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.

Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar).

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

Policy archive

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

Definitions for some policy defining terms

Moved from WP:HD#definitions_for_.22encyclopedic.22_and_.22overcategorization.22 and forked.

These are at the heart of frequent quarrels, and WP:G does not define them. What exactly do the terms mean? — Sebastian (talk) 18:56, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

• Here's my highly subjective "definitions":
  (Definitions separated into individual sections by Sebastian.)
  I know, highly subjective and fuzzy, but that's my view. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you. This is at least a start. If they are indeed not well defined and are used in place of such easily understood statements as "I feel it shouldn't be there" or "I think it's not necessary", then I feel that they amount to slang rather than jargon. — Sebastian (talk) 22:18, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

"encyclopedic"

• Encyclopedic refers to the value an article has to an encyclopedia. This usually isn't disputed when other encyclopedias have articles on the subject in question. Some people believe Pokemon and Digimon shouldn't be here, others think the same about the numerous Star Wars articles we have. I do think we can all agree that articles about obscure student film makers who didn't win any awards and whose films haven't been broadcasted on television as well as their planned films don't belong here. Those would be unencyclopedic. (What some people call notability and importance also factors in here). - Mgm|^(talk) 20:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with these criteria. Plus the students vs professors example I saw somewhere else. — Sebastian (talk) 05:01, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

"overcategorization"

• Overcategorization is when one article is put in too many categories. Of course, this is a subjective thing, but when you find a person in more than one category related to for example geographical location it's usually to use the more detailed category (IMO). - Mgm|^(talk) 20:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • The latter case, when an article is categorized both under parent and child, would be an exact usage (jargon, not slang) and it would express a concept for which we don't seem to have a term yet. — Sebastian (talk) 22:18, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
    • Categorised in both parent and daughter categories - I would simply call that overzealousness, a misunderstanding of how categorisation works, or a mistake :) Guettarda 23:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) I was wrong. It's possible for a subcat to reflect some, but not all of the attributes of an article. So there can be good reason for both cats. Guettarda 15:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Uh oh! That reminds me of when I asked about "Nesthäkchen" ("family baby"); and, from my description, a friend said it's called "oopsie" in English. I hope our baby has a proper name! ;-) — Sebastian (talk) 01:40, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
  • Please read over the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. This is a controversial topic. There ARE good reasons to put a category in both a parent and daughter (super and sub-categories). Our categorization system works as both a classification system and a navigation system. Sometimes to satisfy both needs effectively, a category should be in both. There are also multiple hierarchies which coexist. This also leads to cases where multiple entries are useful. Please read the discussion. We are close to a compromise on the topic. -- Samuel Wantman 09:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Huh? What I saw in the link you provided is a short discussion between two users that occured about two months ago. How is that a proposed compromise? Radiant_>|< 14:47, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • There are lots of other sections above leading up to that one, and archived in pages before that. This hard and fast "rule" about duplication is often ignored for good reason. However, trying to get large numbers of people to discuss this and reach a new consensus is like trying to steer an iceberg with a paddle! -- Samuel Wantman 05:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Sometimes it stems from frustration at the limitations of the current category system; for example it is not currently possible to perform join on two categories to see article belonging to both. --Phil | Talk 09:20, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes. This is a feature request, but the developers have been silent as to if and when this will get added. Radiant_>|< 14:47, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

In addition, overcategorisation could refer to there being too many branches of the hierachy, meaning that a category only has one or two articles in it, and should be merged upwards. Dunc|☺ 30 June 2005 17:38 (UTC)

Original Research

Why is it that Wikipedia does not allow original research, and yet Wikinews, another Wikimedia project allows original reporting? --Munchkinguy 02:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is an encylopaedia (which must have established, verifiable information) while Wikinews is a news project. That is the underlying reason why they are separate projects. Guettarda 03:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't it depend on what you mean by "original"? All entries have to be original because otherwise there would be a breach of copyright. If someone writes a page on an existing topic, that there may be some novel feature about it should not bar its entry. Presumably, there will be a verifiable core (in the sense of references to existing publications) and a sustained chain of argument to support any reasoned novel conclusion that might be reached. The very fact that it is a reasoned conclusion is the means whereby it can be verified — that is an aspect of the scientific method. Obviously, an article on a highly specialised research topic might not be interesting to the vast majority of readers, even if they were aware of it in the first place, but I do not necessarily see that as a bar to publication here. Or, as usual, am I missing something? --David91 07:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

David91, I would agree with what you have written, but if you read Wikipedia talk:No original research(NOR) there are a number of contributes who choose to define Original Research much more tightly and I think to the detriment of Wikipedia because it allows people to use it as a bludgeon. I suggest that you contribute to the NOR talk page and then make changes to the NOR if the current usage of NOR is not that which you agree with. Philip Baird Shearer 14:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Philip. I've had a quick browse. It seems to be a Janus type of policy: on the one hand, it confronts the problem of POV motivated commentators who threaten to swamp factual pages with unverified opinion; but, equally, it seeks to adress the case of specialists who distill complex ideas into more accessible forms for encyclopoedia use which inevitably will have aspects of novelty about it. The utility of the information to the end-user should be the litmus test. If the naive reader is likely to be misled, then the entry should be edited to exclude the confusing data and/or deleted. If the page is a fair and reasonable explanation of the mass of information and can be relied upon to inform the naive reader, then it should be accepted. I note your invitation to contribute to the debate but, at my age, I think I will leave it to the young and strong to thrash out what they want this place to be. --David91 17:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I think you will find that, in general, we apply this policy selectively. Ususally, if someone writes something that is clearly the case, no one goes and deletes it because it is "original research". On the other hand, when people try to write the kind of thing which, if true, should be making its way through a peer-reviewed journal, and which no layperson can reasonably judge, then Wikipedia is not the place to publish it. -- Jmabel | Talk July 2, 2005 04:15 (UTC)

Problem users

Does anyone have any idea how many "problem users" ever end up as useful contributors? I'm not talking about people who have a strong POV and get into battles on certain pages but manage to contribute meaningfully elsewhere. I'm not talking about people who end up leaving Wikipedia in the midst of major battles. I'm talking about people who get into conflict from the start. I know a lot of people start off with angry exchanges - for example when their first article gets VfD'd. Most of these people are reasonable once they understand the system. I mean the people who show up with an axe to grind or a POV to push, or just show up to be disruptive. Can anyone cite any examples? Guettarda 23:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are people, particularly younger people, who will be disruptive for a while and just screw with the system before they mature a bit and start actually taking an interest in contributing (sometimes as a result of stumbling across a topic they actually have interest in). You seem to have excluded most scenarios that I've seen from your definition of "problem users" though. If your goal is to encourage a stronger policy for punishing these people, I think you have to consider how difficult it is in practice to distinguish the various classes of problem users you describe, at least in the short term. Deco 23:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was just thinking about the amount of effort that people put into disruptive users, and whether this was something that ever paid off. I was wondering if there was some way to distinguish the ones with potential from the ones that won't be worth the trouble. I was just thinking about the way we allow troublemakers to drive off good editors, about the point where bureaucracy takes over and overwhelms the fun of this amazing project... I have lots of patience for the users who believe in the project but get caught up in edit wars or who misinterpret the comments, or who have serious differences in how they interpret "the truth". But I don't have patience with people who spend their time aruing about how their "right" to edit here is infringed by our rules. I don't know where I am going with this... Guettarda 03:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One thing Ive noticed was brought up when one user pretty told the "Request for Comment" page to go screw itself. I forget the exact case, but the user was causing all kinds of problems with reverts, edit wars, personal attacks, etc. It went from RFC and then to ArbComm. The user wrote something like "this isnt like its a real court or something" and blew off everything in the RFC and vandalized the ArbComm Page! When he was banned, he just started up a new account and now there are sockpuppet issues with this same person. Point being...there is no enforcement...nor can there really ever be. We dont have the Wikipedia Police who can come to your house, fines cannot be given, nor can legal action ever be taken (nor should it be, actually). Its actually part funny and part scary. Reminds me of SGA somewhat, we think we have the power but really don't. -Husnock 4 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)

There is the ban. Apoc2400 4 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)

Which, sadly, can be easily circumvented by started up another account. Roaming IP addresses are also a hindrence as someone can log on from several different locations and show up as different users. -Husnock 5 July 2005 09:01 (UTC)

Yeah, but a banned user can be reverted on sight - rather than a POV pusher who needs to be reasonably argued with - arguments over if someone is a sockpuppet are ugly, but banning does make it easier to stop someone(by making it legitimate to revert them on sight.) (BTW, what did you mean by SGA? - the disambig page has 11 meanings...) JesseW 19:58, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Non-Latin characters in article names

Is there somewhere a discussion or a policy about the use of non-latin characters in article names? Since MediaWiki 1.5 enabled these characters, some users already started moving articles around, i.e. Wroclaw was moved to Wrocław. Tokyo could be moved to 東京 (now a redirect), and a whole lot of articles could be moved around quite a bit. Personally, I would prefer latin characters only. In any case, this should be decided quickly. Any comments or links? Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk June 28, 2005 11:36 (UTC)

As long as there is a version of the name in Latin characters redirecting, what harm is there in writing article names properly? --Ngb 28 June 2005 12:00 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, so if there is an English name, that should be used.--Patrick June 28, 2005 15:27 (UTC)

I think that we should use the English name if any commonly used such exist. Else we use the native name tranitterated to a latin alphabet. Wrocław could be allright if it has no English name – like how Göteborg is called Gothenburg while Malmö always should be called Malmö. The most commonly used name should be used (traiterated if from a non-latin aphabet). Jeltz talk 28 June 2005 22:38 (UTC)

I don't know, but I am sure that "we should use the English name if any commonly used such exist" is not a good idea. Leghorn is the [specifically] English name for Livorno; I think it's now rather quaint but it's not freakishly rare. It's less common in English than Livorno. Leghorn redirects to Livorno, which I think is the way it should be. (Today's amazing discovery: the very first sentence of the "Culture" section of Marseille is "The French rap band IAM is from Marseille." Doesn't Marseille have some rather less ephemeral culture? Oh, never mind.) -- Hoary June 29, 2005 02:56 (UTC)

Ok, the name most commonly used in an English text should be used.--Patrick June 29, 2005 07:21 (UTC)

I think that I agree with that. We should try to apply the currently existing policy of using the most common name in English writing to special characters in article titles. Jeltz talk 29 June 2005 11:40 (UTC)

On place names, I agree with that. People's names, or names of works are trickier. For example, Nicolae Ceauşescu is commonly written in English as "Nicolae Ceausescu", and the poem Martín Fierro as "Martin Fierro". I'd sure be inclined to say "Nicolae Ceauşescu" and "Martín Fierro" are the right article titles. -- Jmabel | Talk July 2, 2005 04:35 (UTC)

A related question is whether Wikipedia should stick to typewriter typography in article titles (or in the body text for that matter). Mother’s day or Mother's day, for example. (On a Windows box, you typically cannot see the difference. Increase font size or print it out: the former uses an apostrophe, the latter a straight typewriter quote.) See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Quotation marks and apostrophes). Arbor 2 July 2005 17:30 (UTC)

• There are always the templates {{wrongtitle}} and {{titlelacksdiacritics}} to deal with naming problems: some browsers have problems with non-latin characters. Physchim62 4 July 2005 09:18 (UTC)

Only linking to the first mention - why?

Why is the policy only to link to the first mention of something in an entry? I just don't get it.

It's annoying when reading - you get to a certain point in the article and think, "Oh, that thing would be interesting to read about", but it's not linked. Is it just plain not linked, or is it linked somewhere previously in the article? Either way, a pain.

It makes editing more difficult in several ways - for example:

- When entering new text, you have to check whether it was linked in a previous location, and if so, not link it in your new text;

- Similarly, you have to check whether it was linked in a later location, and if so, link it in your text, but unlink it in the later location;

- Deleting text and/or moving text suffers the same problems.

And it's not like there's some sort of resource wasted by linking multiple times.

I'm not saying always link every mention of a subject - it clearly would be overkill in some situations - but it seems like that's actually the far minority of situations. And in those few situations when linking every time would be overkill, people probably wouldn't link every time anyway.

This seems like something that shouldn't have a policy at all, one way or the other.

Policy leads to consistency, which is good. As for only linking the first time, if a term is likely to trigger a "oh, I want to read about that" reaction, it's likely to do so the first time you read it. Nobody's going to drag you into arbitration if you accidentally link a word again while editing because you didn't see it had already been used previously, but by avoiding double-linking articles become less visually noisy and easier to read. --W(t) 29 June 2005 05:32 (UTC)

if a term is likely to trigger a "oh, I want to read about that" reaction, it's likely to do so the first time you read it.: That sounds nice, but in practice, I find it to often be false. -Rwv37 June 29, 2005 06:11 (UTC)

Policy leads to consistency, which is good.: Yeah, consistency's great and all, sure, but it's not the be-all and end-all. My point is that without any policy regarding this topic, Wikipedia would probably naturally self-moderate itself into a state that is more usable than its current state. People won't go crazy with linking absolutely every mention of everything. -Rwv37 June 29, 2005 06:16 (UTC)

I usually link once per major section, or once per page of text -- or, in practice, once every time I think about it while writing, which works out to about the same. Also, if something's first wikilinked in an infobox, I'll link it in the text no matter how short the article. --Carnildo 29 June 2005 05:48 (UTC)

I do somewhat similar. I find it stupid to have to look through long chunks of texts to look for a link for what I am searching. On the other hand, I find it annoying when the same word is linked in every sentence. --Fred-Chess June 29, 2005 10:36 (UTC)

Let's amend policy to reflect long-existing practice (Carnildo lays out what that is). Which policy page is this? Pcb21| Pete 29 June 2005 10:51 (UTC)

It isn't policy. It is a guideline in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), and it doesn't say only the first occurrence. Relevant to this discussion, it does say "An article may be considered overlinked if any of the following is true:

• ...
• a link is repeated within the same screen (40 lines perhaps)
• ...
• low added value links (e.g., such as year links 1995, 1980s) are duplicated

I think Carnildo's suggestion about linking in text even if first linked in an infobox is a good one. Gene Nygaard 29 June 2005 12:03 (UTC)

I think the guideline covers it; just a matter of applying common sense, really. Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 12:38 (UTC)

In practice it's fine to link the same topic multiple times, if the article is long. It's typical for a topic to be mentioned in a summary and then mentioned again when the topic is covered in more detail; in this case it's quite appropriate to link it again. Years may need to be linked multiple times so that date preferences work. Gdr 2005-06-29 13:01:11 (UTC)

That's a good point. Both day-month or month-day and year should be linked in all dates so that preferences work right, no matter how many times they appear. It is just the years standing alone or only with a month that shouldn't be linked multiple times. Gene Nygaard 29 June 2005 16:41 (UTC)

• One downside is if the article referenced is moved or renamed. Five links imbedded in a long article are harder to upgrade to eliminate orphans than one. OTHO, The original point about wanting to read more about a repeating term is strong to me— The desire to follow such gets stronger LATER in the long article— i.e. once one's interest has been wetted. In my experience, in most cases, the original use or three of a term is introductory and hasn't yet built a desire to 'click', until the surrounding text provides enough detail to eventually create the desire to do so. In such cases, I've italicized or bolded the first occurences until the topic has built up background, then provided the link. Of course, some copy editors have removed such logical planning in favor of linkizing all, or just the first, so Shrug. It's their time, and I did my best to make it logical. It's certainly not worth getting excited about.
• One solution requiring a guideline change would to 'emphasize key terms' in bold or italics with the covention that said 'busy appearances' (to some, not I.) consistantly means "See the See Also List' at the end for a link; but I don't advocate this, as it's too much work for little gain 'Wiki-wide', plus the below counterpoint. This would have the virtue of being consistent with tail-end-charlie external links placement as well.
• In the main, this strikes me as an area where hard and fast rules are probably not a good idea. Providing additional links as a long history article develops is probably a very good idea as the relationships between terms unfolds, the user can make his side trip for more information and return to exactly the same place in the original article by hitting backspace. That's definitely not the case for infrequently occuring links or bottom collected links, and I think these decisions should be left in the province of the editor or copyeditors following behind.
• I do think that the guidelines should be firm on the following, rather than any arbitrary 'count of lines' approach (My bi-focaled eyes are comfortable enough viewing 'small' to assume everyone uses the same size fonts for viewing!). 'Link Density' or 'busy appearance' should probably be evaluated strictly (only) in 'Medium' browser display mode, not whatever is the favorite of the editor. In an article on less weighty matters, less links are appropriate.

User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 5 July 2005 16:11 (UTC)

Subpages in the article name space

A discussion on VfD regarding Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nottinghamshire v Yorkshire 26 June 2005 has turned into a discussion on the policy of using transclusion to present information in the article space. See also Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#transcluding prose and Talk:2005 English cricket season#subpages and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Unusual transclusion issue not covered by policy, before joining the discussion. Steve block 30 June 2005 07:58 (UTC)

I've attempted to make a compromise about this now. Please, everyone involved, see Wikipedia_talk:Template_namespace#Case-specific_compromise_attempt Sam Vimes 2 July 2005 07:27 (UTC)

Anonymous votes on VFD

This must have been discussed around 100 times already, but there is still no clear policy of how to handle anonymous users voting on VFD, and the decision of whether to count or ignore these votes is left entirely up to the closing administrator. A number of times I have seen anonymous votes commented on with "anonymous votes are not counted" or similar. However, there is no policy which says so explicitly. The closest thing to a policy I can find is the header on the WP:VFD page: "Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith." Note the word "may". It does not say "will".

For the record I might say what I do with anonymous votes in some common situations. Most debates have no such votes, and most of those who have any have only one. One very common situation is that all the other votes from established users, and if I have no reason to believe that the anonymous vote was cast in bad faith, I will count it just like any other. This is a common situation, when a regular reader (but not a regular contributor) of the encyclopedia reads an article he or she likes and is warned that the article might be deleted, who can blame them for participating in such a discussion? Especially when the VFD-tag comes with the invitation "Please vote on and discuss the matter". Also, I will almost always count the vote made by the article's author, even if the author is anonymous. (Some seem to be under the impression that the article's author or main contributor is not allowed to vote, but as far as I can see, this is completely incorrect.) However, if I start finding 10 different anons all voting keep while all the established users vote delete, I will usually discount them as this is a good sign of bad faith.

Anyway, that is some of the thoughts I have on the matter, but maybe there ought to be a full policy discussion about this topic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 1 July 2005 08:55 (UTC)

• Personally, I'd favour a clear policy of ignoring anon votes on all polls and votes. Filiocht | Talk July 1, 2005 09:11 (UTC)
• Just like VFU, VFD should have a clear 'sufferance' policy (e.g. ignore all votes of anons, people with <100 edits, or created after the VFD debate started). People tend to game the system if something is a recommendation rather than a strict rule (just like socks tend to cite WP:SOCK out of context) Radiant_>|< July 1, 2005 10:11 (UTC)
• I would like to say that I think the main author of the article should be allowed to vote to keep it, anonymous or not anonymous. Sjakkalle (Check!) 1 July 2005 10:31 (UTC)

• • I disagree. They should be able to explain why it should be kept, but not to vote. smoddy 1 July 2005 10:34 (UTC)

• I usually discount anon votes if they vote different from all other voters but fail to explain their viewpoint. - Mgm|^(talk) July 1, 2005 12:33 (UTC)
  • Then I suggest that you also discount them if they vote the same way as other voters but fail to explain their viewpoint. If this process is a vote -- and I agree with JYolkowski's comment below on how it shouldn't actually be a vote -- then awarding different values to people's votes according to their reasoning, past contributions, etc., is one thing, doing so according to the direction of these votes quite another. -- Hoary July 2, 2005 04:54 (UTC)
• I don't think a hard and fast policy is needed here. Is this grey area causing any actual problems that need to be remedied? Or will this just be yet another rule for the sake of having rules? The current system allows us to freely ignore the votes of anyone abusing the system, but it also gives us the flexibility to accept valid votes from those who just don't happen to be registered users. - SimonP July 1, 2005 13:46 (UTC)
• The main purpose of VfD is to discuss the article in order to come to a consensus, not to polarize the issue by voting. Because of that, I don't think it makes sense to have firm rules regarding whose vote counts and whose doesn't. I think it makes sense to welcome anyone who can help the VfD discussion. Personally, I don't give anon votes the same weight as logged-in users when closing VfDs (especially if they don't provide a reason) but I don't think there's a need for m:Instruction creep here. JYolkowski // talk 1 July 2005 20:56 (UTC)
  • Concur with JYolkowski. If anonymous editors have a useful comment one way or the other on an article, I want to see it and be able to take it into account. Is that a "vote"? As much as anyone else's is, I suppose. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 1 July 2005 21:05 (UTC)

Full names in biography articles

Should biographies begin with the full names, including middle names unused in everyday reference, or should it begin with the same name as the article title? See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Full names. David File:Arms-westminster-lb.jpg | Talk 1 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)

Look for example at J. R. R. Tolkien, it gives the full name right off the bat, even for an awfully long name like his. I'd say if you can give the full name without it sounding awkward then you should do so. Pages on WP are meant to be short but descriptive, so shouldn't necessarily be mirrored when writing. But if the sentence structure makes it awkward you might find it helpful to write something like "J.R.R. Tolkien (full name John Ronald Reuel Tolkien) was born in..." or whatever. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 1 July 2005 22:29 (UTC)

For an alternative (probably better) approach, see Pablo Picasso, which starts with the expected name and later expand on the full name. Of course in this instance it is an awfully, awfully long name. -- Solipsist 2 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)

posting weblinks inside pages

If we have a webpage that corresponds with the topic, are we allowed to place it inside or will this be considered unwelcome spam? Thanks , just wanted to make sure

Generally, links go at the bottom of articles, see Wikipedia:External links for official policy. If it is on topic, then you can probably add it, be bold!. If you're scared of violating Wikiquette, however, you can tell us which article you want to link to your website and where your website is, then someone else can do it for you. The ongoing peer review process should weed out rubbish external links. Dunc|☺ 1 July 2005 22:09 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conflict

I've written up a new policy proposal, with assistance from Ed Poor, to set out some guidelines and basic principles for dealing with naming conflicts of the Gdanzig type. It's at Wikipedia:Naming conflict - comments welcomed. -- ChrisO 1 July 2005 22:51 (UTC)

Etymology and wikipedia

I have just out of curosity searched for the origin of the name Vancouver, as in George Vancouver and found the following page Etymology of Vancouver. I am curious as to how it is suggested the best way of adding the information of this sort, if it is indeed relavent for an entry of this sort.

• Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a dictonary and so "It's fine to add a couple of lines of etymology to an existing article (or disambig), but an article shouldn't solely consist of etymology" and "Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, an article that is only about a word ([or a] name) is not encyclopedic. The appropriate action would be moving it to Wiktionary, or adding a {{move to wiktionary}} template." --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 07:33 (UTC)
  • There is a justification in Wikipedia for etymology within a subject as it is an important and often interesting detail which is often sadly omitted from encyclopaedic works. It is for this reason that I have, in the country articles, started the laborious process of putting Origin and history of the name before the history section. I am of the opinion that separate etymology of ... articles should be placed into the main article. --JohnArmagh 2 July 2005 08:55 (UTC)
    • I think explaining the derivation of a place name would always be an appropriate component of a Wikipedia article on any geographical subject. If the article consists only of "Vancouver is a city in British Columbia, Canada that was named for the explorer George Vancouver," that would be a valid stub. In most articles, though, the etymology wouldn't need a separate subheading. For example, in Hudson River, the second sentence mentions that the river is named for Henry Hudson, who explored it in 1609. JamesMLane 2 July 2005 10:30 (UTC)
    • If you are going to write etymological treatments of words, including place name words, please do that where such lexicography belongs, in the "lexical companion to Wikipedia", and learn how to interwiki link and to use the sibling project templates. Uncle G 4 July 2005 14:17 (UTC)
• Just as Wiktionary:Darlington explains the etymology of Darlington, and the two cross-link to each other, I suggest that you write Wiktionary:Vancouver and cross-link it to Vancouver. Uncle G 4 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)

copyright problem procedure

If I find a page that is a copyvio does it have to be given the {{copyvio}} template and listed on WP:CP or can it just be rewritten? If it has already been listed on WP:CP does a rewrite have to go on a temp page and wait for the WP:CP listing to time out instead of replacing the old version? (If I already made the mistake of just replacing with a rewrite should I restore the copyvio template and move my rewrite to the temp page it points to?)RJFJR July 2, 2005 02:09 (UTC)

It's better to restore the copyvio template and do the rewrite on the temp page. If you find a copyvio page, it's better to tag it as copyvio and do the rewrite on the temp page. --cesarb 2 July 2005 02:23 (UTC)

I don't really understand why we do this. The {{copyvio}} template is supposed to be for possible copyright problems. The whole rigmarole is unnecessary for definite copyright problems. In those cases, we may as well re-write immediately. Pcb21| Pete 3 July 2005 09:42 (UTC)

I might put it more strongly. If a breach of copyright is established, continuing to display the offending material without permission will constitute an additional act of infringement because it converts the display on the part of Wiki as publisher from an arguably unintentional to an intentional act. It should be removed from public display immediately, regardless of when it might (or might not) be rewritten. -David91 3 July 2005 10:35 (UTC)

The offending material is not displayed in either case - if we go down the template route, the template completely replaces the text. If we go down the rewrite route, the rewrite replaces the text. Pcb21| Pete 3 July 2005 12:59 (UTC)

But it's still available in the page history. That's why the page needs deleting and any rewrites should go on the /temp page. Dunc|☺ 3 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)

You (or a neighbourly admin) should delete the offending material in either case. Per-revision deletion is available if necessary depending what order things are done. Pcb21| Pete 5 July 2005 09:37 (UTC)

Use of 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica as source of articles

I noticed that the article on Angers was essentially lifted word for word from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. Is it general policy at Wikipedia that information in the public domain (such as the 1911 EB) can be used without quoting or citing it? Since the 1911 EB is already online, it's just redundant to reuse its text as the sole source of an article.

--Vitamin D 2 July 2005 18:49 (UTC)

The bottom of the article shows it was orginally based on the EB11 article and the History page shows it has been worked on since 2002.There are references within the article to the EB11 material It now bears little resemblance to the EB one for it is an updating of it.Apwoolrich 2 July 2005 19:02 (UTC)

And with reference to your question about policy: it is policy to draw on the 1911 EB where appropriate, and to cite it overtly when drawing from it. Most material from the 1911 EB needs NPOV work; quite a bit of it needs updating; however, in areas such as pre-1900 history it can be a very useful — and public domain — source. -- Jmabel | Talk July 3, 2005 03:15 (UTC)

It is policy to cite sources, whether we are legally required to do so or not. I often preface 1911 work with a section like ==historical view of topic x== The following paragraphs describe X as understood in 1911. Pcb21| Pete 3 July 2005 09:27 (UTC)

Biography articles - reluctant subjects

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Reluctant subjects -Willmcw July 5, 2005 23:49 (UTC)

Where is the license in this image?

Well, I put this image [1] in the Wikipedia in spanish, but they told me I needed a license for it, but aparently, the english version doesnt have any problem, so I am guessing it already has a license... I just cant find it, could somebody give it so the image can also be in the spanish version?--201.139.132.232 4 July 2005 18:28 (UTC)

I believe it counts as free use. I have added a tag to that effect. Sonic Mew July 4, 2005 22:05 (UTC)

(note: fair use may not apply to other wikipedia projects. You need to check each project's licensing rules. I don't know about the Spanish wikipedia.) RJFJR July 4, 2005 22:31 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal

There is currently a vote on a large number of proposals to expand the criteria for speedy deletion. If passed, they would tend to place the onus for everyday deletion decisions in the hands of administrators and substantially reduce the number of articles that get discussion time in Votes for deletion and other deletion discussion policy forums. Discussion and votes are required.

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 16:14 (UTC)

Proposal 1, which at present looks likely to pass, says that administrators should have discretion to delete "An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance - people such as college professors or actors may be individually important in society; people such as students and bakers are not, or at least not for the reason of being a student or baker. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead."

What concerns me here is that it is left up to one person, instead of Wikipedia editors at large, to decide for themselves what an assertion of importance or significance is. Only a very vague idea is given of what is intended and the administrator is given complete discretion. This proposal needs scrutiny. At present the article would be listed on VfD and discussed for five days, which saves many important articles that were wrongly thought to be deletable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 6 July 2005 01:49 (UTC)

• What Tony fails to mention is that daily, between ten and twenty-five articles on unremarkable people (such as high school students, random friends of an editor, or people who just think they're great without specifying why) are nominated for deletion, and get near-unanimous votes to delete. It would save a large number of people a significant amount of time if those articles wouldn't clog up VFD. After all, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.
• Presently, VFD is longer than it should be (which is an obvious result of Wikipedia growing) and this prevents people from participating - thus making VFD less the instrument of consensus that it should be. This is considered by many to be undesirable.
• It is easy to distinguish an article on an obviously unremarkable person (e.g. "Joe Smith is a nice guy who works at a supermarket") from a possibly encyclopedic person (e.g. "Joe Smith is the president of major corporation GnirpGo"). Of course, the latter may be false, but the mere assertion keeps it from being speedily deletable. Admins have common sense. If they did not, they would not be admins.
• There is statistical evidence of over a hundred articles per week that presently go on VFD that would be removed without further bureaucracy if this proposal passes. There is no evidence whatsoever, only conjecture, about articles about famous people that do not even say why the person is famous - of course anyone who would write about George Washington is going to state that he was a president, not just that he was a nice guy. Radiant_>|< July 7, 2005 13:33 (UTC)
  • It kind of irks me that some who are opposed to this proposal seem to feel that editors who hang around speedy are in it just for the blood lust. If other editors are like me (and I'm sure they are), they will speedy only when it is emminently clear that the article is a candidate. I often add to or even rewrite articles that show up in speedy, and regularly remove speedy tags from inappropriately labeled articles. In other words, I take my power seriously. At least as seriously as inclusionists like Tony take their mission to save every god-blasted little article. Denni☯ 2005 July 8 02:34 (UTC)

Inter-wiki Citation and PLaerism Policy

What is the policy about taking content from another language wikipedia and moving it into the English wikipedia. Does no ownership apply so it's to fine copy anything? Should it be cited anywhere?

Example: I have recently discovered a timeline on the French Wikipedia (here:[2]) and made an English version here

--Commander Keane 6 July 2005 11:34 (UTC)

When you edit on a Wikimedia project you "release" your submission but you don't "relinquish" it, it's still your work as such, and you can exercise some rights over it (not sure what they are).

But don't worry, you haven't made any serious error. Right at the bottom it says "By submitting your work you promise you wrote it yourself, or copied it from public domain resources". WP is certainly a public domain resource; that disclaimer waives any responsibility you might have had for this uncredited copy, as it it isn't automatically assumed that you wrote/made whatever you're adding in each edit.

What I would do now if I were you is to make a minor change to the table and put something like "translated this table from the xx Wikipedia version of this article" in the edit summary. That way you're crediting the originator in a vague way.

Alternately, use comment tags (<!-- this is a comment -->) to leave a note below the table. These are invisible to the reader, but editors can see it.

Certainly I wouldn't credit it in the article, as that other page could change or something. In theory you could link to a fixed version of that page where the table is intact, but that still isn't really necessary. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 6 July 2005 12:15 (UTC)

MTG's suggestions are reasonable, but I should note one correction. Wikipedia is not public domain. Contributions are licensed under the GFDL, which means that authorship records must be maintained. Consequently, you do have to cite the other Wikipedia as a source. In practice, I think you would be in good shape by

• noting the source in the edit summary (per MTG),
• adding a note to the Talk page of the article indicating a source, and
• where appropriate, adding an interlanguage wikilink to the destination article.

Are there any other suggestions? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 6 July 2005 12:55 (UTC)

Google Earth

Wondering if we can use pictures from Google earth for reference in wikipedia.

Or how about the kmz files from google earth?

Sveden 6 July 2005 20:58 (UTC)

See Use of data. It basically says that "personal" use with copyright tags intact is OK. I'm not sure WP includes that. Perhaps you could contact them with a grovelling message explaining how the copyrights would remain intact etc. etc. etc.

I assume they'd be happy to be featured here, and in turn it would generate more outside interest in their service!

So try that. :) Master Thief Garrett^Talk 6 July 2005 21:18 (UTC)

I see no reason to try to focus on Google Earth at the moment; we can link to Google Satellite Maps, which is good enough, and doesn't lock a link into supporting only Windows. --Golbez July 6, 2005 22:06 (UTC)

No, you can't. -- Cyrius|✎ 7 July 2005 02:12 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry)

The names of chemical compund pages have been the subject of a number of minor disputes (and some major ones, now hopefully resolved) for some time.

This page resembled more of a discussion than a set of guidelines. I have summarised the discussion that was there (and informed all the authors of signed comments) and added some more comments that have been discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals.

Any and all comments on the results are welcome. In particular, the page may be a bit too technical at present (help on this would be appreciated!). Have we missed any points?

More discussion on the style of chemistry articles can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Style guidelines.

Thanks to all who have already helped, and to those who take the time to add their comments. Physchim62 7 July 2005 11:14 (UTC)

Unit Disagreement, MiB vs. MB

What unit types should be used when describing storage capacity in articles?

Multiple-byte units
Decimal Value Metric 1000 kB kilobyte 10002 MB megabyte 10003 GB gigabyte 10004 TB terabyte 10005 PB petabyte 10006 EB exabyte 10007 ZB zettabyte 10008 YB yottabyte 10009 RB ronnabyte 100010 QB quettabyte	Binary Value IEC Memory 1024 KiB kibibyte KB kilobyte 10242 MiB mebibyte MB megabyte 10243 GiB gibibyte GB gigabyte 10244 TiB tebibyte TB terabyte 10245 PiB pebibyte — 10246 EiB exbibyte — 10247 ZiB zebibyte — 10248 YiB yobibyte — — —
Orders of magnitude of data

A problem has arisen in different related articles on whether to use the MB or MiB. Some articles have decided to stick with using MB, some have chosen to use MiB.

Talk:PlayStation_3#Memory_prefixes

Talk:Xbox_360#Mib_v._MB

Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Unit_Disagreement.2C_MiB_vs._MB - Omegatron 23:03, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guide to layout -- changing the section

I want to change the Wikipedia:Guide to layout, part of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. The current MoS states that the ==External links== should come after the ==References== section. I totally disagree with this and feel that it should come before the ==References== section. External links are an integral part of an article, unlike the reference section which is used to crosscheck. The World Book is on my side, it has the References at the end. Any objections if I am bold and change it? User:Nichalp/sg July 8, 2005 16:35 (UTC)

I object! :-) For one thing, ==References== often contains external links to online articles and the like, and ==External links== often consist of reference-type even when not explicitly cited. For another–you can ask anyone who does a lot of academic writing–the references are very much a part of an article. Not only do they allow you to fact-check, they also usually contain a wealth of additional background information.

Have you got some specific articles in mind where you perceive the ordering of these sections is a problem? That might help to clarify why this change should be made. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 8 July 2005 17:31 (UTC)

Oh no! I'm not asking to remove the references from the article, I'm saying that the references should be the final section instead of the ==external links==. Just switching the order. User:Nichalp/sg July 8, 2005 18:52 (UTC)

Sorry; I wasn't clear. The first paragraph of my reply was merely to illustrate that there is often appreciable overlap between purpose and contents of the ==References== and ==External links== sections; I'm not sure it's appropriate to argue one or the other is more an 'integral' part of the articles here. (I'm sure that no one here would suggest removal of either section.) The key question is in the second paragraph—have you some specific articles in mind where they would be improved by the rearrangement of the sections?

I would further note that if external links contain content integral to the articles, it's possible that a)our article is insufficiently comprehensive, or b)the external link contains primary source material that probably should be listed as a ==Reference==. Thoughts? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 8 July 2005 22:04 (UTC)

Well, think of it like an essay. If you include both References and a Bibliography, the References go first. And External Links are much like a Bibliography is. That's one way of looking at it. :) Master Thief Garrett^Talk 9 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)

Ok, see Indian Railways. I want the external links to come ahead of the Notes and references as it has some quality information and official sites on the IR. User:Nichalp/sg July 9, 2005 05:26 (UTC)

(film) or (movie)

When disambiguating a movie title wich is best to use ? (movie) as in The Canterbury Tales (movie) or (film) as in Passenger (film) ? --Melaen 8 July 2005 18:06 (UTC)

I'd prefer using "film" as it's a word pretty much used the world over. "Movie" tends to have an American (rather than worldwide) feel, jguk 8 July 2005 18:33 (UTC)

I've always thought it would be better to put the film's year, like IMDB does. That would disambiguate films both from other films with the same name, and other non-films with the same name. But nobody seems to do this. – Smyth\^talk 8 July 2005 19:38 (UTC)

Inline links vs. Reference citations

SEWilco has created an editting tool (i.e. manually controlled bot) for the purpose of standardizing some of the ways that citations appear in Wikipedia articles. As something of a test run, he did such a conversion to a single page, ice core, see the diff [3]. As a result, myself and one other user objected to how he was converting inline URL links into formal reference links.

Apparently such a conversion is supported by statements at Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), however these statements seem to be only a few months old and I have been unable to locate any significant discussion of them.

As a result of this disagreement, discussion has ensued at Wikipedia talk:Footnote3#Footnotes_vs._inline_web_references, and we are looking for outside input on this issue.

Dragons flight July 8, 2005 23:07 (UTC)

What follows below is a summary of the formatting styles being discussed for the benefit of those who may be unfamiliar with these different styles.

Summary of formatting styles

Inline linking

One way to reference a website is simply to add a link to it in the body of the article. For example, one might write "Zebras like to play checkers [4]", with a simple inline link pointing directly at the site.

Footnote style

Some users dislike inline links like this because they don't provide information on what is available at that site or when it was retrieved. Instead, it has been suggested that we should used the {{ref}} / {{note}} style of Wikipedia:Footnote3 and {{web reference}} for such web references, for example: "Zebras like to play checkers^[5]"

References

• ^ Template:Web reference simple

Where the little superscripted number links to the appropriate reference and the "^" on the reference links back to the little number. This has the advantage of providing additional information on the website source so that it could possibly be found again if the link ever went dead. It also would make website references consistent with book / journal and other references relying on the {{ref}} / {{note}} form.

The disadvantage is that to get to the external material one would have to click on the little link and then click again on the link in the references section. Personally, I think this is a big disadvantage since it makes it harder to get to outside material and it doesn't provide a way of distinguishing reference links to books and hard resources from those which are immediately available over the internet.

Hybrid style

A potential compromise exists by way of a mixed form with both an inline link and a formal reference, which is to say using "Zebras like to play checkers [6]." Along with:

References

• Template:Web reference simple

But not using the {{ref}} / {{note}} formulation to link between the two. This preserves the direct link from the text but also gives the detailed reference information. However, since the two aren't linked, it is more likely that one may get removed or changed without the other being fixed. Also, there is some concern this could create very long references sections out of what in some cases are fairly innocuous but plentiful links.

Hybrid style 2

A potential compromise exists by way of a mixed form with both an inline link and a linked formal reference, which is to say using "Zebras like to play checkers.^[7]" Along with:

References

• ^ Template:Web reference simple

This creates both types of links but is visually larger, even using a minor code trick of using the sentence-ending period be a short text link. This could be presented differently in several ways: two images can be stacked (images of numbers 1-99 could be addressed), or is there a way to tuck an external link under a superscripted link number? (SEWilco 9 July 2005 00:03 (UTC))

Comment: Needlessly complicated. Inline is an awesome feature, it's been built in to the Wikipedia software because it encourages newbies to fearlessly and boldly add links; footnotes remain controversial and are not built into the software, FootNote3 in particular is a complicated (and to some unapproachably scary) hack. Stbalbach 9 July 2005 05:26 (UTC)

My understanding is that the footnote styles are used in the ==notes== section, not the ==reference section== See wikipedia:featured article candidates/Geography of India for the discussion and Geography of India for implementation. 1) Text should not be linked to an outside source (as what you have mentioned under hybrid style). I think the footnote style is much neater that the placing of a raw link at the side of the text. User:Nichalp/sg July 9, 2005 08:34 (UTC)

Discourage inline links

I for one am quite happy with the hassle of following a link to a webpage through a number of mouseclicks. Indeed, I certainly don't think that following an external link should be part of "reading the article". That's just sloppy writing, encouraged by the wonders of hypertext. Remember that WP prose is supposed to stand on its own. The material at Those amazing checker playing zebras should not be important for understanding the article, and we should expect/force only a tiny minority of readers to read that resource. So a footnote is quite appropriate, which itself can point to a list of external links. Am I making it harder for the reader? No. The external link shouldn't be part of the reading experience, so she shouldn't feel compelled to follow it. Am I making it harder for the author? Oh yes! She is now forced to write a complete, internally consistent article.

So here's what I want:

... Zebras like to play checkers.³²...

Notes

...

[32] Study by Minerva McStripe (1943), based on observing 43 individuals in captivity in the London Zoo. A later study by Sarah Hoof (1996) on wild zebras (not peer reviewed) confirms these findings.

...

References

• Hoof, Sarah. Template:Web reference simple
• McStripe, Minerva. "Hoofed animals and boardgames". Zoology, vol 32, nr. 5. 1943

Arguing that the "two mouse clicks" is too much hassle is irrelevant. Even one mouse click should be more than needed to understand the page. If you're an expert on zebras, or checkers, or a later editor, then you belong to the tiny minority of readers who is expected to follow the link. Arbor 9 July 2005 11:49 (UTC)

As one of the zebras, I find mouse clickings distracting while playing and prefer a quiet experience until the end of the game. Only then might I be interested in leaving the game to discuss some of its finer points. I prefer the text to be as self-explanatory as possible. If further information is available elsewhere, then it should be signed separately at the end of the text. -David91 9 July 2005 11:02 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for being politically correct! </sarcasm> Anyway, I don't think breaking the references is a good idea. I'd rather have it APA-esque, where you have everything as one piece right away. I mean, what is the writer saying under "References" that they aren't saying under Notes? Basically it's the name of the book and the date of retrieval, little else. You can have that before the little "what it's about" summary. Simple. So I think it could just be combined. Right? Garrett^Talk 9 July 2005 11:27 (UTC)

Just to add my two bits to the conversation: I prefer inline links and citations, but then that's because all American law students (that would include myself) are trained to use inline citations. The advantage of inline links is that they allow for immediate linking to online sources that can quickly substantiate a controversial point. For example, we had problems on the Los Angeles page with people disputing the validity of my assertion about the frequency of crime in Los Angeles until I added the direct link to the LAPD press release page. Now no one touches that paragraph, since they can follow that link and see how many people were murdered in Los Angeles this week! --Coolcaesar 9 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)

I find pure [http://example.com] links to typically be rather opaque and unclear - I think outside links with titles, i.e. [http://example.com An example website] can be and are useful inline, but just saying heres a website that is somehow relevant is IMO typically insufficient to explain what it's purpose is. If explaining the relevance of the link is not appropriate inline (using titles, parentheses, etc.), then use {{note}} (or one of the other ones) and explain it at the end. In conclusion, I think numbered external links ought to be fixed when seen, either by expanding on their relevance inline, or turning them to footnotes and expanding on their relevance in the footnote. Thoughts, responses? JesseW 20:52, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for inclusion to Lists of (insert ethnicity)-Americans

There have been some disagreements on what constitutes being an Ethnic-American. It seems to me that it's something that having a policy on might be helpful for. I've put out the following proposal:

1. The individuals page must make note of their ethnic ancestry OR
2. The individual must have documented evidence of being 1/8th ethnic (ie one of their great grandparents being born in ethnicity).

This rises out of the discussions I've seen primarily at Talk:List_of_Irish-Americans, although when looking around I see the same discussion at Talk:List_of_Chinese_Americans. At least at the Irish one it has led to what can only be described as Edit wars, which I'm not a big fan of. Wikibofh 9 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)

I don't think it makes any sense to have a numerical rule. By the 1/8 rule, someone could be considered as a member of 8 different groups, or be considered a member of a group with which he or she has no real connection. It seems to me that ethnicity is primarily a matter of affiliation, not of biological ancestry. So I would propose a rule based on public identification with a group: the individual identifies him or herself as an X, or is commonly identified as an X by others (it may be worth noting this even if the identification is incorrect!). Even in cases where you might presume identity based on, e.g., a personal or family name (Yannis, Watanabe) or place of birth, these are not reliable. --Macrakis 9 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)

The 1/8th rule was somewhat arbitrary, but I based it on the criteria that the Native-American Indians use for determining whether or not someone is eligible for benefits. My fear is we end up dealing with the controversies similar to what happened with Ward_Churchill. However, the most important thing for me in this debate is that we reach a consensus and then move on. Otherwise we seem to burn too much time and angst arguing it in each ethnic list. I think your concern is valid. As a sporadic genealogist, the biological method seem like a good idea to me.  :) I'd also welcome any comments from people on where they think this debate belongs to get the widest audience. Wikibofh 9 July 2005 16:50 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the Talk page for Irish-Americans, I think an amendment to the first criterion is important:

1. The individual's Wikipedia page must have made note of his/her ethnic ancestry prior to his/her addition to the list page, or if this is not possible (due to new information coming to light), a reliable source must be cited

I certainly see your side, too, Macrakis, as it seems silly to lump someone into an ethnic group they intentionally do not claim. I think what we've got here so far is a pretty good start, though I don't anticipate it will solve the problems we're having at List of Irish-Americans.—chris.lawson (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

As I've already stated on Talk: List of Irish-Americans, my main concern is that only people with obvious African ancestry are currently being blanked. Not one other person has been challenged, despite the fact that there are many others on the list with mixed ancestry. I don't mind saying I find that disturbing, to say the least. An Englishman was on the list for a day or two, nobody batted an eyelid. Macrakis, I see your point, but it would entail a lot of sourcing. It's a long list.

Lapsed Pacifist 20:54, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Lapsed, you are complaining about African-Americans who have no Irish ancestry at all. Rosario Dawson, Mariah Carey, Muhammad Ali are on the list, they are part African-American, but also part Irish. The issue is not about African-Americans mixed with Irish. The issue is you are listing people that are African-Americans but have no Irish ancestry. You are also lying about them being the only ones questioned. I had to remove all those white people you listed in Politics who had no Irish ancestry. 64.109.253.204

Lapsed Pacifist, I think I understand your point: just because someone has some obvious African ancestry doesn't mean he or she doesn't also have European ancestry, and to presume that the African ancestry somehow 'trumps' the European ancestry is deeply racist (one-drop rule). But saying that Muhammad Ali is Irish-American because he has an Irish great-grandfather doesn't make sense, either, since he doesn't apparently consider himself Irish-American, other people apparently don't consider him Irish-American, and he may not even be aware of his Irish ancestry: "I am not sure whether Ali knows about this"[8]. Ethnicity is not about biological ancestry! --Macrakis 22:33, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Invitation to Join a Project

I've been working on some framework for The Wikipedia Community for some time. The work is in the form of a WikiProject. The project is called Wikipedia:WikiProject_Community and is built from the standard Template:WikiProject which is really quite a marvelous tool.

Please take a look at the project page and see what you think. ALL are welcome to join and learn, teach discuss, debate, study, and design a better community at //en.wikipedia.org . Thanks in advance for your participation. Quinobi - Community Builders Task Force 9 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)