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, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196

Sexual orientation of non-heterosexual celebrities

Apparently, Wikipedia has a policy of mentioning the sexual orientation of celebrities who are known to be non-heterosexual. But celebrities known to be heterosexual/straight do not appear to have this information included.

While I can understand that heterosexuality is of little interest to anyone — what makes the other sexualities more interesting and more worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia?

There are many personal details about celebrities that most people would surely consider irrelevant to their public status, and unnecessary of inclusion in Wikipedia, such as their shoe size, hair colour, left-handedness, weight, race, etc. I don't see why their sexual preferences are any more relevant.

It may be relevant if the celebrity's sex life, or sexuality itself, are of particular relevance to their celebrity status or somehow feature in their work. In which case, the disclosure of their sexuality should surely be mentioned in relation to that, rather than in isolation.

So, rather than saying:

"Sarah is openly gay."

The article should say:

"Sarah is openly gay, her homosexuality playing a large part of her humour and often being the subject of public attention."

If the celebrity's homosexuality (or bisexuality) isn't actually relevant to their fame at all, it surely need not be specifically mentioned:

"Sarah has had numerous girlfriends, some of whom have appeared on the show with her." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grand Dizzy (talk • contribs) 22:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've always found this interesting, especially since there are no categories for straight people, but there are GLBTs. Perhaps its because heterosexuality is deemed "the norm", and not being "normal" is notable enough to discuss. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 22:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. How one perceives the whole issue aside, "I'm gay" simply carries more notability than "I'm straight" in most cases (a gay man suddenly saying the latter might be an exception). It might be a different story when the media dismisses it as commonplace. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We make mentions of people who were adopted (Category:Adoptees and its well-populated sub-categories) even when that fact has little signifiance to the subject's notability. We don't make mention of people who were not adopted, nor do we say that a politician won the majority of votes in their district, etc. In these cases, we are making a note when someone deviates from the norm. Most people are not adopted. Most politicans get a majority of votes. It's the case where there's an exception (e.g. Bush 2000) where it becomes of note. No value judgement is made. We aren't saying Adopted people are better or worse, and nor does the placement of someoe in a category imply much of anything. Yes, heterosexuality is considered the norm. But that's just the defintion of normal. 90-99% of the population (depending on where you take your figures. Demographics of sexual orientation notes that range, saying that there's a mean of about 95-96%) is heterosexual. That's the norm. Without having to make any value judgements at all, an attribute of someone who lies two standard deviations from the mean is generally worth mention. Heterosexuality is the norm. We can go for ages about why that is (i.e. biological or cognative), but at the end of the day, it is "normal" or "typical" to be heterosexual. --Ybbor^Talk 03:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

BLP's for heterosexuals often note that they are married, have children (and sometimes give ages and even names of issue) which rarely has any impact on the subjects notability. Obviously the phrase "heterosexual" itself doesn't appear, but the orientation is obvious - and as irrelevant. LessHeard vanU 12:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Dude, Oscar Wilde was married and had children... SamBC(talk) 16:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

We have no such policy that strictly forbids or allows it. Its just standard practice combined with a few other policies. If a celebrity comes out as being gay, that fact would probably make the cover of every celebrity magazine and would be widely circulated on the internet. If a celebrity issues a press release saying that they are straight, the media is going to say "Who cares?" There just really aren't any sources that specifically mention things about celebrities that are considered "normal" - people wouldn't pay to read it so People isn't going to report it. If there are almost no sources saying something about someone, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to mention it in their article. If there are a lot of sources, then apparently people consider that to be a significant fact and we should probably include it. Mr.Z-man 18:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

To Sambc, indeed - but it isn't relevant to Wildes notability other than an example of Victorian morality, whereas his homosexuality did effect both his work and his life. To Mr.Z-man, but the same celebrity lifestyle magazines are full of straight celebrities personal lives regarding girl/boyfriends, engagements and marriages; it is simply an assumption of heterosexuality rather than the publicising of it.LessHeard vanU 21:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

But we can't use info like X is married to Y to source statements like X and Y are heterosexual. That would be synthesis. Mr.Z-man 05:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't synthesies, we often simply state that X is/was married to Y - and allow the reader to draw the conclusions. That said, X being married to Y is rarely of any consequence to the notability of the parties concerned. LessHeard vanU 12:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the determination to mention someone's sexual orientation should be made on a case-by-case basis. For celebrities, public figures, and historical figures, their sexual orientation could well be relevant, particularly if they are LGBT in an oppressive era or geographic location, or if they were closeted. If a public or historical figure was hiding something, that's usually interesting. It's also interesting if they are a role model because of their sexuality, or if they themselves have spoken about their sexuality. Like it or not, LGBT identity is more notable than straight identity, because we're in a historic period where LGBT issues are controversial and widely talked about. Plus, (1) LGBT people want LGBT role models, and (2) straight people are fascinated with LGBT identity.

For some people, however, it's just not really germane to the article. For example, who cares if an obscure Nobel Prize winner in physics or chemistry is gay? They are only notable because of the prize they won and for their scientific work. How is their sexual orientation relevant or even interesting? Another example might be authors who are not public figures. If someone is otherwise obscure and private, and is known only for their work or some notable event that has nothing to do with LGBT issues, I don't see how sexual orientation or identity is relevant or interesting.

On another point, I've always been bothered by statements that so-and-so are "openly gay", since we would never say someone is "openly straight". If the subject of an article is gay, and that fact is worth noting for some reason, then let's just say that they are "gay", "lesbian", "bisexual", or "asexual", etc. In the case of closeted living people, we can't comment on their sexuality, so for any mention of sexuality of living people, "openly" is a given, so why say it? For dead people, it may very well be relevant that a person was closeted, since that fact and their sexuality was likely very important to that person and those around him or her. But while we might comment that a dead person was in the closet, I don't see any need to ever use the term "openly gay", as if being open about your sexuality is something unusual. COGDEN 18:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As has been said before - part of the opportunity is that in other areas we mention that someone is or is not something, and expect the reader to conclude if we don't mention that they are either the other way inclined or of no public position on the issue - we don't for instance have many white people categories, but we are pretty equal on male/female cats. I think part of the advantage of using the category is that in part it is driven by the GLBT editors and community itself to recognise how normal the whole issue is, and that its OK to be gay - lets be honest, there is still unfortunatly homophobia in the world. Part of the brief of Wikipedia is to educate, and for that reason in this case I don't think we need a tag which relates to some form of openly hetrosexual - the tags and volumes of diverse people within the GLBT cats highlight just how normal the whole issue is. On your second (implied) point of how we write the sexuality in to the article, I think its best left to an article by article conclusion/debate - but unless the subject has said "hey, I'm openly gay" then using such a term in their article would seem NPOV. Rgds, - Trident13 23:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

So we say that Dumbledore is simply "a closeted gay", rather than making a big, perverted fuss about it. Right?~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 23:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Dumbledore is a character in a series of books, not a real person, and Rowlings identification of him as gay is more to do with how she saw the development of the character to what he is when the story of Harry Potter involves him. It is to be considered that Rowling is not gay herself, so her interpretation of how a persons homosexuality might impinge on their character is both likely theoretical and open to artistic license. Lastly, he's a ruddy wizard - not really based in the human experience, I would suggest. LessHeard vanU 19:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

A long term solution will be tricky to find. A person's sexual preference should not, in my opinion, be any more notable than their eye colour. Unfortunately it seems that a homosexual soccer-player / politician / pop-star becomes more notable just because they've declared their sexuality. What do we do if they've been outed, but deny it? Also, sticking a label on someone seems a bit binary; maybe some people are a bit more complicated than "gay" and "not gay". (But I can't imagine saying that John Doe is 'a little bit gay'.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanBealeCocks (talk • contribs) 22:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

One solution/reality is that Wikipedia reflects the primary sources. If the articles we use as sources describe someone as gay or adopted, so should we. And we want to avoid weasel words so we don't need to say e.g the Times says Sarah is gay, we just say it neutrally and move on.Obina 20:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Being gay, lesbian, bisexual and in their own way transgender or intersex is of interest and much speculation although it has becoming less of a big deal over the past few decades. Closeted refers people who keep their sexuality (or other potentially embarrassing info) hidden even when asked ("who are you dating?"). Many people are LGBT and yet have children or traditional marriages, households etc or otherwise this is not a major component expressed so that it warrants undue weight (like the first paragraph of an article). This can even be evident in people who are well-known "non-heterosexuals". A person's sexuality should be given proper weight and well-sourced if considered controversial at all just like anything else. Also in some cultures it's certainly taboo to call someone gay even if they have have same-sex relations. In these cases it's best to use quotes and terminology of their culture. In the same way that some dykes do not consider themselves lesbian or gay and transgender people should be referred to in the gender they identify. We need to respect their right to self-determination and self-identity. Benjiboi 12:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Take, for example, color blindness. A phenomenon of comparable frequency. If some celebrity is known to be color blind, it makes sense to include that information in that person's Wikipedia article, if only for the reason that there are quite some (namely about 5 percent) people who struggle with their not being "normal" color-perception-wise and may be looking for someone who has success in life sharing that property. Or, putting it differently, ask yourself the question: Why don't we call 95 percent of the population "overly-color-sensitive"? --217.232.218.170 11:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It is also the case that if nothing is mentioned, heterosexuality is presumed. It could be that leaving out the sexual orientation merely contributes to the marginalization of the LGBT community. It isn't the most elegant of solutions, but it may be preferable to simply ignoring the problem. HypatiasGirl 16:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Shock Sites

I agree with the fact that wikipedia must contain information about shock sites, to be classified as a true encyclopedia, but as it is a trusted website, shouldn't there be some protection on someone just editing a page to link to shock sites? I propose that a page can not contain any links to any shock sites UNLESS it is in the category shock sites. These pages would require users to agree that there is a link to a shock site on the page, and to be wary if they do not wish to go onto a shock site. A list of shock sites could be created (I agree with something lik shock sites the list will be ever changing and not definitive, but any protection is better than none at all) and these links banned. Thank you for reading my consideration. 78.150.127.87 09:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandals would just add the category in the same edit, or add the category then add the link. We'd need something like the bad image list for that to work. (Which might not be such a bad idea - as a general feature, have it be implemented as an article-specific spam-blacklist-whitelist) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Random832 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Revisit WP:ROLE ??

Perhaps it might be time to reconsider the role of banning role accounts in the smooth operation of things round here? See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:OrbitzWWCorpComm for context (anyone can change that to a permalink if it gets archived as it will shortly)... but we have a case of a corp wanting their PR bunch to meticulously follow our policies but as a role account. We have one role account exception. Which appears to do little, or so it was said if you follow the links to WP:ROLE's talk page. Are there any pros to changing our policy? any cons? ++Lar: t/c 21:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it needs to be changed. While that account mentioned was not necessarily disruptive, we need to look beyond "is this directly harmful?" and remember what this project is: an encyclopedia edited by the general public. I don't like the idea of having it "general public and corporate PR firms." I'd rather have advertising than explicitly allow such accounts. Some say ads would control content; at least advertisers would not actually edit the content themselves. If accounts like that can be kept away from the articles about the companies they work for, I'd be okay with it, but these accounts are made up of professionals paid to promote their company. They are not being paid to "create the sum of all human knowledge" nor are they being paid to write a balanced account of their company. Perhaps I've become a bit of a cynic about this from spending too much time at CAT:SPAM, but IMO - we don't need accounts like these. Mr.Z-man 13:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there also a legal issue? The individual editors own their copyright and have to label their edits separately. Maybe a corporate role account could be approved for edits only being done with the corporations' approval, but that's something WMF lawyers have to define. (SEWilco 14:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC))

Permalink http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=168000130#User:OrbitzWWCorpComm ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 01:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Why couldn't the edits just be copyrighted to the company, under work for hire? I mean, of all the objections to corporate role accounts, I never imagined that copyright/attribution was even an issue. —Random832 17:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Software

Why does it always seams that it is an important thing if software is open source, proprietary or something like that. It is often mention first in articles, in infoboxes, in comparison of different software... I think most people care more about the price than this. How many think about if you can read/edit the source, very few does that. I think it gets a to big role in the articles (it can be mentioned of course, but not the way most articles does). (This discussion will probably not change anything, guess there are too many open-source fanatics here, like GNU/Linux-geeks. Helpsloose 23:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether software is open source is important in terms of licensing and support (whether for better or worse); both of which are significant factors for businesses thinking about adopting new products. Some companies, for example, will only adopt software that has a strong support model, whereas for others the price is a key determinant. These can vary significantly between closed and open source models. — RJH (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There might also be more information available about open software which can be examined, rather than the amount of information which a manufacturer releases. That depends upon the particular item. (SEWilco 03:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

But it plays a too important role in many articles. Helpsloose 17:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It would help if you pointed out specific problems, instead of vague claims of the subject being "too important" in unnamed articles. -- 68.156.149.62 12:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think he/she means that, besides other things, Open Source is generally considered a political issue, too. So he/she possibly tries to hint at the supposed fact that Wikipedia is too political here. The real issue behind this being, of course, the sad fact that most people are still not aware how much they can, and already do, benefit from the increasing amount of Open Source software. --217.232.218.170 11:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It was actually not my point. I already said my point. It is put more weight on the issue than necessary. See for example here [[1]], almost first in the article, like it is one of the most important thing. Also one of the first in this page [[2]]. There is probably many others. Helpsloose —Preceding comment was added at 17:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Administrative policies of banning and blocking editors

In my time at Wikipedia, I've noticed that most administrators will jump through hoops in order to avoid censuring an editor, even when that editor has been reprimanded multiple times and acted in a highly offensive way. Temporary blocks are not rare, however. My problem with this is that the administration is heavily weighing contributions while ignoring the extreme damage that can be caused by editors that have gotten out of control. I have seen threats against other users, dozens of puppets made, blatant personal attacks, and more, all from a single user. And yet this person continues to edit. I do not wish to speak their name because this has more to do with general policy that a single person. I think this hands-off policy is a sign of weakness among the admins and it will only lead to continuing problems on the site. We cannot ignore this kind of behavior — we are practically condoning it. I am a forgiving person and am willing to give second (and likely more) chances, but I would not let things get out of hand like this. No single editor's contribution to Wikipedia is invaluable in my opinion, not to the point where any type of offensive conduct from them would be overlooked. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. - Cyborg Ninja 21:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I partially disagree, and partially agree. I believe a lot of user's get a way with alot. However a certain percentage of them are because they are unaware it's against policy. I believe there is a difference when it's blatant bad faith (replacing a page to say wikipedia is for f*ers for example. Or going to a user's talk page and cussing them out (apparently bad faith). Those are the one's I think need swift dealings,because it's obviously intentional, but for any other situation it's hard to tell, and the rule (assume good faith) should all ways be assumed. Admins I think however do a great job of discipline, but you have to remember there are millions if not billions of global user's, and only around 2,000 something administrators. That is enough to say in the least, and probably about 2-300 of those admins get recalled and/or disciplined themselves (not sure about this but I see a huge list of complaints on various admins in one of the requests pages). Either way, I think that the current policies do a good job of discipline, or did you have any advice on something specific you were presenting. I saw your view above, but no real "ideas" on how current policies, disciplinary dealings could be improved? --businessman332211 17:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there are many users who just aren't aware of the policies, but like you said, there are others who blatantly violate them or just don't care in order to flame someone. I give leeway in arguments between users, but I've seen those that have gotten out of hand to the point of threats of stalking and even violence — and the user doesn't get a banning. I think you're thinking about less-serious cases, but I mean really vile, hateful stuff here, and not from some little kid who thinks curse words are funny. I do have to give props to the overall system here, too. The general atmosphere here is one of congeniality and professionalism, and that is extremely rare on an Internet forum. My advice is for administrators to be stricter and to deal account bannings more often than they currently do, and not to feel ashamed about it. Users typically get many warnings (even from other editors) on their behavior before any serious action is taken. - If we get rid of contributors who are offensive and spiteful, then Wikipedia will be an even better place. Cyborg Ninja 20:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless you're willing to name names and get specific, it's very difficult to have this conversation. Yes, we need to do something when somebody is causing more problems than they're worth; no, it's not very easy to establish any precise distinction by which we can decide to act or not. Specific examples are pretty much a must, here. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If he talking about the person I'm thinking of, I'd suggest he stay away from naming names. There are enough people who will overlook any offense due to doing "some" good edits. I have seen too many issues with people who simply are nasty or mean-spirited (or more often passive-aggressive which is the most difficult to work with) but nobody wants to punish because of the number of edits they've done. I think most admins (most people really) take a "let's weigh the good versus the bad" attitude as opposed to a "here is the general standard of conduct to follow; don't meet that and be gone" attitude. Unfortunately, that's just the way the world works; if you do some good, you have more leeway (why infinite blocks for vandalism-only accounts are allowed and not if there were some good edits) because people are willing to overlook all the negative and assume people will change for the better (like that a person will learn not to use curse words in their edit summaries, even if they aren't blocked). My biggest problem is allowing people who have used sockpuppets; for a system that is supposed to be built on consensus to allow users who use sockpuppets to get their way (or worse), it just goes against its fundamental core. Actually, I always find it funny how much times we see a block conducted and WP:AN or WP:ANI is filled with "I think the block was excessive, I think the block indicates the following; I think the block will have the following effect" all without the person being blocked doing anything like, I don't know, apologizing or promising not to do it again. THAT doesn't teach people anything. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ricky. I think we're on the same page here about the person I have in mind, though it's not limited to that one person. However, I don't agree with the real world outside the Internet being like that. If you screw up in reality, any good you've done is likely to be ignored. Especially if you're a celebrity, or politician, or someone else in the public eye. This is a serious problem. We can't just ignore someone's bad conduct because of any good edits they've made. BTW, in the case of the person Ricky's thinking of, most of their edits are just mindless citation tags of articles. If you do want me to name names, we should probably discuss this privately. - Cyborg Ninja 20:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

License plate numbers in images?

Do we have any guidelines here for whether licence plate numbers can appear in images? This recently uploaded image [[3]] is of an unmarked (or personally-owned) police car in Slovakia. It's a beautiful shot but the plate number is clearly visible and I don't know if that's cool or not. Do we have any precedent about whether plate numbers need to be airbrushed out in this situation? Squidfryerchef 22:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I can't think of any specific policy on it, though one could argue that it should be airbrushed or otherwise obfuscated in compliance for privacy and in keeping with the living persons guideline (since the license plate is only slightly less personal info than posting someone's DL number, at least in the US), especially for a personally-owned car. The license plate could trace back to a living person. So my off the cuff 2 cents is that a readable plate shouldn't be seen in an image. Collectonian 02:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Collectonian. Unless this person is ok with their license plate being shown, and has said as much, a courtesy blurring or blotting of the number would probably by the best option. I can't imagine such a modification would cause any problems in regards to attribution or license used. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In general, I disagree. A license plate on image of a car (absent any other context) is not significantly identifying information. I can walk down any street and get dozens of license plates without knowing anything significant about their owners. Now if the caption said, this is Bill Person's BMW and it had an identified license plate, that would be entirely different. But I don't see any need to remove isolated pieces of information taken out of context, any more than I feel the need to blur out all of the potentially identifiable faces in photographs of a crowd.

All of that said, in this specific case of a license plate on an undercover police car, it is the kind of specific context where removing the plate is probably a good idea. Dragons flight 02:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The police in this case could if they wanted have arrested the photographer if they didn't want the picture taken so why are we worrying about it .Garda40 19:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say that in this particular case the courtesy blurring of an in service undercover vehicles plate would be an option. I would hazard a guess that the blurring of all non-relevant plates to halt possible identity theft is not within Wikipedia's remit. If some governments are silly enough to sell their licence databases to anyone who wants them (such as the US DMV), and those buyers charge one-off fees on the internet to anyone who wants all the information related to that plate isn't our problem. 86.21.74.40 03:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Dragon's Flight. It's not exactly private when you slap it on your car and go for a drive (unlike your DL number or SSN, which presumably you keep to yourself). As for this image, it's not exactly undercover with that red light on the roof. Not sure I see a privacy problem with it. --Kbdank71 03:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify. I don't think it's an unmarked in the sense that it's used for undercover detective work, i think it's for traffic enforcement. The notes with the pic said it was taken at such-and-such highway in Slovakia. Squidfryerchef 03:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There may also be a law in that country that prohibits the disclosure and publication of police and other government vehicles for security purposes. Otherwise we could all produce a database on such vehicles which would pose a national security threat. Better to obscure the undercover vehicle's plate. --Andmark 15:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Beg pardon, but "While I don't have anything definite, there might well be a law against (blank) somewhere!" is not and has never been a justification for removing anything on Wikipedia, nor should it be; our standing orders are to report any legitimate legal concerns to WP:AN and the Foundation's full-time legal counsel) who will then bump it up the ladder to Jimbo as necessary. Any more than that is WikiLawyering and beyond our individual mandate to act.

For the record, and in keeping with the Project's status as a "neutral source of encyclopedic information", I oppose any material alteration of an image unless it's WP:OFFICE ordered or manifestly designed to improve the image in some inoffensive way. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 21:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Backlog Policy

I want to present a potential new policy creation related to and dealing with backlogs. It would also have a relevant "guidelines" page that wasn't policy, but a community guideline. The idea is to offered policy of what kinds of pages to add cleanup and other tags to. SO we can cut down on the one's that are added needlessly, and help put tags on one that really needed it. Also in the policy we could add in to remove cleanup tags when not needed, and re-date them as needed. Not only that but perhaps other things to help prevent major backlog, like work on older ones first. The guideline could be step by step generally instructions on how to properly deal with backlog. I was going through the "needs cleanup" backlog by month. I finished up the oldest month, and most of the one after that. However about 40% of them had been cleaned since the one's where added. Another 10-20% of the ones I went through were improperly tagged The rest where horrible and really needed cleaned, which I either cleaned on the spot and removed the tag, or re-dated so we could eliminate the oldest months of the backlog. I think a well written, well placed policy and/or guideline would really help only tag the one's that really need it and also allow for the backlogs to be cleaned/dealt with properly. --businessman332211 17:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of the ones that you say don't need it do actually need it but not to the extent of others--Ρhøenix-ωiki 19:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I realize that. But on some of them the tags remain, then it undergoes A LOT of work, until it looks good but the tags never taken out. Have you looked at the backlog recently. It's horrible. Not only are there a lot of articles need cleaned (just speaking about the need's cleaning backlog not to mention the others), but a lot I went through really didn't need it, and the one's that really did needed re-dated. We have months and months of backlogs that could be cleaned. A lot of times when they are cleaned the tags aren't removed and/or there tagged incorrectly. There has to be something we can do to clear backlog, keep it cleaner, and really give attention to one's that need it. It's not helping much of anyone with an article sitting with a clean tag for a year with no-body working on it. We need some sort of policies on re-dating older clean tags that still really need it, and weeding out the one's that have

• already been cleaned.
• Don't really need it
• Can be cleaned in 5 minutes and the tags removed

This goes for everything. The citation needed backlog. It tags 5-15 minutes per article to fix it so the tag can be removed. SO many are incorrectly tagged (for example) tagged with citations needed when there are citations instead of using refimprove. Other small things like that, would make Backlog maintenance and cleanup A LOT better. I love backlog, I have a great time going through and doing the things in the backlog's list. However I have ran into so many that were incorrectly tagged on various things. Even under categories needed, I went through 50-100 of those, and A LOT of them had already been categorized SINCE the tags were added, and the tags never removed. This happens a lot with almost every backlog. I would go to guess that about ATLEAST 40% of the total backlog was caused by incorrect tagging, not removing taggings when there done, don't really need the tags they are tagged with, and being put off while newer one's take precedence. --businessman332211 21:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this isn't something necessarily a policy would help. Perhaps I need to consider writing an essay with my thoughts on the subject instead. --businessman332211 21:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe people need a bit of encouragement that working on backlogs like these isn't necessarily a lot of hard work? That a bit of time spent trawling through the "citations needed" backlog can produce results, even without any hunting for citations, as you find articles that have already been fixed up but never untagged? --Stormie 22:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am writing a big essay on it. I am just annoyed there is so much backlog over a year old. I want to find away to get some medium sized group working together so we can get "all" current backlog caught up and get to where we can deal with backlog as it comes (every 10 articles tagged for whatever reason are dealt with within 24-48 hours type of thing). I think if people are instructed on "how" to tag, "when" to tag, "why" to tag, and when not to, then we can help deal with the amount of unnecessary backlog is piling up, dealing with it faster, and keeping the whole process running smoother. I hate seeing the backlog for need's cleaning. I hope to work down the backlog about 150 per day (cleaning the ones that need it as I go), and so far I am handling about 20-40 cleanings per day and I am sure other people are working on backlog regularly. However I think if a group got together to focus on that, then we could deal with it. With a steady group of 1000 people dealing with backlog it could be caught up in under one month, then only 100 would be needed to affectively "keep" backlogs from getting over 1 month old (plus instructing the taggers as they tag when they are doing it incorrectly, mis-tagging, or mis-understanding the purpose of tags and what there all used for. --businessman332211 22:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want a group to work on cleanup, then you're really talking about a WikiProject. You might want to check on existing ones, Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce in particular. Also, the Signpost seems to be running a feature each week on one WikiProject; perhaps you could volunteer to help write an article about this taskforce, or about a WikiProject you've started to deal with the problem because there was no existing WikiProject that did what you wanted. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Another, possibly weak, idea might be to contact the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council, which seeks to be a group which tries to deal with issues of importance to all the projects out there, and maybe check to see if there was any way to create a cross-project effort on a given template for a specific time. I can't know how many projects would involve themselves the first few times, but it might get a bit of attention to the subject anyway. John Carter 15:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it's a passing thought. I jump from one thing to another. I was able to (with whoever else was working on them) able to knock out 2 months of backlog on cleanup. However I am interested in catching up all backlogs I can. But I am also working on other stuff. I might make a backlog related sub-wiki project later if no-one else does first. Now I amworking on rewriting the "instructions" for the RFA submittal and some other random stuff. I Created the basic essay I just want to build onto it for the backlog. I might just create a project for it, if there isn't one out there for all backlog's. --businessman332211 16:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this considered notable? Or is this trivial?

Regarding Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907, there was an e-mail rumor claiming to have photos of the final moments of the Gol Airlines cabin. In fact the images are from a TV show called Lost. (Confirmed: I saw the images, and the show. They are from the show. 67.188.118.64 10:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC) )

One of the editors feels that reporting on the e-mail hoax is trivial, and that the sources describing the hoax, About.com (excluding the Wikipedia mirror) and Snopes, are not reliable enough.

About.com: http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_photos_gol_737_crash.htm Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/brazil737.asp

The talk page: Talk:Gol_Transportes_Aéreos_Flight_1907

I feel that the fact that About.com and Snopes report on this prove that the hoax is widespread and that reporting on this is notable and not trivial. WhisperToMe 23:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I would consider the hoax notable, but notability should NOT be the criteria here. What would an unsuspecting person think, if they recieved an email, and then used wikipeida as a refrence? Would you like to know that other hoaxes that have been disproved are on wikipedia, so that you can find them? I got the email about the rumor. I checked it by typing Flight 1907 Hoax into google. Hmmm Wikipeida didn't show up? I replyed to the email with the hoax link.

It would be more important for wikipedia to be encyclopedic than popular. JMFO 67.188.118.64 10:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Character Article Policy

So apparently I've gotten into a bit of a predicament. I was taking a look over at the Light Yagami article. And I noticed this:

It doesn't satisfy the notability guidelines established by WP:FICT. It's basically just plot summary, which isn't allowed per WP:NOT.

It has little no real world content, which is supposed to be the focus of the article. The L Lawliet article is the same. I thought that it would be best to condense the two articles and merge them into List of Death Note characters.

A similar experience occured regarding the Characters of Kingdom Hearts article, which I helped clean up: most of the separate character articles were EXACTLY like those two articles: just plot summary. So we condensed the plot and merged them all into that article. The exception was Organization XIII. It was kept separate because we were able to find real world content for that article (specifically "Concept/Creation"), and less importantly because that article was already very long anyway.

Yet, at this proposal, some pointed out that making character articles like those two is a common practice. And I have noticed that this is true: Bleach is a good example. Ulquiorra Schiffer, last I checked, was basically little more than plot summary as well. Ichigo Kurosaki, ditto. It's like that with Naruto as well. I did notice one thing however: most, if not all of those articles are B-Class or lower, and have tags requesting cleanup regarding in-universe perspective, merge tags, among other things. So what exactly am I supposed to do? What's the policy regarding separate character articles? I still feel that the two articles should be merged. If enough real world content becomes available for them, we can split them again.HadesDragon 00:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It is, unfortunately, common especially in the anime/manga realm but many of them have the same problems you already mentioned. There is no single policy that addresses them, just a combo of style guides and the policies already mentioned. The Wiki TV Project cautions that few characters deserve articles (and gives an exampled of an great one and a decent one) at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television/How_to_write_about_television_programs#Characters. The Wikipedia MOS for anime articles (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Anime-_and_manga-related_articles)) also discourages it, but alas, its mostly been ignored. So, I think agree, they should be merged, however depending upon the willingness of the editors in that area to get in line, you may have to settle down for a fight on your hands and be ready to WP:Be Bold and start doing mergers. If possible and necessary, you may have to AfD the existing articles, which seems to be the one way many of the character articles can be effectively removed when rabid fan objections occur. Collectonian 00:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have another idea: When Death Note: How to Read is published in English, check for interviews regarding character development. The creator may talk about how Light was developed. WhisperToMe 03:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad to see I was on the right track, Collectonian. I'll be bold if necessary. But, I have a question: I'm feeling a little stupid asking this, but what does AfD stand for? Also, Whisper: yes, that is the kind of info that we're looking for, and I definitely plan to look into it, but as of now, the articles should be merged.HadesDragon 15:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD = articles for deletion :) Collectonian 16:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well to be honest, the entire point of policy and guidelines is to reflect consensus of the community. Why not perform a consesus discussion on whether or not to allow "those" kinds of articles. Some are easy to provide real world context, where possible it can be done. However some articles (as you mentioned) aren't possible, So, perhaps general consensus might be to redo those 2 parts of policy to reflect "some"liniency. If we keep having to fight hundreds of those article, it might reflect a potential change in consensus. It never hurts to see the outcome of it. If more people want it than don't it's obvious it might be for the best of the overall community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Businessman332211 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

How to write articles neither Copying from Sources or creating Original Research?

I don’t understand how to write an article neither copying from sources (paraphrasing is disallowed too) or creating Original Research. Please point me to Wikipedia guidelines on how to cope with both these issues simultaneously. Thanks. Dhammapal 08:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, where is paraphrasing disallowed? If by paraphrasing you mean that your source says "In the year XXXX a cataclysmic event hit the town of Springfield when the volcano erupted" and you paraphrase to say "In XXXX, Springfield was affected when the volcano erupted. <ref> Source </ref> ." You can't use word for word plagiarizing but you can take take the narrative of the source and rely it back in your own words and give due attribution to where you got the information from. Original Research would be more along the lines of saying "The single most important event in Springfield's history was in XXXX when the volcano erupted." Hope that helps. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 08:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

A more abstract way to think of it is that facts aren't copyrightable, but the manner of presentation of facts is. The best approach is to find good sources, whittle out the facts from those sources, and then present those facts following the Wikipedia Manual of Style. The only time you should be actually quoting is if you're actually discussing the source itself, rather than the subject of the source. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I run into this problem all of the time, due to the subject area I focus on: Ethiopian history. (Question to prove my point: how many books on Ethiopian history does your public library have? Residents of NYC need not answer.) Right now, Tekle Giyorgis I of Ethiopia is, AFAIK, the best account of his life available. This is not because I am a wonderful researcher/writer, but because most history books either dismiss him in a few sentences or ignore him entirely. (The exception is the massive history of Ethiopia written by E. A. Wallis Budge, who covers the Emperor's reign in a few pages -- & he did an embarassingly sloppy job on the subject.) The secret is to let the facts speak for themselves, much as Agne7 recommends above; avoid trying to express an opinion or on the subject, but if you must either find an authority to quote or use the conditional. -- llywrch 20:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent advice Agne and Johnny.

I misunderstood CorenSearchBot’s direction:

Replace the copyright text with your own work. Note that simply modified or rephrased text is still an infringement — to remove the copyrighted contents you will need to completely remove them and then write totally new text to replace it.

Paraphrase is different to rephrase right? Dhammapal 10:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the extent of the rephrasing. As suggested above, simply distilling out the facts and presenting them in your own words is not an infringement, and doing so from multiple sources makes this even less likely. On the other hand, slight grammatical or syntax changes from the original make the "new" version considered, for all intents and purposes, the same as an exact copy. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Value Judgments in the System.

I came across this issue while looking into a novel by Stephen King, Gerald's Game, which I have yet to read. While I feel no particular attachment to this work, the presence in the discussion page of a rating system that ranks works of literature on the grounds of them being more important based on rather arbitrary standards strikes me as a biased way of talking about works. If this is indeed an impartial source of information, the only goal for any articles on artistic works ought to be matters of comprehensiveness. While singling out certain works as important to world culture etc makes sense in the text of their respective articles, including a system for determining how low on the metaphoric totem pole a work is in terms of value strikes me as decidedly unprofessional for an encyclopedia. This is inexcusable unless the actual point of wikipedia is to tell people what they should enjoy and value and what is a waste of their time, rather than the impartial information. More impartiality, less ideology! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snyrt (talk • contribs) 18:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Those ratings don't represent which works are the most important or most popular literature. They are used to indicate which articles are of highest priority to the particular wikiproject. Oftentimes that merely reflects the opinions of the members of the project as to what they want to work on next. Check the wikiproject - they may have an explanation of their rankings, and if not, maybe you can help them create one. Karanacs 18:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion page for the novel "Gerald's Game" you will see that this book is low on the importance scale, which is explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Assessment#Importance_scale As you will notice, this chart rates works depending on their supposed overall importance to the field of literature, and gives examples of these various categories of important and less important works. If this categorization system is meant to put the books in order of priority for editors rather than ranking the books, I think it ought to be put differently, making it plain that the books are not being rated on their overall quality/importance in the world. User:Snyrt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.192.68.117 (talk) 06:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You'll probably need to take this up with the wikiproject. Karanacs 14:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Project pages and the article talk pages are meant for internal discussion, "how the sausage is made". They're not the public face, they're how to write the public face. We allow anyone to look at them, but we don't show them off. They're not "to tell people what they should enjoy and value", they're to tell project members who are interested what to concentrate on editing. It so happens that many projects do believe that those subjects that are most important in the real world are also the most important to have the best articles on, but that's not an endorsement of those subjects. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The importance ratings are only there to make it clearer to the members of the project which are the articles which are more or less likely to either be standard in an encyclopedia or are most "important" to their particular field. You'll note that their "top" importance books include the likes of A Christmas Carol, Dracula, The Grapes of Wrath, Uncle Tom's Cabin, Madame Bovary, and The Hound of the Baskervilles. The project has determined, based on their own standards, that these articles and the others at that rating are of the most central importance to that project. Ranking something as "Low" importance just means that, while all members and other editors are encouraged to work on it if they so wish, the project as a project isn't likelty to devote a lot of attention to it unless "difficulties" arise. Again, all projects to a degree have to do this. That project has 15,417 articles tagged, and triage of this kind has to be done when you're dealing with numbers like that. John Carter 20:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if we started giving importance ratings to users, we could have some very lively discussions. :) - Crockspot 21:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick (odd) question

This may not be the best place to ask this, but an issue has come up with an editor who insists on adding the {{in space}} template to their userpage. This causes their name to appear in the Category:People currently in space, which is not appropriate. I was not able to locate a guideline or policy about having article template tags on userspace, but in this case, it is pretty inappropriate. Attempts by another editor to request it be removed have not been successful, so I'm wondering if there is a policy anywhere I've overlooked that would explain this shouldn't be placed in userspace? Thanks in advance, Ariel♥Gold 18:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You may be looking for this guideline WP:CAT#User_namespace. Karanacs 19:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps a lot. And if the person still refuses to remove it? lol. Ariel♥Gold 19:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

We could always work around the matter by editing the template to wrap the category links between "{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||" and "}}"; that way, the template will only categorize pages when used in the main namespace. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, there seems to be a matter of timing here: it's impossible to accurately self-categorize oneself as being in space by doing a Wikipedia edit, since there are no internet connections in space; ergo, adding the template is posting false information, on its face. We don't have to know the user's underlying identity to know that the edit is incorrect. (And, of course, it is forbidden for multiple people to use the same account, so we can rule out the posting being done by a different person, not in space.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The editor removed the template after being asked nicely, so this is resolved. Thanks everyone :o) Ariel♥Gold 07:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

{{NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader}} template usage

Hey all. Over at Wikiproject College Football, we've been having a debate over one of our templates and what the proper use should be for it. We'd really appreciate it if you could pop over and give your two cents if you've got the time.

Example A
Example B

Basically, the debate is over whether this template should always be at the top of a single-game college football article or whether it should only be at the top of underdeveloped college football articles and in a statistics section in large ones. Please drop by if you get a chance, and thanks for your help! JKBrooks85 16:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for songs; resolution needed

For many months now, WP:MUSIC has included a section on WP:MUSIC#Songs that is preceded by the announcement that This is a proposed new section, presently under discussion on the talk page. The conversation has been dormant for what seems to be about three months. On October 31st, I proposed removing the disclaimer if there were no objections, lacking any response at all, did so on November 2nd. Another editor has restored the disclaimer with the suggestion that the matter be raised here...and here I am. :) I believe that the section on songs either needs to be removed or confirmed; having it hang around on the guideline with the disclaimer can only be a source of confusion, particularly since the proposal is patently not "presently under discussion". Opinions either way would be greatly appreciated so that we can have this matter resolved. The discussion, such as it is, is currently located at songs section redux. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The criterion really seems unnecessary and prone to the lawyering which the sub-notability guidelines already encourage too much of. ("They drove cross-country in a van and played in some bars, it's a national tour so we have to keep it!"). If a song meets any of those criteria there, it will more likely than not have sufficient source material about it to justify an article. And in the unlikely event that is not the case, we still shouldn't have an article. As in everything, we should reflect independent reliable source material, not second-guess it or write it ourselves based on primary sourcing. If independent reliable sources have taken little or no note of something, we should reflect them—by taking little or no note of it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that there is a similar problem with WP:Fiction a section on sub articles that has little consensus and that in the eyes of many contradicts policy has been added to the guideline. I think these multiple notability guidelines are getting out of control. They all contradict each other, in many cases they actually contradict themselves, and they are slowly turning into loopholes for established policy. I don't really understand why these guidelines are trying to establish what subjects deserve an article.

Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs and promo-only records are in general not notable.

Why is that line there? If a mixtape passes all the core policies that every normal article needs to pass it's notable, these guidelines are slowly turning into style guidelines. Another issue is sections like this one from WP:Fiction,

To a limited extent, sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but must rely on the parent article to provide some of this background material (due to said technical reasons).[3] In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article. Such sub-articles should clearly identify themselves as fictional elements of the parent work within the lead section, and editors should still strive to provide real-world content.

So in other words, and how it is read by most users from my AFD experience is you don't need to satisfy WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N, or WP:Plot as long as the parent article is notable.Ridernyc 05:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as one involved with trying to adjust WP:FICT, we completely understand that allowing for subarticles is a loophole in terms of notability and (lack of) inheritance, but it is appropriate when considering MOS, WP:SIZE, and summary style. However, most articles on fictional characters or other elements outside the notable work are certainly not written towards meeting MOS, SIZE, and SS, and instead were likely written because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ("Hey, all the key characters on "The Simpsons" have an article page, that must mean its ok for all shows"). And because a lot of these are edited by fans of the works, it's very hard to convince them to trim, merge, transwiki, or delete such pages. The rewrite is aimed at legitimate cases where the editors of the page have discussed and tried other means prior to splitting off a section into its own subarticle to meet MOS guidelines. Mind you, I don't believe the guideline revision is completely done as we're waiting for a potential merging decision from WP:N of all the notability guidelines, as well as input and cooperation with WP:WAF. --MASEM 06:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• We have a notability guide for songs. It's called WP:N. Most of the minute notability guides are the worst examples of instruction creep anyways. WP:N adequately covers 99% of everything anyways. All it asks for is independant, non-trivial, and reliable sources. Either the sources for expanding the article as described by WP:N exist or they do not. If they don't, the subject is non-notable, regardless of whether it is a song or a person or a corporation or any other random category you could put it into. We don't need more guidelines, we need less for clarity. All that is needed is WP:N. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with most of what Jayron32 wrotes. Most of the sub-guides are not just instruction creep, but confuse and distract editors from the relatively simple core guidance at WP:NOTE, which provides some general principles to be applied across all fields. I note that there is already a proposal to merge the whole of WP:MUSIC into WP:NOTE, but if that doesn't happen then rather than deleting WP:MUSIC#Songs, I suggest that it would best to merge it with the preceding WP:MUSIC#Albums section and state explicitly that any individual article on a song or must meet WP:NOTE standards. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I have been working toward this goal for almost a year. There are three ongoing tasks: (1) intercept the flood of new proposals for guidelines, (2) merge superfluous guidelines, and (3) clarify and simplify those that remain. Right now WP:PROF is due for evaluation; for some time the core has been incorporated into WP:BIO, but PROF has not been redirected. --Kevin Murray 14:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Much as I would like to see these guidelines simplified, & agree that WP:N covers the vast majority of cases, it's that last, small group that cause the most heat & frustration. Looking over each case enumerated in WP:MUSIC, I can either remember or envision the conflict which led to that case; there have been an awful lot of electrons expended arguing either that a suitable article should be deleted, or an unsuitable one kept. (This is something my five years on Wikipedia helps me see.) To paraphrase an old programming adage, guidelines & policy should be simple -- but not too simple. -- llywrch 17:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Llywrch makes some good points here about moderation in eliminating ALL sub-guidelines to WP:N, for example certain guidelines make SMALL and FOCUSED exceptions to the normal requirements of the Primary Criterion (reliable, non-trivial, independant sources), such as the WP:CORP exception for companies that are listed on highly notable rankings (like Fortune 500), or the exception provided for recognized or incorporated municipalities. However these exceptions are carefully thought out and narrowly defined for a certain purpose, and should not be the norm. I have never seen a rationale why an article on a song should be kept despite lacking reliable, non-trivial, and independant sources; this I can see no reason why we need an extra guideline. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I have seen some fringe artists that are worth being listed here have trouble satisfying WP:Music. I Have also seen total unremarkable bands make it through AFD because they somehow satisfy one of the silly criteria, i.e. have been a national tour with a notable act. The problem I have is not with the guideline being laid out and trying to clarify things. The problem is all these sub-guidelines are being edited by different groups of people, who don't talk to each other. I also think certain ones WP:Fict for example have been taken over by editors with questionable motives. I'd much rather see everything on one page worked on by one group. These guidelines over lap in ways you don't see at first. For example a novel is notable for the most part because of it it's fiction, but take something like World Of WarCraft, it has fictional elements but is it notable for it's fiction. Should all the fictional elements fall under WP:Fiction? Should songs from a musical fall under WP:Music where songs have their own set of criteria to meet. or do they fall under the automatic notability of WP:Fict? Ridernyc 21:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Guideline contradiction

A contradiction has been discovered between two guidelines: Wikipedia:Lists and Wikipedia:Avoid self-references.   To solve the problems this guideline conflict has created see Wikipedia talk:Lists#Contradiction between Wikipedia:Lists and Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. The Transhumanist 09:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Policy: Education

What are the issues to be considered for Public Private Partnership in Education? What could be the different ideas for PPP for school education? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.128.95 (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a question for the reference desk. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Excessive literalism

This might be subtitled, "The misuse of policies like WP:V and WP:RS and guidelines like WP:REL to cover an attempt to push a POV, by claiming WP:OR, and interpreting guidelines as rules and rules so narrowly as to violate common sense. It seems to be a favorite tactic of some editors, and seems to need at least an essay that could evolve into a guideline, and then into a policy. It seems likely to have been discussed before, but so far I haven't found it.

It can take various forms. Here are are a few:

• 1. The article name is a phrase "word1 word2 word3" and an editor rejects any source that does not contain that exact phrase, even though it contains synonymous expressions or descriptions, or leaves out a word as a way of abbreviating, or separates or reorders the words in ways that are synonymous, that anyone who knows English would recognize as synonymous.
• 2. Insisting on treatment of the article as only about the usage of the name rather than the object or denotatum of it, and that the thing denoted didn't exist before it was named. Then rejecting under WP:REL anything about the thing known by other names.
• 3. Delecting an entire paragraph or section because a cite that supports the entire paragraph or section is not inserted after every sentence or phrase.
• 4. Insisting that two policy statements, expressed as independent sentences, must both be satisfied. An example would be to insist that the first two sentences of WP:NOR#Citing oneself must both be satisfied, rather than either of them.
• 5. Inserting material that is obviously incorrect, because it seems to come from a reliable source. E.g., a statement that an event occurred on "April 31" when that month doesn't have a 31st day, the correct date "April 13" can be easily seen from the rest of the source, and then, if another editor wants to just delete the date, or say "in April", he deletes the entire passage.
• 6. Rejecting even the most obvious summarizations as OR. E.g., having a source that says "A came in the room." Then says "B came in the room." And the editor summarizes as "A and B came in the room." But the obsessive editor insists on a source for "A and B".

I could go on, but others can probably think of others. It could become an essay or policy WP:NEL -- "No excessive literalism". Jon Roland 04:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This is in regard to Constitutional militia movement‎, of which this editor is a prominent leader. As an involved expert he is asserting that the movement is whatever he says it is, regardless of what the few available reliable sources say. The editor does not seem to understand the need for verifiability, or respect the limits imposed by WP:NOR. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It is partially inspired by my experience with that article, but I have also looked at what some of the same adverse editors, and others that seem to be allied with them in their methods, are doing on other articles to which I have not contributed. A couple of them have also been following me around to other articles I have edited, including this one, and on the basis of that I charge them with violation of WP:HAR. The above entry is not responsive to the problem posed by the article, and seems to have been made only to annoy and discredit me. I interpret policies like WP:NOR differently than they seem to, and I think more in line with the way they were intended to be understood, that is, reasonably and with common sense, not rigidly and literalistically. If no one can point me to where this question is already addressed, I will create an essay on it. Jon Roland 07:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

When you disagree with the interpretation of a policy, as you do with how other editors are interpreting WP:NOR#Citing oneself, the best solution is to propose a rewording of the policy that clarifies its meaning (that can be done in a number of ways, including just doing it, and seeing how people react, then taking the matter to the policy talk page), or to initiate an RfC regarding its meaning. I really don't think another essay is going to help. And Wikipedia has a dispute resolution process for content disputes (which this is); that's also a better alternative than bringing a list of arguments to this page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and of course I intend to pursue other alternative for any particular disputes. However, there seems to be a general problem for which an article is needed that editors can cite to as a way to make their points. It is really just a way to urge editors to use common sense, which every policy and guideline article also urges, but for a few editors who seem bent on excessive literalism, as some seem to be, including some with which I have never engaged and am never likely to, there seems to be a need for an additional general guideline that covers all policies and guidelines. We don't want excessive clarifications of existing policies and guidelines, either, trying to anticipate all the ways anyone might try to misunderstand them, because they have not been written to be nitpicked. That would make them too long, and most of them are okay in their present state if interpreted in a common-sense, plain-English way. Excessive literalism is a tendency that has appeared and been debated for centuries in many fields, especially theology and law. There should be a single article that focuses on the general problem and allows discussion there of what is and what is not excessive literalism on policies and guidelines. Jon Roland 16:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is already Wikipedia:Use common sense, and, more generally, Wikipedia:Consensus, which says, among other things, It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position. Good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may be reasonable. However, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice.. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the internal links. I added them and some others to the article at WP:NEL. Jon Roland 03:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think John Broughton has it about right, but I could add the most helpful policy to this difficulty may be WP:IAR anyway. I certainly don't think we need a new guideline or policy.Obina 14:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

An essay can supplement or explain an interpretation of policies and guidelines, so that people who feel other editors "just don't get it" can link to an article that sums up what they are trying to say. The trouble with WP:IAR is that, for people who have trouble with common sense, it seems to be contradicted by rules they can invoke while ignoring it, with its admonition that it is more important to write good articles (for the people who will read them) than to adhere fastidiously and narrowly to rules and guidelines that are intended only to be used with discretion. But who knows. If enough people start citing to WP:NEL it might become upgraded to a guideline or policy. It is intended to expand on what has gone before, and make more clear what has been intended, by referencing to the long history of "excessive literalism" and what can be learned from that. Jon Roland 17:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that you approach Wikipedia with the perspective that we are writing an encyclopedia. You may want to see the general advice of where to start. It appears that instead you are approaching Wikipedia from the premise that you may use it to advance your political manifesto, and that you are finding frustrations while using Wikipedia for this purpose. Also, I recommend reading the Wikibreak and the Wikistress essays. SaltyBoatr 18:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the motivations and background of the original author of this essay are, I think most of us who have been here for any length of time probably can agree that excessive literalism as described does occur, and can contribute to a difficult editing environment. And yes, the most typical targets of literal interpretation do seem to be WP:RS and WP:OR. (For me, the most memorable experience of this was probably the first three sections of Talk:Hipcrime (Usenet), though I've certainly seen it happen elsewhere too.)

The ideal response, in such a situation, is simply to accommodate and work around the excessive demands — find a source that says "the sky is blue", in those exact words if necessary, or settle for a wording that you can source to the hilt ("diffuse sky radiation consists mainly of the shorter wavelengths of light"). Eventually, if you can keep producing every reference and shrubbery demanded, the person (there's usually just one; if there are more, consider the possibility that you might be the unreasonable one) insisting on a literal interpretation will either get tired or be satisfied.

Of course, the problem is that doing all this can be immensely exhausting and exasperating, and it might be you who tires first. If you don't feel you can meet the demands on your own, and feel the issue nonetheless affects the quality of the encyclopedia too much to just let be, the solution is the same as for any editing dispute: ask for outside opinions. This will probably not convince the literalist editor that they are wrong, however strongly the consensus might be on your side — they'll be too convinced that they are right, that they're defending the encyclopedia against misinformation and that "consensus does not override policy" — but it can provide useful insight as well as additional editors willing to discuss and work on the issue when you get tired. Ultimately, here as in other cases, the real strength of reasonable editors versus unreasonable ones is that reasonable people can form a consensus and work together to achieve it, while the unreasonable ones stand alone against the world.

Of course, the corollary is that if you find yourself standing alone as the "sole defender of the encyclopedia" against the unwashed hordes, and nobody seems willing to share the burder with you, you ought to seriously reconsider whether you might be in the wrong — or, even if you are right, whether continuing the struggle is really worth it. This is known as a reality check, and it's something any sane person ought to take from time to time. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

How to deal with users of questionable mental stability

This issue is an important question for Wikipedia policy. How should administrators and the average user deal with other users who are mentally ill? What qualifies as mental illness? Where should the line be drawn? In terms of this matter, my view may be seen as rather strict. I believe that the contributions of an editor do not factor in their judgment if they have shown to be irrational and abusive towards other users. This is similar to how I think abusive editors (even if they are not mentally ill) should be treated. Currently, the administration seems to take a very laissez-faire approach. This is causing a great deal of harm here at Wikipedia as a whole and to individual users. - Cyborg Ninja 06:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It is difficult to address this problem with any kind of guideline or policy, because it is a difficult problem even for mental health professionals in face-to-face situations. It will probably have to be dealt with on a case-to-case basis. Wikipedia assumes rationality and good faith, but as an activity it is vulnerable to intrusion by the corrupt, the malicious, and the deranged. The barbarians are always at the gates, and it only takes a few to destroy a civilization or a Wikipedia. We also have to recognize that Wikipedia has become an arena for contests for power. The high ranking :of its articles in the search engines is also an incentive for invasion, at first by subtle and skilled efforts that can seem to be "civilized" in this context but which if not repelled will eventually destroy the project. Jon Roland 07:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia, in general, takes a very laissez-faire approach -- it's one of the fundamental precepts of our philosophy, in general, both a great strength and a source of many problems. For my part, I'd rather we avoided throwing around a bunch of unqualified, amateur guesses as to whether so-and-so has such-and-such illness, and just focused on the issue of a person's participation in the project. Are they contributing? Is their behavior disruptive or productive? Is there anything we as a community might do to help them become a better editor? What chance of improvement is there? Again, as I mentioned in your other thread, it's very difficult to have these sorts of conversations in a general sense, and I'm not sure how productive it might be. Problematic users can be reported to the appropriate admin noticeboards for discussion and possible administrative response, if need be; I'd also encourage you to make use of the dispute resolution process, whenever possible. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Cyborg; While I can understand your concern at dealing with users who, as you say, are of "questionable mental stability", may I ask one small thing? If they don't give you any indication (by userbox, etc...) - what puts you in a position to be able to judge who is mentally stable or unstable? That's not meant as an argumentative statement, simply an idea for me to understand, say, do you have some experience of dealing with mentally unstable people by reason of work or something? No one on here has ever questioned my mental stability, but I suffer from Paranoia. If I hadn't said anything about that, would you have had some way of knowing that that was the case? Thor Malmjursson 13:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a "This Wikipedian is off their meds" userbox? In all seriousness, having a bipolar userbox on a user page hardly qualifies as a legitimate means of diagnosis. Personally, I don't think we can make any special exceptions for disruptive editors because they're mentally ill, otherwise every malicious editor will try to use that as an excuse. Caknuck 15:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Caknuck, I quite agree. We don't make any exceptions for anyone based on their state of mind, that is true. But as I have said, How do you know they are mentally ill in the first place??? Thor Malmjursson 15:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Thor and Luna. There's just no way to tell for sure if someone does or does not have a mental illness, even if we had qualified professionals who were editors here. Also, even if there was a way to tell if an editor has a mental illness, they shouldn't be treated any differently unless their behavior is somehow disruptive to the community. GlassCobra 16:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm only referring to users who are disruptive. Paranoia doesn't count as something that would be very disruptive, IMO. In no way am I suggesting I be the person to decide who is mentally ill or not; neither is there an easy way to do this. There are some users on this site who do show their true colors, even after much productivity. I suggest dealing with it privately and to be very gentle, and only in cases that are obvious. At the same time, I don't think it would work for administrators to do that. It seems like a line is being crossed if they do. I've seen mental illness in online friends of mine who have later come clean about it to me (one was extremely paranoid). I tried to help him on a personal basis, but as you probably expect, it didn't work. So what we should focus on is to not ignore any obvious policy violations. We cannot use "Oh he was just angry and got over it" or "He's ill, let him be" as an excuse. I know a lot of you just take the "report it to AN/I" approach, but I've seen administrators turn the other way even in the most extreme of cases because they don't want to hurt someone's feelings, or deal with it any further. The problem is, with many of these people, they'll get upset again and the same thing will happen again. We need to be stronger than this. Thank you all for the replies. Sorry that came off as a bit of a rambling — I don't have all the answers. - Cyborg Ninja 20:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There are some editors who are clearly disturbed, and it's sometimes helpful to conceive of their bizarre or abusive editing as the product of some personal issues. But mental illness isn't a yes or no thing. We're all a little sick in the head at times. And schizophrenics, obsessive compulsives, neurotics, bipolars, and even sociopaths are human beings too and may have something to contribute here. It would be sad and unfair to say that you're disqualified from Wikipedia for having an organic brain disorder. Judge the edits, not the editor, and don't punish people for being honest about their mental state. We shouldn't deny the obvious - our bipolar colleagues can be a total pain at times. But they can also be wickedly smart and productive, and deserve a seat at the table like everyone else provided they can get along.Wikidemo 21:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Some users do 'lose it' a bit very easily and appear unstable. We all know of those that when one of their articles is tagged even by a bot, say it's ruined their experience on Wikipedia. Or they go on massive WP:POINT campaigns, tagging numerous articles, solely because they feel one of theirs was tagged unfairly. It's not disparaging to those with mental health problems, most of whom can still contribute sanely to Wikipedia. But some people even if they haven't been diagnosed with any illness easily flip out, and go on a rampage. They may even say 'now I'm going to turn evil- ruhaha' or some such. Thhen go back to normal briefly and apologise slightly so they get away with it. Then a few days later something sets them off again. Hopefully they get blocked if they continue in such a pattern. As an individual editor, the best way to deal with them is probably to avoid much contact with them. As a community, to notice their history when they invite their latest block, and if the pattern has occurred several times, long-term block. 91.110.169.154 16:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about, and I'm glad that you noticed it too. "Unstable" is the keyword here. There are multiple editors who have this problem, and I think it's a part of their lifestyle, but I believe the laissez-faire approach at this site and others on the Web allows them to keep being disruptive. To add to your characterization, these editors take minor setbacks (tags, warnings, bots, etc) very personally and threaten other users for something that is quite minor. This, to me, shows that they are not trying to make Wikipedia a better place and that they are acting in poor faith. I'm sorry, but assuming good faith in evidence of obvious bad faith is absurd, and some administrators and many regular editors need to realize that and stop using that as an excuse. This is a serious problem on Wikipedia. I realize that some of these editors contribute plenty to Wikipedia, and therefore many people don't want to ban them, but if this is a pattern and if they are harming other users: it needs to stop. I try to be sensitive to unstable people like this both online and in real life. I have a grandmother who behaves like this, and the best my family can do is try to alleviate her stress to avoid setting her off. However, I recognize that she does have some ability to control herself and we do not accept every emotional outburst. We do love and forgive her, of course. But please realize, administrators, that if an unstable user has a pattern of this behavior and is harming other users, you absolutely should not accept it. I imagine that a lot of you are thinking "We don't," but I've seen this from other admins and users. The twisting of the WP:AGF policy is partly to blame. - Cyborg Ninja 19:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I should add that I have one person in mind right now (though he is not the only one to act like this). A quick glance of his Contributions page shows me that he makes 300+ edits a day and frequently spends over half of the day, every minute, editing Wikipedia. Every day. Now, I think I spend a lot of time on Wikipedia, but that's mostly to read articles to expand my knowledge. But that person's amount of time here... can we really call that normal, or healthy? He does everything the user above cited as conduct that an unstable editor does here. I'm not suggesting that we warn someone just because they spend vast amounts of time here obviously, but I think it's something to think about. - Cyborg Ninja 20:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can be overly suspicious just due to 'spends too much time here.' What we are basically talking about is conduct that would lead to an RfC, but because the user spreads the conduct over different areas and his/her WP:POINT sprees target many different articles and people, it's hard to have an RfC that truly covers what they get upto, because RfCs have to be about 'the same dispute', so it's harder to raise the two people needed that have the boldness to stand up. If RfCs were allowed to address the user's behavior in general when they're having one of their 'episodes', then they would be a more accurate representation of the user. Because while it runs the risk of being seen as ganging up on someone, sometimes that kind of RfC would be useful/necessary.91.110.230.131 21:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Two RFCs have been done of one person I have considered as unstable. Even if a tagging spree spans over dozens of articles that are unrelated, a question comes into one's head: is it acceptable to do mass-tagging of articles that one has not spent more than 5 seconds with? I know we have bots that handle other operations, but most of what they do makes sense to me and is useful. Marking every article with a big citations tag at the top isn't really going to encourage people to improve the article. I mean, come on people, get real. Still, some admins think it's helpful. But on this issue; it's nowhere near the worst example and even I wouldn't consider anything more than an informal warning for it if I were an admin, unless they ignore the warning. As you hinted at, RfCs are dedicated to one episode or event. If a user's behavior over several months needed to be reviewed, where should it be done? - Cyborg Ninja 08:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

New mental illness in established admins and editors

• I'm starting this as a new section because I believe it is worthy of its own category. - Cyborg Ninja 09:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The question seems loaded. Most abusive editors do not have any recognised mental illness. The interesting borderline case to consider here is: if there's a person who makes useful contributions, or even achieves adminship, while in a good mental state, and then their mental integrity degrades as a result of a illness-induced mood change, acquiring a new illness, or a change of medication, should they be de-adminned or banned, or should we wait for them to seek assistance and recover? If they do recover, do they have a means of requesting re-evaluation on this basis? Dcoetzee 14:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Depending on their behavior, if they are an admin and they behave poorly, then they should have their privileges taken away. You can't put power into the hands of someone who isn't mentally healthy. Of course, the admin would have to come out as having mental illness or it would have to be clearly discernible from normal behavior. Most cases won't be so easy. As for editors, it's a bit more difficult. I would not want to upset the user and taking away their ability to edit could have a drastic effect on them. But, as I've stated above, if there is a pattern of this behavior, it cannot be tolerated. If they decide to come back and state that they are now healthy and be open about their past, then I would welcome them. - Cyborg Ninja 09:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello

First time I've posted here, i think, so just interested in some general reaction to this essay: WP:TROLL? No more bongos 08:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Tut, tut, tut, far too concise and comprehensible! I read it six times before realising there were no sub-clauses or qualifying comments at all! Small wonder you haven't shown yourself around here before... ;~) LessHeard vanU 16:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The current practice is that personal essays belong in userspace, not projectspace, per Category:Wikipedia essays. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh! How do I move my essay, and get it categorised? I confess I got a little confused when attempting to find out originally. LessHeard vanU 22:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My honest view is it seems a bit unneccessary. We already have WP:AGF which means we shouldn't call editors anything. But is describing people as something different to calling them something? Depends on the context. I suspect that if there were a reason to describe behaviour as the behavior of a troll, we'd get pounced on for calling someone a troll. Next we can't use the word vandal, nor sock puppet, nor vanity, nor anything. We move to the land of weasel words. Most editors strive for kindness. I certainly don't plan to call anyone troll or anything else. I just think the general guidelines are more helpful than lists of specifics. Too many specifics are ammunition for the trolls! BTW WP:TROLL already has a redirect.Obina 14:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Foxy Brown Illegal picture

Hello everybody, I'm coming from the french wikipedia... I think the picture of Foxy Brown in the english article is not legal. It is said that the picture is on public domain but I think it is false... Maybe somebody should delete it ??? I can't do it myself... Thank you in advance Sylfred1977 17:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's gone. The same editor had uploaded a number of clearly copyrighted images under false claims that he was the creator and that he was releasing them into the public domain. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Persistent vandal - where to go from here?

The Television Stations Project has been dealing with a persistent vandal, Dingbat2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), for over three months. The vandal was indef blocked, but began creating numerous sockpuppets, both as anonymous IP addresses (until reported to his ISP for abuse) and as registered users. See list of nearly 30 sockpuppets. This user has now been effectively community banned - when a sockpuppet is discovered, edits are reverted on sight without regard to merit and the username is reported to the admins with the result universally being an indef block. No admin has been willing to undo the blocks, for which we are grateful. However, the constant reverting is getting tiresome; does anyone know of any other recourse that we have, or have we pretty much exhausted our options? Although the user has effectively been banned, there is no formal ban in place on this user, nor am I sure what benefit there would be with a formal ban. Ideas? dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how it is done, or who might do it, but how about seeing if the underlying ip address is static? If so, indef block that addy - problem solved. (or am I just stating the obvious that you have already considered?) Sprotecting the article will limit the ip's and new users - but you will have to judge the effect on other contributors. LessHeard vanU 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to look into the underlying IP address. I doubt I have access to that and I can't remember if I'd asked help from the admins on identifying that or not. RE: sprotecting - this guy sometimes touches 50-100 articles in a single session, so any steps to protect articles have a potential negative impact to a lot of good-faith editors. The last couple of times, I've caught him red-handed, limiting the damage to 10 articles or less. The only good thing is the guy is predictable, making him fairly easy to watch. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want someone to identify and block the underlying IP, go to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#Requests for IP check and file a request there. Hut 8.5 12:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks to both of you for the tips. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Just want another point of view, please

I wrote an article Hyde Amendment (1997) today and another article Barry Cohen (attorney) that is linked to the first one. Another person cleaned up the Barry Cohen article. I have submitted them as a two-for DYK. Someone has put a {{limited}} tag on the Barry Cohen article. I am not sure what I can do to make it less limited. Would you take a look at it and advise me what to do to fix it? Thanks! Mattisse 02:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I visited it, fixed some formatting, and removed some of the most inappropriate references (forum postings and blogs are not a valid source; the op ed pieces are also questionable). If Mr. Cohen is notable, perhaps search for better sources? Almost all of the sources come from the same online site, which would validate the limited point of view, while some of the others are not news articles but opinion pieces, rants, etc. The over all tone does not quite fit with an encyclopedic article and could use some copy editing. A quick web search doesn't seem to bring up a lot of information about Barry Cohen, beyond mostly bloggy or otherwise unreliable sources, making me wonder if he meets notability requirements? Collectonian 03:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. He is extremely well known but a behind the scenes type of guy. Not the Ellis Rubin type, coining media-grabbing defenses but wins many more high-profile cases, and in contrast to Rubin, Cohen never loses a case. The person who put the tag on the article removed it, I noticed. I'm basically using Cohen for the Hyde Amendment (1997) article as Cohen is one of the very few attorneys (actually I have not found another) who managed to win any money under that amendment, and Cohen won $2.9 million compensation, somewhat more than the goverment's offer of $250,000. I have asked the legal people to find another lawyer who has won a case under it. --Mattisse 14:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am really at odds with the NNOTABILITY/Trivia policy right now.

Sirs:

I am really at odds with the NOTABILITY/Trivia policy.

This policy has alienated a large number of WebComic advocates, and certainally cost WP some creadibility and good will, and some donation money too.

As I stated on my former user page, ( I will provbibly not log in again ):

"This is upsetting me, a lot. Articles are set for speedy deletion based upon the concept of Notability, i.e. popularization which to me has a connotation of sensationalizm. Since the most of the web is sensationalism and esoteric, and polarized in that way. ( Some eMusic sites I have been to only have 25~30 page views.)

Why would you want a encyclopedia, that only has popular topics? I really wound't want that. Id read 'People' Magazine if I wanted that. Encyclopedias should EMBRACE THE ESOTERIC. There is an article here on wikipedia for every pokemon character, and I %*&3 hate pokemon, but I respect its reverence amoung five year olds, and especially five year olds who use wikipedia as their reference. Can you imagine the effect of children growing up as knowing wikipedia as something that was usefull to them, and they would enjoy comtributing to?

By this criteria alone ( Notability ), we should delete ALL HISTORY before WWII for its irelevence. Is Joan D'Arc relevent? Practically no. But she has extrodinary significance to the history of religion, spirituality and philosophy." You can easily rewrite history, by only looking at the "popular" aspects of it.

I have an eye for detail and consistancy, and am about to actually work on my first complete rewrite, ( although, no one has stepped forward to guide me, or adopt me). Is it actually become sport to destory what others are passionate about? ( Feel free, of course, to delete this message if you feel that is not notable enough. )

What is being done policy wise about this?

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Comments:Wikimedia_fundraiser_highlights_webcomic_community%27s_frustration_with_Wikipedia_guidelines#The_tip_of_an_iceberg.

end of soapbox

You're clearly upset about the notability requirement, but I'm sorry to say that I don't understand much more than that. I'll take just a couple of your points: Why would you want a encyclopedia, that only has popular topics? Why indeed? But en:WP isn't that. (Brutalist architecture isn't a popular topic or a popular kind of architecture.) Again: By this criteria alone ( Notability ), we should delete ALL HISTORY before WWII for its irelevence. Is Joan D'Arc relevent? Practically no. But she has extrodinary significance to the history of religion, spirituality and philosophy. If she indeed has extraordinary significance to these three histories, then surely she's notable. Where's the (potential) problem with here? Perhaps you could rephrase your complaint. -- Hoary 09:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It is no longer essentially nessessary. Wikipedia will be the only product of 'Group thought' and 'Mass popularizm' If its "interesting" to the admins It stays, I am taking Jim Bo's suggestion that I find something else significant to do with my life other than swim upstream. I have created other accounts on other wiki's and am developing my SPAM bot to help a few others using wiki-software that do not have the benefit of a few million dollars in resources. See ya. (i.e. dont waste your time ) Stupidly I didnt sign my very last, and final post. G'day mate! Artoftransformation 12:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• The notability guideline sets some easy to follow and fairly objective standards, with a relatively low bar to inclusion. However, I do see uneven application of the standards at AfD, mostly by uninformed nominators and less informed evaluators. This is more of a problem than the guidelines. --Kevin Murray 13:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Leaked tv episode

I have a question about leaked episodes. If an episode of a TV show was gotten by hacking the stations Website and posted online, can people cite that in an article or not? What policies concern a situation like this? The Placebo Effect 18:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Wherever you're getting the episode from has to satisfy WP:V and WP:RS. If a third party source that satisfies the aforementioned policy and guideline comments on the hack, then that certainly can be included, but if you're citing a Youtube video, then no. As such, it varies. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Help create a manual of style for maps and diagrams

Right now it seems that Wikipedia provides no guidance on the best practices for creating maps and diagrams. These types of images are rapidly proliferating on Wikipedia. In fact, the Wikimedia Foundation has just started a grant program to pay illustrators to add new diagrams to articles in need. It would be nice if most of these additions followed similar styles and conventions instead of continually reinventing the wheel (with various degrees of success). Although I don't believe Wikipedia needs to enforce one particular style on all maps and diagram, there are some helpful conventions that I think we should put into writing somewhere. Wikipedia:Image use policy doesn't seem like the appropriate place for this, so I've decided to be bold and create a proposed Manual of Style page for maps and diagrams. Right now it is mostly blank as I would like to know what suggestions the Wikipedia community has to offer. Feel free to hop over there and edit it to your heart's content or add ideas to the talk page. Thanks! Kaldari 01:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Unlikned Photo/picture eating too much HDD storage

Unlikned Photo/picture eating too much HDD or mass storage in Wikipedia.org central facility. While ask of donation appears on top of every page recently, Wikipedia allows some numbers user's up load Photo/Picture and keep that too much number of picture as if his/her own Photo album. Many photo is not linked to article and kept as personal photo album. Photo eat too much storage space of server site of Wikipedia than text. Sysop should warm to Photo Author to be deleted.

The photo Up load should have some rule. ( also User self introduction also should have size limit, for example up to 10,000 characters)

My suggestive idea is:

1. Up loaded Photo is not linked to article within 30 days, it will be deleted automatically.
2. Article which is small space or less description allowed to have up to three photos.
3. Article with large space or much description may have up to Five photos.
4. Photo gallery allows up to 10 photos, and more than that it should be discussed which one to be deleted, or Delete vote system stub to be implemented by order of each photo.
5. User page photo should be up to three.

Unless some rule like above is not set, Wikipedia need more and more donation more than to keep healthy quality of information source. Waste of storage space under donation system should be reviewed ! --Namazu-tron 03:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have access to the servers and know this for a fact, your suggestion seems quite unnecessary. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Without looking inside of HDD or a fact, it is true to say, relatively that the un-linked photo(s) are wasting storage space and this is a suggestion based on Japanese Philosophy Mottainai--Namazu-tron 03:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's still unnecessary. Photos are very small, and some aren't even hosted on Wikipedia. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Really, space is not an issue. A single 1TB drive (retailing for about $300) is enough to fit all of Wikipedia's image files with plenty of room to spare. There are a large variety of technical needs and limitations that Wikipedia has, but raw storage space is something the foundation has an abundance of. Having enough file servers, processing power, and network redundancy to handle 30 thousand requests per second is a much more complicated issue, and largely independent from how much hard disk space one has. Dragons flight 03:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleting the image wouldn't free up that space for use by something else; everything still exists, just not somewhere that is visible to the average user. Every page and image I've deleted are accessible to any admin that peruses through my logs. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup, deleting files saves no space, even if it were an issue. You can preserve a byte here and there by uploading on commons rather than on wikipedia (assuming it's not fair use), since images tend to get moved there eventually anyway, which means that we then have 2 copies of the file on the server (one deleted, one in use). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox screenshots

I've thought for a while now that we should have a standard fair use rationale for intertitle screenshots used in TV show infoboxes. See here for a rough draft I made of one. However, I've often wondered how these types of screenshots are justified under the "critical commentary" stipulation of WP:NFC. It always seemed to me that these screenshots are just used for simple visual identification of the show, which is what I put in the draft. So, my questions are:

1. How, if at all, are infobox intertitle screenshots justified under WP:NFC?
2. Do you like the idea/wording of the standardized rationale, and do you have any suggestions for improving it?

--CrazyLegsKC 06:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Listing of multiple translations after title of articles, headings, etc.

I work on many of the food and drink articles on Wikipedia and especially take interest in editing cuisine articles. Although this hasn't been a huge issue with me in the past, it has been something I would like some assistance with for policy as it has become hinder some on some articles I have noted. My earlier notes come from articles such as Korean cuisine, Chinese cuisine, Japanese cuisine and other Asian cuisines that have both the english and foreign language translations on their pages. As mentioned, if it sticks to one language it doesn't seem to be an issue, but I would like to know if there is a policy that regulates this because I seem to recall someone telling me there was when I wrote the French cuisine article and was told I should use all English terms when possible. The current dilemma builds though when an article such as Chili oil comes under multiple languages and we end up with numerous translations in the heading for the lead. This does not seem correct to me and would like to have a discussion about it here with those who may know this realm of policy better than I.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 07:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I need help determining notability. It states on the Wikipedia Notability page that short term news bursts don't count as notability. But what if that news burst was short term, but major in how far it reached? Like a person who got on the news in America and also got on the news in Korea?... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heero Kirashami (talk • contribs) 04:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As our world becomes more connected, through global TV networks, the internet, and general mass media, it becomes more and more likely that the reach of a news item will grow. Where someone once became famous for five minutes only locally, they can now become famous for five minutes on a global scale. That does not change the fact that they were only famous for five minutes. A short term news burst is still a short term news burst, no matter it's reach. Blueboar 19:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion? Ask yourself, if it disappears from the headlines and nothing else happens, will people still want to read about this a year from now? Sometimes you can predict. If a volcano explodes or someone wins the Nobel Prize you can be pretty sure people will be interested a year from now, even a hundred years from now. If a person gets arrested for a bizarre crime, nobody will care next week. In between you have to guess. Sometimes, an event is just news for now but there is a lot of context, connection with other important events, importance in illustrating the subject, etc., so you can take a chance and infer that it is notable. But you're risking the possibility that after all your work, six months from now people are going to decide the article is pointless and delete it. It's nice when Wikipedia can be current and relevant, and useful to understand the latest headlines. But we don't have to be completely up to date with the news - that's what newspapers are for. There's usually no harm in taking a breather and waiting a week or a month to see how the story plays out before writing the article.Wikidemo 00:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

So in the case that a person continues to make news, at least amongst academia, that person may be article-worthy?... --Heero Kirashami 02:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• There is no hard and fast standard, only guidelines which are subject to reasonable interpretation. Read WP:BIO and use good judgment. For an academic or musician consult WP:PROF or WP:MUSIC respectively. If someone doesn't like your article you will hear about it or it will be nominated for deletion. Without very clear information on you subject we just can't tell much more. If you write an article and feel it is being unfairly criticized, please contact me and I will help. --Kevin Murray 03:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Five pillars

There has been a lot of rewriting going on at Wikipedia:Five pillars recently, with very little broad based oversight. It might be a good idea for more of us to be involved, at least in observing the process. --Kevin Murray 16:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD Close on Sub Article / Main Article

Some content was split off from Manchester Airport to List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 etc. These are now subject to an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 (2nd nomination). If this AfD closes as delete does that mean the information can be reintroduced into the main article? Most of the deletes are pure WP:Trivia/WP:NOT calls. One editor thinks the AfD applies to the articles, not the content. I disagree and think it applies to the content not the article. Could I ask for other's opinions? Thanks, Regan123 17:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If it is deleted in AfD, reintroducing the information in the article would not be appropriate. That's just trying to get around the result. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the particulars of the article in question. In some cases, material that is not notable to stand on its own is valid to be a subsection of an article with larger context (for example, biographical information on the non-notable relatives of a notable person, where such information does come from reliable sources). In other cases, some information has no place at Wikipedia in any form, whether as a stand alone article or as a subsection of another article. I want you to know that I am taking NO stand here over where this specific article fits, however, I do want to empasize that each article and set of facts needs to be adjudged of its own accord, and not based on some grand set of principles that may or may not be applicable to each individual case. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Why can archival material be edited?

NOTE: THis discussion moved here from Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)

I am puzzled as to why Archival material can be edited. Surely archived material should, by definition, be packed away and not be changed or deleted? This would include archived talk pages, archives of the reference desks and so on. If you wish to reactivate some of this material, you should copy it over to a current active page, link it to the archive it came from and take it from there. And similarly, why does the system allow the history pages of articles to be amended? It is after all an auditable record of what was actually written. I know you can get the history of the history pages, but wouldn’t it be simpler and cut down on data storage to cut out as much of this stuff as possible? Myles325a 23:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The main reasons I've seen are new "archive" navigation templates being invented, users who have changed their usernames updating their signature, and new spelling bots. As for why these pages aren't protected, it would appear to be a waste of admin time to have our sysops protect every archived discussion and then have to respond to requests to people asking for edits to the protected archives, especially when archive edits are so rare and so transparently traceable through the history. I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "why does the system allow the history pages of articles to be amended". Do you mean, "Why can page revisions be deleted by admins?" - BanyanTree 20:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm the one who doesn't understand. As someone with auditing experience, my understanding of archives are they are historical records, which have had a line ruled under them, and are packed away for future reference, not something which can be amended or "fixed up" later. And I don't get why we would need "sysops [to] protect every archived discussion", seeing as there are already umpteen articles which have been locked, either temporarily or indefinitely. And you don't say anything about my idea of posters copy/pasing material from archives into current pages. Of course, someone researching archived material could look for changes in the history pages, but that is a tiresome task which should not have to slow them down. And really, if the only reason you can give me is that some users change their usernames, then I must confess I consider that to be a trifling matter. In contrast, I would estimate that about 5% of Wikipedia is encyclopedia articles. The rest is all this stuff, and it gets hard to sift thru it all. Letting archives be archives would be a step in the right direction in slowing down and rationalising some of this stuff. BT, you're a great sysop, but I think you should have a chat with an auditor. Editing historical records is what people like Stalin did. Myles325a 03:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I thought you were looking for an explanation, rather than an excuse to start an argument. Please ignore my response above as I wouldn't have bothered if I had realized your intention. - BanyanTree 04:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Myles325a, are you sure that you are addressing a real problem rather than a theoretical one? Do you have evidence that (1) there are archives being modified in a way that is truly problematic, (2) these problematic changes are not being caught and (3) these problematic changes are happening often enough to warrant the cost of preventing them?

If you are an auditor or have worked with one, surely you know that there is a cost/benefit analysis to preventing or even detecting problems. The edit history on archive files is enough to prove that an archive file has been tampered with and how. Even if an editor goes into an archive file and makes a substantive but illegitimate change, we would be able to detect that if it were important enough to make the effort. Usually, however, archive files are not of any great value except in providing evidence for ARBCOM cases. I would drop this line of inquiry as not likely to be very productive.

--Richard 17:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Archives may be edited, but histories are not. While the currently visible version of any page may or may not be the full story, the history tab shows every single version of every single page including talk pages. You can't make stuff change or disappear by altering an "archive". Even deleted pages aren't really "deleted". Admins and buerocrats have access to them and their histories. This seems a non-issue to me. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Myles325 replies to BanyanTree, above. Ho hang about a sec, bro, and swap that high horse for a pony. You sound like some high priest giving “explanations” to a young dynamic researcher as to why the status quo is the best of all possible worlds, and getting snippy when he doesn’t just say “Oh, of course, how silly of me, O Divine One, thank you for setting me straight.” Wikipedia is not some medieval conclave of metaphysicians pulling rank on their novitiates, but a dynamic, evolving structure. And, frankly, I don’t mind an argument; you seem to think it an impertinence. I am a novice here, sure, and I was genuinely in search of explanations, but there is an element of the Socratic Question in my approach. I think that there is something irregular in allowing archives to be amended. Are you so sure that that there is nothing in anything that I said? I was, until medical retirement, a Senior Management Consultant in a large organisation, in charge of about $1 billion in capital investment. That involved a lot of careful and intricate analysis of structures. What’s your line of work? You have not substantially answered any of my points, and I would appreciate it if you did not bother to reply to this with more of your snotty “humour”. There are plenty of sysops out there, and the chances are that nearly all of them would have heads made of something of more benefit than the wood of a Banyan Tree.

To Richard. I am a management consultant, and they work with everyone in an organisation, including auditors. But making the most of cost-benefit analysis is not an auditor’s job. In fact, it’s quite the reverse. It is their job to make the system as fraud and fool proof as possible, at whatever expense. Trying to make it profitable is mine. Auditors demand audit trails on every transaction made in any business. The lack of strong transparent audit trails is behind most frauds. I fully realise that your history pages act as a kind of audit trail. I do not see why there needs to be a byte consuming tier on top of the archives, when it serves no real purpose. This might be cruel of me but the problems of a user “Stuffymuffy” who now wants to be known as “Fluffymuffy” would not be top of my priorities. As to whether these archives have much use, I point you to Karl Popper’s notion of World 3, as the cultural world which holds information in libraries etc, which can be retrieved IF and WHEN needed. There are books in such libraries that have not been opened in hundreds of years, some will never be opened. Why not turf them out? Because no one knows when the data held there might be needed for some future purpose not now known. A good example is the daily flight data of the Viking space craft, held on floppy discs in “archives” and thought useless. Until someone noticed that the craft had travelled further than theory predicted. The daily data, which could have been turfed out, formed the basis of one of the most important cosmological theories of the last 30 years. Archives are there as a historical record, like Magna Carta, and the Domesday Book. They are not there to be edited and amended with a footnote to the “original version” elsewhere. No auditor, historian, or indeed any scholar would countenance such an outrage. Apart from opening the door to fraud, it makes it harder for some SERIOUS researcher down the track who is sifting thru an already Byzantine maze of info for what they need. Such researchers would not be best served by having to study copies of newspapers from 1879, which have been emended in 2007 by some wit who has replaced text with “I have a big donger” and a pointer to what the original was. And my overriding concern is with the intelligentsia and the researchers of the future. The Stuffymuffies of the present are not my top priority, and neither should they be yours. Myles325a 05:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't like a newspaper or some historical document. It's not something people can irreparably damage. They can be irritants, sure, but that is a non-issue. Regular users archive pages all the time, and not all archives use the same formatting. To expect admins to track down and semi/full protect every one is unfeasable, as well as completely unnecessary. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR and WP:EW

Ten days ago, and after a major rewrite, Wikipedia:Edit warring (WP:EW) was upgraded to official policy. A few days ago, a debate about the merits of merging WP:3RR with WP:EW started at Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule#Merge. See also Wikipedia_talk:Edit_war#Demote_to_proposed_until_it_gains_wider_consensus.

Editors' comments are welcome at these discussions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)