. You can go and argue your case at WP:NOTE, but I doubt that you will change consensus. Blueboar 13:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not really my case. Actually, I'm quite impressed that there is one small corner of Wikipedia where inclusionism prevails. It may be a lousy encyclopedia but it could yet be a pretty decent gazetteer... assuming of course that the deletionists who rule the rest of Wikipedia never wake up and have all the geographical inclusionists executed. But I'm not going to tip them off. -88.111.82.107 17:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Places usually have a lot more history than is contained in the Wikipedia article. To take a random example, compare Wikipedia's entry for Doddington, Cambridgeshire with its The Victory County History entry. Bluap 14:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems

I'd like feedback on an essay I developed from talk page comments by others. There seems to be some misunderstanding how tagging works. THF 02:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a nice start, Ted. But I would wait for a while before you add wikilinks to the essay from other pages in the Wikipedia namespace, in particular from policy pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Archiving bots

When is it appropriate to apply archiving bots to talk pages? Wikipedia Talk: Spoiler has had an archiving bot applied despite not being particularly busy. Complaints about it have been ignored, and it has been suggested that talk pages with a low level of activity should be blanked as a matter of course. There does not seem to be any policy relating to such things, and the justifications offered boil down to 'I post here'.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that as well. It seems to me when talk pages are not growing quickly, there is no reason to archive them quickly until they are blanked. Leave the discussions there for new editors to join as they arrive, without having to dig around in archives to see what's going on. Otherwise, it might seem there is no debate on a page that actually does have a difficult past and perhaps not a solid consensus yet. My suggestion is to use archiving bots only on busy talk pages, or on user talk pages at the user's preference, but not on slow moving article talk pages. --Parsifal _Hello 07:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOVD : Tagging pages should be a "last resort"

I object to the language in WP:NPOVD that calls adding a tag a "last resort."

Identification of problems in articles is an important task in the creation of a reliable encyclopedia. "Tags" are often used to indicate problems. Some people object to tagging instead of fixing, but tags do have their place.

The encyclopedia is way too large for anyone to read the whole thing, and there is a lot of value in tagging particular articles for particular problems. Tagging makes it easier for people who have expertise or interest in a particular area to hone in on things they can work on, it warns readers about rough patches (so they don't think a disputed passage is authoritative), and it encourages more passers-by to pitch in. Sure, it's better if people fix the problems they find, but complex problems can take a long time to untangle, and not everyone has the information immediately at hand to do the job right. An editor who places a tag has no obligation other than to justify the inclusion of the tag on the talk page if the tag is challenged.

Criticisms (as expressed through article tags) and incremental editing are an important part of writing a collaborative encyclopedia, and should be welcomed rather than discouraged. Wikipedia values contributions from everyone, whether or not they have contributed before, and even whether or not they are experts. Even novices and non-experts can help improve presentation without changing the underlying information. It is important to listen to even casual readers who find an article to be biased or confusing or unconvincing. They might not have the expertise to fix those problems, but the fact that they report these symptoms means that the encyclopedia could probably be doing a better job.

The problem with Wikipedia is one of false negatives, not false positives: there are too many pages that should be tagged that are untagged. WP:NPOVD's "last resort" language, and ambiguities about responsibility for fixing problems, requires editors to babysit those pages. The policy should be less hostile to casual editors who don't have the time to babysit pages, but who can draw attention to problems in the encyclopedia for editors with more time. There are literally thousands of pages with POV problems in Wikipedia, and only a small fraction are tagged. THF 12:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. See DreamHost and how many times that has been tagged and untagged

For most tags such as {{unrefferenced}}, {{synthesis}}, etc. I would agree... but not for NPOVD tags. I know of far too many agenda pushers who would tag articles simply because they feel the article does not adiquitely advance their particular pet theory or agenda. If an article has POV problems, we should have to raise the issue on the talk page and at least attempt to reach consensus and compromise before tagging the article. If that does not work, then the article can be tagged. In other words, there has to actually be a legitimate POV dispute going on before the tag is placed on the article. Blueboar 12:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Content relating to oneself

I have heard that if there is content that relates directly to you, you can get control of that. Is this true?Lkieffer 17:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've replied at User talk:Lkieffer. Dragons flight 20:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture references

Often, I come upon articles that have (or consist entirely of) trivial references to an article subject in various media. I think that Wikipedia needs a policy on this. I think that they should be aggressively removed, per my essay here. I welcome community feedback. --Eyrian 19:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Allowing any trivia or pop-culture refences, even if they are especially notable, just makes it that much harder to keep the truly non-notable ones out, as every game user feels their game is notable! - BillCJ 20:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't care for popular culture or trivia sections. Once in a while, though, there may be a popular movie that contains a good moving image of the subject of the article. On other occasions, the only exposure most of the general public has had to the topic of the article may have been in a popular movie or book, and that depiction might have been wrong. In such cases, I think it might be worth mentioning the popular depiction in the article. --Gerry Ashton 22:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about trivia sections, but I support moving them off to separate articles once they become large enough. I know WP:BHTT is on a list of arguments to avoid but it does serve a purpose. Squidfryerchef 04:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:TRIVIA will help? Blueboar 13:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections. I do not personally recommend the strict removal of trivia. Dcoetzee 14:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Changing usernames guidelines

Me, Andre and WJBscribe have created a set of guidelines for the changing usernames process, in an attempt to standardise our existing practices, as well as create a formal set of guidelines that reflects current pratice. Note that if the community decides to grant this guideline status, then there will be very little to no change in our existing practices at changing usernames, and usurpations. I am posting notices on several pages in an attempt to gain consensus on the talk page of the proposal to promote it to guideline. All input is welcome. --Deskana (banana) 21:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Had a look. You seem to just written down what most sensible people would do anyway. It's a good set of guidlines though - Pheonix15 21:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Links to Fan Sites

There is currently an edit war going on at the Eagles and Don Henley pages over whether or not links to fan sites should be included on the pages for the artists concerned. One of the people who removed the links stated on the Talk Page "The Wikipedia DMOZ template has been substituted into the EL linkfarm to prevent users from re-adding links to their personal fan webpages. This has already been done on many other music related articles where external link violations are common.(see AC/DC, Motorhead ...etc). The DMOZ open directory project is free and open for any website owners to add their own personal pages and is Wikipedia approved. 156.34.142.158 17:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)" and has refused to comment further despite questions being raised by other users. My view on this is that SOME fan sites provide useful additional information about artists that cannot be included in Wikipedia - and therefore a handful of good fan sites enhance Wikipedia. It is the responsibility of editors on Wikipedia to decide which sites are spam and which add useful information, and Wikipedia should not be delegating this task to DMOZ. Since the person (s) removing the links don't want to comment further I wondered if anyone else had a view on this? Is this official policy as one editor stated here : [8] because I don't interpret the policy he quotes in the same way? Thanks for your thoughts. Kelpin 07:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kelpin. Useful links enhance Wikipedia - and as we all know, many times, the official links are not always the most useful ones. In the Eagles' case, at one point, the fansites which were deleted were replaced by a dozen links to artist pages on sites like VH1 and AOL - articles with basically the same info as Wikipedia, if not less. The fansites, on the other hands, had vast archives and an amazing amount of information, the kind any fan would crave. Such link deletions are a disservice to the Wikipedia user. After all, as Wikipedia's link policy states, when there is a great amount of detail or additional information elsewhere, the proper thing to do is to link to the site with the detail rather than attempt to put all of it on the Wikipedia entry. How can one do so if all the links that aren't official are deleted? Not to mention the fact that "official site" doesn't even seem very clearly defined by this editor. He puts under "official sites" a link to an article on cameroncrowe.com, for instance, but the last time I checked Cameron Crowe wasn't in the Eagles. And what if the artist doesn't even have an official site? The editor's argument that linking to DMOZ is better also has flaws. Some of the same sites he deleted are also listed there... so adding in the extra step of going to DMOZ seems illogical and almost arbitrary. What makes DMOZ more acceptable? It's not official either, so theoretically, it should fall into the same category. Besides, Wikipedia has always relied upon its own users, not the editors of DMOZ. It's not as if the sites are affiliated - why should DMOZ determine what is linked from Wikipedia? Finally, as Kelpin pointed out, if this is indeed a policy, why isn't it universally applied? It seems that some editors wish to purge fansites from select artist pages without regard to their quality, and I think that such disregard for quality is a detriment to Wikipedia and counterproductive to its mission. Thank you. Sodascouts 08:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Some fansites are okay, but only the particularly significant ones. The guideline is at External linking and fits the wider policies on external linking, spam, POV, self-promotion, notability, etc. Fansites, unofficial fan clubs, online stores, and similar sites should not be linked unless they are from an "established organization or a recognized fan community", are "clearly more informative" than most, or have a "significant quantity of information that is inappropriate for incorporation into wikipedia" such as: an exhaustive database of tour dates and set lists, a noninfringing repository of lyrics, a large image collection, a large amount of trivia, or especially established and recognized forums and community pages. There's no rule limiting an article to one fan site but in practice it's unlikely that a single band would have more than one or a small number that rise to that level of significance. Likewise, I see no basis for a general rule that you must discuss external links on a talk page before modifying them, but in practice if there has been some dispute on the point that is just good consensus/editing practice.

Applying this standard, The Fastlane clearly fails and should not be included. It's got sparse information, no pictures, etc. It is a commercial site that looks like it was done mechanically by someone who has other similar sites and wants to make money on advertising or links to referral programs. Everything there is links to commercial providers of tickets, ring tones, search engines, etc. Basically, linkspam. If you let people add that kind of thing, Wikipedia would be overrun with bad links. Eagles Online Central and Don Henley Online are closer calls. They aren't commercial so they aren't spammy. But there's not a whole lot of information on them, especially not the Eagles one. Some tour dates and news for Don Henley, which is useful. If this is truly the very best or one of the best sites for Don Henley and for the Eagles, maybe it is okay. But if a user is posting links to his own project, that's not appropriate.

While we're at it, some of the other links are inappropriate. As per common sense and the style guideline, an article about a band should not link directly to external pages for its various artists. If the artists have their own pages, then to keep things orderly and avoid redundancy the external links should be on those artist pages. The Cameron Crowe article is interesting but it should be in a reference section, not external links. Probably best to use it as a source and cite it there. And Don Henley's side projects should have external links on the articles in question, e.g. on the page for Caddo Lake, Walden Pond, and the artist coalition -- not on his main article. Wikidemo 09:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your point on the The Fastlane I agree that link has no place, but that's because someone vandalised the link - it should be The Fastlane . I've fixed the link on the Eagles page. Kelpin 12:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Correction I added but it was taken down by the Editor keeps removing the Fansites. Kelpin 12:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A Wikipedia {DMOZ} template has been added to the article which negates the need for any linkspamming to Kelpin's personal fansite webpage or any others. 156.34.142.158 12:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all that's not my website. Secondly why are we delegating responsibility to decide which sites can be linked to - to DMOZ - which to the best of my knowledge is not a Wikipedia site? Kelpin 12:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've becomed very irritated with fair use rationale hounds.

I've noticed a recent influx of people that are going around slapping speedy delete tags on any image that happens to not state its fair use rationale. Granted, it's policy, but my problem is that these people are also tagging images that are clearly useful to the article itself. And by "clearly", I mean things like book covers and film posters, things that are standard to every article of its type. These people need to help by adding fair use rationales themselves, not by deleting the images because somebody else didn't. They are creating undue extra work that needs to be done in having to refind and resubmit these images, which is a major hassle.--SeizureDog 13:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

An excellent example of this would be J. K. Rowling. There is a widespread practice of using copyrighted images of notable people (often publicity photos) in their biographical articles under a fair-use rationale. Whereas this seems to go unchallenged in the majority of bio articles there are a few that have become targets for fair-use removals. What is the rule of thumb on this? In the last year it has proven nigh-on impossible to source a free image of J. K. Rowling for this article so why does it not meet the criteria for the fair-use of a publicity shot? And why does this particular instance take so much heat when thousands of other articles do not? Aula^TPN 14:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Joel Wheatley

How Come Whenever Actor Joel Wheatley Is Added to wikipedia he is deleted i feel this is discrimination against one of the best gay actors of our generation