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 that is not 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, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195

the time between AfD nominations for an article

On February 18, 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Joseph Cormier was closed as "The result was keep." On February 28, 2009, the same article was nominated again for deletion. Ten days?! I'd like to propose a policy that if an article survives an AfD it cannot be renominated again for at least one year after the AfD closed. Kingturtle (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen this happen a few times, but I think a 1 year wait is an overreaction. Nominating an article twice in quick succession for the same reason is probably a bad thing. However, what if an article survives a nomination for one reason (e.g. for notability) but then someone discovers a different non-CSD problem a few days later (e.g. subject is an elaborate hoax)? There are already guidelines saying that a reasonable wait should be left between nominations, and adding a fixed waiting time would cause new problems. Papa November (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The page you linked about times between noms/repeated noms is in fact a Policy (not guideline) page, just to clarify. –Whitehorse1 16:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it turned out to be a hoax, then it could simply be speedy deleted as Patent nonsense. My concern is that currently an editor has the ability to keep running AfDs for an article over and over again until he gets his desired result. Kingturtle (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Just for precision, WP:CSD#G1 does not cover hoaxes. If the hoax was plausible enough to pass the first AfD, another AfD is probably necessary. Flatscan (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a long time. I'd be fine with a limit of a month, if it were to come to a hard rule. That being said, do we really need a rule for this? Ten days between AfD's is obviously fishy; the problem does not require a rule to be solved. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 15:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict]There's been some discussion of issues of parity involving this. DrV isn't the place to bring back an article that was deleted if nothing has changed. But AfD seems to be the place to bring an article back after it has been kept. Then it finally gets deleted (and anything debatable will get deleted with enough tries) and there is no way to bring it back. Seems like a poor set-up. Either we should provide an idea how long between AfDs is acceptable or we should allow DrV to be AfD2. Hobit (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to suggest six months rather than a year. If an article survives AfD that means there are at least a handful of people who can monitor and fix the article to get it up to snuff. If they haven't done so in six months, then let another AfD take place if someone wants it. We can't expect said handful of people to work their magic on an article in two weeks. Kingturtle (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

My example above (about hoaxes) was meant only to be illustrative. I think it's OK to renominate a "kept" article for a completely different (legitimate) reason, no matter how recent the last AFD. The policy already states that repeated renominations are considered disruptive (with a link to WP:BLOCK). This could easily be resolved without introducing an arbitrary time limit. Why not just tweak the policy to something like:

"It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome. Repeated nominations may be closed as speedy keep unless a new deletion reason is given." Papa November (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that rapidly repeating, substantially similar nominations are not useful. These are usually closed early, but WP:Speedy keep has a narrower definition. Flatscan (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There are some interesting thoughts brought up above about parity. It suggests a determined person has multiple processes at their disposal, with multiple opportunities to employ one of those such as AfD. For example, let's say there's a new article created by a fairly new editor:

1. Somebody applies a CSD tag; the creator or whoever has to familiarize themself with that deletion process and act accordingly. The article-creator places a hangon tag perhaps – someone removes the deletion tag.
2. Straightaway or shortly afterward, it gets Prodded, often by the same editor; the creator or others have to familiarize themself with that deletion process and how it works. The tag is removed.
3. Later, the article is nominated under the AfD process; a third process with which the contributor(s) must familiarize themself. That process, can involve input from few or many; the views of the creator may be given less weight, not simply for having created the article, but being new and unfamiliar their views are less likely to be on clear policy grounds.
4. If the article survives, the AfD nominator may then request a Deletion Review; a quasi-judicial fourth process with which the contributor(s) must familiarize themself, quite possibly all happening within a short time. This fourth stage might not happen if the person(s) wanting its deletion wait, for some days / a few weeks / a month or so, and instead renominate it under AfD at any time.

The point raised by Papa November about successive nominations requiring a new deletion reason bring the possibility of Gaming The System: The AfD nominator proposes one ground for deletion in their nominating statement. The AfD reaches no consensus or is closed as keep. On renominating, the nominator argues under a different criterion—our nominator could have specified this criterion alongside the previous one in the original AfD, but did not. We can assume for this example that at least the suggestion of the reason is sufficiently realistic to, at least, broach discussing it against the article. –Whitehorse1 17:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that the gaming you describe occurs often, if at all. I've noticed that AfD/DRV participants tend to exhaust all plausible rationales. Flatscan (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The part you're referring to, Flatscan, relates to the policy wording change suggested by Papa November, and its potential drawback of constituting a how-to for repeat-noms. –Whitehorse1 20:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If such gaming were effective, I think it would have seen some use, even without the proposed change. Withholding a backup nomination rationale seems inefficient: if it's reasonably strong, it should influence the active AfD; if it's weak, a renomination would likely close speedy keep. Flatscan (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well what about the case I described? The rationale behind the 2nd nomination was no different than the first. Such actions should not be permitted. Articles surviving AfDs need some time to blossom before going through another AfD. Kingturtle (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

To clarify my stance, I agree that 2 weeks is probably too soon for a renomination, except in cases like the hoax example. However, I consider WP:NOTAGAIN to be a weak rationale, except in egregious cases or when backed by a separate reasoning, and I think that formalizing a minimum interval will encourage its use in AfDs that should be argued on the articles' merits. I agree that a poor renomination wastes time, but I don't see substantial harm to justify a rule. Flatscan (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• There's a DrV on another one that was deleted with back-to-back AfDs (Dan Schlund). We apparently do need a formal policy. Hobit (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's an idea I've always wanted to propose but haven't because I know it would be rejected as CREEPy. When nominating an article for deletion that has been previously nominated and closed with a "clean keep" (not "no consensus", not "Delete/DRV overturn" etc) the nominator will be required to "impeach" the previous closure. That is he must, while still assuming good faith, explain why in his judgment, the previous close was not the correct one. If the nominator fails to address the previous nomination, it can be speedy closed by anyone. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• It is creepy and WP:CCC should also play a role. The renom could simply argue WP:CCC I suppose. Perhaps disallow that argument for less than year? And then maybe do the same thing in DrV for the otherway around? Eh. I like the idea, but instruction creep sucks and the number of cases are so small at this time.... I just don't see it (yet). Hobit (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• I would consider just saying WP:CCC a "vague wave" not an "impeachment". (is "impeachment" even the right word for this?) The AFD that started this thread would be a poster child for such a proposal. The nominator was more or less pretending that there was no AFD on that article less then a month ago. Still, such a proposal would likely fail but perhaps a note to check for and address previous AFDs at WP:BEFORE might be a good idea.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Impeachment is challenging the honesty or veracity of, if this helps. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Part of the definition of "veracity" is act of being exact and accurate. correctness and carefulness in one's plan of action so perhaps "impeachment" is a good word for it. Is the previous "keep" closure "correct" and if not why not?. Still would be CREEPy but the only one being inconvenienced is the one who wants to renominate the article but I think that if he really really really wants it gone so bad, then let him jump through some hoops and do his homework. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been arguing for something like this for a long time. Ever since i first saw AfD, in fact. During that period, my feeling about the length of time between successive nominations after clear keeps have only increased--at first I thought 3 months. But a year is probably too long--the first time round. what is really needed is not preventing Afd2, but Afd3, 4, 5, and so forth: For exceptions,the process should be deletion Review--which already exists and could use some more participation. (Dealing with nomination after other processes is a separate issue--I think it good that an unsuccessful CSD or Prod be follwed errather soon by an AfD. A failed CSD or Prod just means that someone objects reasonably or unreasonably, not that there is no merit.) I propose the following wording

After a keep closing, a second XfD may not be brought for 6 months without permission from deletion review. After 2 consecutive keeps, the interval must be one year. After a third, there must be permission from deletion review in all cases. it is understood that this refers to keeps, not non-consensus keeps by default. DGG (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Making it a black and white issue by codifying the process it makes it easier to accept/reject further nominations. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• I would support something such as DGG proposal of 6 months; however I am not i favour of extending the wait period longer than 6 months. I believe this would be significant time for tempers to cool in between AFDs (in other words it would deter most repeat AFDs). Also I do not particularly support the idea of requesting permission from DRV to reopen a discussion. DRV is intended to determine if the correct process was followed, not to rehash AFD, which is precisely what requiring consent from DRV would do. Consensus can change over time( given probably not in 10 days), and DRV is not the appropriate forum for determining a change in consensus. See explanation bellowTonyBallioni (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A year is way too long. Maybe a month. Not a hard rule, though. Consensus can change, and it can do so quickly. It might also lead to abuses of people nominating deleteable articles they don't want deleted so they get immunity. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree a year seems excessive. A month is just 4 weeks though. If someone nominated a "deleteable" article, which they didn't want deleted then they'd quite possibly end up sorry about the nomination. Swiftly. –Whitehorse1 02:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think DGG's proposal is a good one. When an article is deleted, in DRV we are repeatedly informed that "DRV is not AfD round 2". But when an article is kept, it is subject to AfD round 2, 3, 4, etc. Requiring DRV or some suitable time delay before renominating an article which had consensus to keep seems reasonable to me. DHowell (talk) 03:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with setting a time limit between AFDs. While the example given here does seem like very bad form, and should probably simply have been snowball closed, I think it's premature to let one incident dictate policy. Reactionary policymaking often leads to bad policy. An article, or our particular standards for articles or notability can change dramatically over time. An article that wasn't deletable a few months or even a few weeks ago may now be in a condition to be worthy of deletion, particularly if the problems cited in the original AFD were not resolved or were even allowed to get worse. IMO, the standard of what can be renominated should be whether a different outcome can reasonably be expected, were the same community to !vote again. If the answer is no, then an article shouldn't be renominated, period, if it's yes, then I'd say it's a good faith AFD no matter how soon its renominated.

While I don't think we're ready for a new policy here, as an alternative to setting a time limit on renominations, we could amend the speedy keep definition - whenever it's appropriate to do so, simply consider the comments in a recent prior nomination as belonging to the current one, and weigh them as such. Unless consensus really has changed, or there was a real lack of participation the first time around, this all but guarantees the same outcome when the same article gets repeated AFD nominations, and it may make it easier to support early closure of an already settled matter. - Triona (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think for a moment this is a single incident; quite the opposite in fact. I think renoms after a short period are far from unusual. If, as you say, an article wasn't deletable a few weeks ago, it seems illogical to suggest it may be in a condition to be worthy of deletion a few weeks afterward, given the ability to revert; likewise, it is not for AfDs to give a stay of execution dependent on providing solutions to issues cited in them. –Whitehorse1 05:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is unnecessary policy creep. The current system seems to work well enough. If an article is renominated after a short period, the worst that could happen is that it gets WP:SNOW kept after a couple hours. But there's nothing that prevents consensus from changing in a short time. AFDs often get very few comments, its possible that a wider cross-section of the community in a second AFD could result in a different outcome simply by having more participants. Sceptre also points out a way that a time limit system could be abused. Mr.Z-man 04:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

If this proposal, or something similar, is rejected, than I propose we somehow deprecate the "DRV is not AfD round 2" argument. If we are going to do nothing to discourage kept articles getting AfD rounds 2, 3, 4, etc., then we shouldn't be discouraging deleted articles from getting the same treatment. DHowell (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC) [How ironic that I used the word "deprecate" before even noticing the following section. However, I do use the term exactly as defined in the first sentence below. DHowell (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)]

• Concur with Mr.Z-man and several others, this is unnecessary policy creep. Consensus can change fairly quickly on this project. If there is to be a policy, I'd say one month between formal deletion discussions. Six months and one year are ridiculously long periods, particularly at a time when notability guidelines seem to be in constant flux. Risker (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

(re Mr.Z-man's comment) No, the worst that could happen is that it gets deleted after a short time, perhaps having been (NAC or admin) WP:SNOW-closed, thus removing content.

Let's not kid ourselves AfD is a wholly-consistent, failproof, system. Don't get me wrong, we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater: For any faults it may have, it is what we have. If you've hung around AfD for any length of time though (which, I'm sure you have, being an admin who'll provide copies of deleted articles!) you'll know much depends on who participates in the given discussion, the strength of their argument and what they bring—plenty of the discussions get comments like 'keep / changing to keep, following sources found by / changes made by suchandsuchuser'.

A by-no-consensus keep that gets an—underattended—renom may end in the article's deletion. Put another way, successive renominating in the hope different AfD participants, perhaps with poorer supporting arguments, are present the 2nd time is possible; or, "It'll be deleted. Sooner or later they all are." Your point about different participants shaping a different outcome works both ways. –Whitehorse1 05:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider consensus on an AFD changing to be a bad thing, I may disagree with the outcome, but I'll still accept it. If an article kept at AFD, then a week later deleted per WP:SNOW, either the first AFD attracted too few participants, or something fishy happened at the second. I agree that a different outcome is possible, I don't see why its a terrible thing however. Obviously somebody nominating the same article month after month hoping for a different result is likely trying to game the system, but I see no reason to automatically shut down a second good faith AfD simply because it was nominated recently and kept. Mr.Z-man 05:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I recently saw a situation in which an article had been (barely) kept on the basis of some sources that were then found to be anything but reliable. Nothing should prevent a repeat AfD for that. I see no need to change the system. Dougweller (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Also agree with the opposes. A while back I renom'd an article that had zero sources, none could be found, yet the first AfD closed as keep because all the !votes were of the WP:ILIKEIT variety. I don't fault the first admin for the close (I've experienced the howls that go up when I've relisted that type of AfD), but I can't see a reason to prevent the relisting.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose A year, six months... even an unconditional one month block on renominations is too long. I think a better solution is to have a bot notify all parties who !voted in the prior AfD if a new one begins within a 6 week period. Yes, rapid renoms are of limited utility, but establishing a bright line rule here is unnecessary instruction creep in a process that's already an enormous generator of bad press. However, if this does go through, speedily kept mass-noms, bad faith listings (e.g., banned user) or otherwise malformed nominations that get speedily kept should all be specific exceptions to the rule. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to note that essentially this same thing has been proposed before: Wikipedia:Repeated AfD nomination limitation policy. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support While it does constitute 'policy creep', it seems warranted, I too have seen a few articles in my short time here which suffered under repeated AfDs and then had to fight off unilateral merge attempts. It does happen, some areas of wikipedia remain a battlefield, unfortunately. I don't see how adding a paragraph regarding how often an article can come up for AfD constitutes undue policy creep, I agree that it shouldn't be necessary.. An article with such grave faults that it needs to be removed would fall under speedy deletes anyway? There is no deadline, this is also true for removal of articles that are not speedy delete candidates. I would much rather extend the AfD deliberation period to 1 week so that it might get more extensive attention from the community and ensure proper handling and then submit that such decisions are binding for an increasing set duration. Would it be that it weren't necessary. Unomi (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support either the original version or (preferred) DGG's version. Mostly in an attempt to end battlefield mentality. I'd ideally include "no consensus" closes in there too. Otherwise what's the point of closing the first AfD if another one is just around the corner. It should relist instead (which is also icky). Hobit (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Would support that an AfD may be speedily closed if it presents no new reasons, arguments, or evidence than a recent (perhaps as long as 6 months) keep result, and there is no significant change relevant to the reasons. As an example of a signficicant change, a finding on WP:RSN that a certain source is not reliable would be relevant. (This proposal has nothing to do with "unilateral merge attempts".) (And I agree with Mendaliv that, even if something like this is agreed to, almost all "speedy close" results must not count even if the result is "keep".) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I would support your proposal as a compromise. DHowell (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weak OpposeAfter reading the above opinions, I agree that a set time period would be a bad idea; however, I still recognize the need to prevent a renomination within two weeks. I feel that perhaps a mixture of Mendaliv's and Arthur Rubin's proposals could help prevent quick renoms. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per common sense. This is policy creep and serves no real benefit. We already speedy close new AfDs with short turnarounds from others as a matter of practice, and I see no compelling evidence that this proposal is anything but a solution in search of a problem. Resolute 23:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support I like DGG's version from last week above.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this would be a great idea. For a start there are too many poor nominations which prejudice discussions, even if a topic does not meet the inclusion criteria, three word nomination statements like "Non-notable band" or "Just not notable" will likely result in a keep. This discussion ended in a clear delete just thirteen days after a previous discussion ended in keep - although that was a dubious non-admin close, it still shows there can be exceptions. Consensus can change, there's no reason to implement an arbitrary time limit if it has. For example this AfD ended as a unanimous keep with four contributors, a current discussion is ongoing just three months later and - whatever the final result may be - is showing a significantly shift in opinion among the community. Finally, how many discussions would this actually affect? Probably less than one in a hundred at AfD, doesn't seem worth a specific policy, especially as I can see a lot of the burden passing straight to deletion review; the keep/no consensus "boundary" has always been a bit ethereal and turning it into something that makes a practical difference doesn't seem like a great idea. There's probably a reason that this perennial proposal has never achieved consensus. Guest9999 (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• • • I deliberately left out cases of non-consensus closes, which i think raise a whole set of additional questions. There are nonconsensus closes where it is clear that the discussion might well come to some consensus if restarted when things are a little calmer, and those where it is clear the community is hopelessly at odds, and a reasonably long time should be given to see if consensus develops. Suggestions here can wait till we do this. Non-admin closes too are a separate issue, because per WP:NAC any admin can revert them if they seem to be over-hasty, and this is indeed routine. And as for the situations that Guest9999 describes, there is always an escape route when things need another AfD before the time is up: take them to Deletion Review, and ask for permission to start an early AdF2, or to reverse the earlier close and relist, or even to reverse the close altogether. There needs to be some approximate symmetry between keeping and deletion. DGG (talk) 09:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Why is it preferable to have the additional stage of a deletion review? If there was a realistic chance that consensus has changed then the review should give permission to have another AfD and if there wasn't then the AfD would fail to overturn the initial result anyway. It just seems like the venue would change for discussions which endorsed the previous decision and an extra unnecessary step would be added to those where the decision might be overturned. Guest9999 (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

this is better than not having the multiple repeated deletions at all. The point is to make going faster difficult, but not impossible. An alternative i suppose would be to require two successive delete closings with a months interval between them if there had been two successive keeps.: in other words, k k d does not delete an article, it has to be k k d d or even k k d d d -- a final result of more deletes than keeps. At present, even k k k k d is delete, and I think that's unbalanced. DGG (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:Stop editing

My experience at Wikipedia has been good. But I have run into editors multiple times who are not quite trolls, not quite vandals, but rather an unseemly combination of gamers and point-makers who are angry at Wikipedia for continually attempting to "censor" their "useful contributions" that are actually sneakily sourced, carefully worded, blatantly POV "drive-by" edits. What makes this type of editor unique is its remarkable persistence: despite its frustration with Wikipedia and its fascist editors who keep on reverting and scolding and blocking, it keeps on editing its way to prominence as an annoyance, often claiming that if they have a source, it MUST be encyclopedic material according to NPOV, mo matter the phrasing or the context.

For this reason, I propose this policy: If you blame Wikipedia for consistent reverts of edits that you feel are legitimate, stop editing. Alternatively, you could read up on Wikipedia's policies on pushing agendas and points of view and make your future edits more productive along those guidelines.

That is obviously a rough draft and I hope to hear your input. I think this rule would make it a lot easier to weed these pestilent people out without a dispute. And they love to dispute. The Sartorialist (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you proposing banning people who make such complaints or simply recommending that they "stop editing"? SMP0328. (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not the complaints that are bothersome so much as the disruptive edits. The complaints are just where their intentions of gaming the system are fleshed out when things such as "it's sourced and therefore relevant and NPOV" are said about, say, Robert Byrd collapsing at the inauguration of the first black President. This would be made to seem as though he collapsed as a result of the idea that a black man is President, with some vague reference to his KKK affiliation in the 40s, and then referenced because technically he did become upset at Obama's inauguration (though he didn't collapse; that was Ted Kennedy having a seizure, which was itself the reason Byrd was distressed). Anyways, I would not advocate banning such editors left and right, but rather create a policy from which there is little to no wiggle room (like I said, they will dispute if you nail them on NPOV or something, often using some bastardization of the censorship rule) so that a note, a warning, or a threat of a block or ban is granted more credence. It should also make clear that if they have a problem with the editors at Wikipedia, they should probably not be one, since their edits will be reverted anyways if they continue disrupting. More than anything else, I think this policy would act as a stern warning and a nudge in the right direction for those who insist on gaming the system, a very clear statement that toying with use of sources and mechanically biased rhetoric are not welcome, and in worst case scenarios, an indefatigable warrant for a block. The Sartorialist (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what we should do, but I certainly agree that we need to become a whole lot less tolerant of this type of person. Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but it seems to me that if we feed the trolls (to extend the original definition of troll somewhat), and also allow them to abuse and harrass good editors, then the latter will leave and the former will be left running things.--Kotniski (talk) 06:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

And as much as it's said to not feed the damn trolls, almost everyone does, admins included. Since most of the perpetrators of these sorts of edits will stand by their positions and never admit they are wrong-- whether it be in terms of the position itself or by the rules of WP-- it's better to give admins a tool that will really drive the point home, rather than have them argue semantics/feed the trolls until eventually the person breaks a tangible rule like 3RR and is finally blocked. And even in that instance, they will be able to continue with the same tactics once the block is over; this rule would hopefully solve that problem as well.The Sartorialist (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any general agreement as to which reactions constitute "feeding," nor as to identification of trolls. I tend to think that identifying them aloud as trolls is more trouble than it's worth. That said, I've dealt quite recently with two editors that fit Sartorialist's description to a T. I don't know what the best way is to deal with them, short of some major changes in our community culture, which I don't know how to bring about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

In the example above A happens (with source A) and B happens (with source B), implying a causal relationship when neither source A nor cause B expresses a causal relationship is a simple WP:OR violation. THis would be the strongest grounds for reversion. dramatic (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The policies are in place, what is lacking is the will to enforce them. Go to any contentious article, spend fifteen minutes reading the talk page and article history, and in most cases, you will be able to identify the one to four editors causing the problem, usually through an unwillingness to work toward consensus and/or an inability to participate in the collaborative editing process in a collegial manner.

And in a large number of instances, they are simply not editing in good faith. We must assume good faith - but not when confronted with evidence to the contrary. Many, many Wikipedia editors are not really here to help produce an encyclopedia based on WP:FIVE, but for other reasons. If an editor really is looking to help, a topic ban will remove them from the area in which their efforts are counter-productive, (perhaps because they are too passionate about the subject), but allow them to continue to contribute in other areas.

Disruptive editors should be quickly topic banned from the areas in which they are causing disruption, no matter what form the disruption takes. Dlabtot (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny you should say that, as it's you who are being disruptive on a number of pages right now by adding copyright violation links back to articles after they have been pointed out, blind reverting whole masses of fixes to get back to your last edit, etc. If you want quick blocks for disruptive behavior I recommend you ask an admin to give yourself a time out for a day or two. It appears more that you just want to assume bad faith and go on a rant about how anyone who opposes you must be a bad editor, etc. DreamGuy (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)]

If you think I am in violation of the letter or spirit of some Wikipedia policy, I encourage you to report my behavior in the appropriate fora. Dlabtot (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the appropriate fora? It's not to report you, because I see this as Talk. However, I have had to deal with ArgleBargleIV, who has in the past been very troll-like in editing people's work. This person actually edited incorrectly an article, deleted references, and then wrote on my talk page how I quoted things incorrectly and needed references while providing misleading information. Some users who want to follow the rules are so busy jumping down people's throats that even if something is marked as being under construction, they still want to edit things. When I look at this person's talk site, it is filled with other similar complaints spanning the past few years. I can see how this person throws things into deletion mode quickly, almost before someone can object, but is there a way to report someone like this who does it inappropriately rather than just having to re-correct their errors to avoid the repetition other than to stop editing?slm1202000 (talk) 06:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of places to report problems, depending on the specific circumstances. At WP:ANI there is a box of links at the top of the page for the various noticeboards, etc. Dlabtot (talk) 06:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Improving wikipedia home page

I am a long time user of wikipedia who is always thinking of ways to streamlinethe experience, with this in mind may i suggest the following: On the main pagehave a top ten of the most topics searched for the current day. It would giveevery wikibrowser the opportunity to find out what is hot for that day, expose usto topics we wouldn't see otherwise, and make the whole wiki experience moreinteresting! > —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.80.32.236 (talk) 02:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It would result in the same ten hot topics for months at a time with little change and would skew heavily toward pop culture, celebrities, huge news stories and the like. See here. Note also the preponderence of female body parts and other prurient interests of young males included in the top hits. That'll probably stay consistent.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea. I think the list would need to be updated far more often than every month in order to be effective (perhaps every day), and certain pages would need to be filtered out of the process -- e.g., Main Page, anything not in article space, etc. Matt (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Successful modification of an arbtritation

Can anyone give me an example of a sucessful modifiction of an arbritration?

What are the regualar steps to modificating of an arbtritation? Is there a page about this? Thank you. Ikip (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

First, what do you mean by "modification of an arbitration"? Do you mean, getting an aspect of an existing arbitration decision changed? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The enforcement of the arbitrition has been one sided. Thanks in advance. Ikip (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Requests for modification are made at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Clarifications_and_other_requests. MBisanz ^talk 07:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response here, and all your help, here and on other pages MBisanz. Ikip (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism of wikipedia

I found a book published in 2008 containing a verbatim copy of the intro to the article Superconductivity. By digging through the revision history, I have determined that the article was copied in May 2007. The material is my original work, which I added to the article in Aug 2006. While it's clear to me that publisher has stepped over the line, I don't know what action I should take. I could write a strongly worded letter, but I'm not sure who has been wronged -- me? The Wikimedia foundation? See User:Spiel496/plagiarism for the details. Spiel496 (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

"You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the GFDL." It's not your work, not once it's submitted here. To the question, here's a quote:

2. VERBATIM COPYING

You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. However, you may accept compensation in exchange for copies. If you distribute a large enough number of copies you must also follow the conditions in section 3.

You may also lend copies, under the same conditions stated above, and you may publicly display copies.

Does that answer you question? — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 21:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is still "your work": WP:C notes "Copyright is never transferred to Wikipedia. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like. However, you can never retract the GFDL license for copies of materials that you place here; these copies will remain under GFDL until they enter the public domain when your copyright expires (currently some decades after an author's death)." If a publisher has used your work that you placed on Wikipedia without meeting the requirements of the GFDL license (see Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content for what those requirements are), you do have the same legal remedies available to any copyright holder. Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process suggests some steps that you might take (standard disclaimer: not legal advice) on finding a website that violates your copyright of material you placed on Wikipedia. These are obviously less likely to work if a book has already been published. You may wish to consult an attorney. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that the book is published under the GFDL, in which case no licensing breach has taken place -- but there doesn't seem to be any indication of this in the contents as displayed by Google books. I would make a polite enquiry to the publisher regarding the book's licensing model. If it turns out to be the egregious breach of the GFDL that it looks like, further action would be appropriate and you should follow Moonriddengirl's suggestion and talk to a lawyer. (You might want to consult someone at the WMF to see if they would support you in this, but it's important to note that you are the holder of the copyright in the text and therefore you, not the WMF, are the wronged party.)

Incidentally, if James R. Tobin is an academic then you should write to whoever is in charge of academic standards at his institution, copying in his Head of Department, pointing out that he is a plagiarist. --Nick Boalch\^talk 21:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

They're stealing our free knowledge! Sue them!. Mr.Z-man 21:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Copying half a printed page of text verbatim with no acknowledgment is unusually blatant. Dragons flight (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that any plagiarism is inappropriate and reporting it to the academics in change is a good idea, I'm merely pointing out the irony of suing someone or threatening legal action for misusing our free content in an educational setting; kinda sends the wrong message. Mr.Z-man 00:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There are two separate problems here. One is the issue of plagiarism, which is the height of academic irresponsibility. The other is a (potential, as I note above) breach of license: taking Wikipedia's free content and using it in a non-free manner. The issue here isn't 'stealing our free knowledge', it's 'making our free knowledge non-free'. I believe the point here is worth pursuing, because both plagiarism and license abuse of this kind are contrary to the very fibre of what Wikipedia is for. --Nick Boalch\^talk 09:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll see what the publisher has to say. Thank you to everyone who responded. Spiel496 (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

One more comment: I think the culprit is not the author, but the publisher, Nova Publishers. On their website I chose, somewhat arbitrarily, another technical book (optical fibers, this time) and found that this one's preface also contains verbatim text from Wikipedia. (Not my material.) Again, details on User:Spiel496/plagiarism. Spiel496 (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There are instructions at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks#Non-compliance_process for websites (somewhat different for books - no OCILLA). Because Wikipedia does not own the copyright, only republishes the material, the Foundation has no legal grounds on which to issue a complaint themselves. Dcoetzee 23:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Nova Publishers have been criticised elsewhere for repackaging public domain works without indicating the source: [1]. Now this might not be a breach of copyright, but it IS plagiarism: see Signpost dispatches for a similar discussion. There seems to be some controversy at Talk:Nova Publishers as well, which I haven't waded through. As far as WP content is concerned, NgB above is right that this is a significant problem: a publisher using free content without attribution and presenting it as non-free. Gwinva (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The really big problem, in my opinion, is that editors here expect attribution when they make their edits, and some of them may choose not to edit if they believe these legal rights will not be respected. Dcoetzee 01:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

To answer Spiel496's original question: You have been wronged. You hold the copyright on the material you contributed. Even if you agreed to license it under the GFDL, the publishers have not followed the terms of the license. They are violating your copyright in your work. You have whatever legal remedies you ordinarily have. (In the US, minimum statutory damages are $200 or $750, depending on the circumstances.) You could threaten legal action if you wanted, and see if they would settle for some sort of payment. I think a not trivial number of photographers here have sent stern letters when corporations used their work without attribution, and some have gotten decent payouts. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Attribution/GDFL and translations (and sourcing)

There have been a number of recent discussions

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Editor adding many WP:SELFREF-violating entries to reference sections
2. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject French communes#Problematic mass editing of french communes
3. Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Question on using wiki articles from other languages

and at last a TFD @ Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009_April_13#Category:Interwiki translation templates

both the proposer of the TFD and myself although of some difference of opinion do feel that the issue needs wider attention rather than just deciding to delete a template (or not). Alternatives where discussed and another thread came up at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Special:Import

Questions raised are:

• Do we want attribution templates on the article or does the talkpage suffice?
• Can we go the Special:Import route and actually import the complete history before translating?
• How to proceed if there is already an article but it gets expanded based on a translation?
• A side issue is also the current mass tagging of articles like Härkingen requesting translation from the de-wiki equivalent de:Härkingen where there is absolutely no sourcing bringing us into WP:RS trouble.

I do feel this issue needs resolving one way or another. Also I have been asked to close the above TFD once a relevant discussion is under way. I'd feel more comfortable if someone else where to do that after checking that I got all the issues covered here. Agathoclea (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Just in case it is not clear the editor that caused the discussion objects to the self referencing of the template if in article space. On a funnier sidenote: One editor in particular complained about the note "This article is based on a translation from the French Wikipedia" on the grounds that he actually had translated the article into French from here. Agathoclea (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think the ideal place to put the attribution would be in the edit summary. This is the same practice as when merges are performed and it means that the history page would have links to all of the necessary attributions in one place. Putting the attribution details on the talk page should be OK as well, although I think it would be more suited to cases where there are a lot of complex issues surrounding the copying and translation. I don't think a note on the article page should be necessary. If anything, it gives undue prominence to a single source.
• Using Special:Import could also work well. One problem that might exist is that only certain editors would be able to receive the necessary permissions to do imports so it would still be necessary to establish a procedure for people who can't use the import feature.
• If an article is expanded from a translation, the attribution should be in the form of a link to the other wiki in the edit summary.
• If no sources exist in the articles, ideally it would be possible to find some good sources and add them to both articles. If that's not practical, it might be best not to go ahead with the translation and to consider removing or tagging the unsourced statements in the foreign language article. Tra (Talk) 23:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the part about the editsummary as when merging. Another issue there is that on de-wiki they have a tendency to move geographic articles without leaving any redirects which could be updated in a template but not in the history. My view regarding the differences between article space and talkpage is that mirrors tend not to have the talkpage available. Agathoclea (talk) 07:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep It is perfectly legitimate to reuse text from any free content source, and the other WPs are such sources. Not only legitimate, but its a good way of getting articles started and discouraging cultural bias. When this is done, its well to let people know. In fact, I think its a requirement of the licensing that at least a link be made. This is the link. The article page is a good prominent place to put it, in addition to an edit summary at the first edit. Putting these source templates on the first page discourages unacknowledged plagiarism. Once the licensing change is approved, and the entire contents is relicensed uniformly, a link like this will meet all possible objections about licensing details. It is not a self ref--the article stands or fails based on what refs are copied or added to the enWP version,. The only problem is when people do the transwikify without including the references from the original. DGG (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm on the fence. I say, pretty much, reference the source article however you want to. If the edit-summary process is used for moving material between articles, it also suffices for moving material between Wikipedias; we permit that streamlined crediting mechanism because Wikipedia trusts itself. If you want to add an external link or footnote instead, go ahead. There's more than one way to attribute. Dcoetzee 23:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• The issue I am having is attribution by whoever takes content from wikipedia - including we ourselves should we further merge articles or create wikibooks. At least article page attribution will be retained talk page attribution will not. Ideally there would be a way to link the histories but that would be something for the developers. Agathoclea (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that something really should be done by the developers to make recording the history of translated and merged articles easier. Right now in terms of GFDL compliance it's pretty much a mess. I'm not sure what the best route would be. Importing the history is good, but doesn't solve anything where an article is being expanded (as opposed to created) using a foreign source. One related concern (both for merged and translated content) is that if the original article later turns out to be a copyvio and is deleted, it's hard to track other articles where that content has ended up. I'm not sure what an easy way to implement that would be. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I am very concerned about this problem with the attribution method of the new book feature, which doesn't include edit summaries. (So if you acknowledge a source in the edit summary it is not preserved.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

We should be consistent regardless - the same issue arises for article merges, where the history cannot be preserved as it is in a move. Dcoetzee 01:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well technically it can, but it can sometimes end up being confusing. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 03:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

History "merging" is for resolving cut-and-paste moves - you can't actually merge the histories of two different articles that evolved concurrently in a meaningful and navigable way. Dcoetzee 04:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No, but you can retain the logs of all versions together with the merged article, as required by the GFDL. I'm not going to go around prosecuting users who didn't get an admin to do this when they merged things though. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 15:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Prosecuting is not the way forward. Making it simple and easy to do is. Agathoclea (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Simple and easy is a crisp, clean, concise edit summary "Information added translated from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_on_the_G_String&oldid=284343650". The permalink provides an exact trail for GFDL attribution. Then, drop a talk page template for more visibility - but not in the references of the article! User:McDutchie said it best: "The article itself is for encyclopedic content, and meta-information is not encyclopedic". A template that may or may not be noted with a proper edit summary makes it a lot more difficult to figure out if its the entire article, or simply some census numbers that a guy pulled over from another language Wikipedia. –xeno ^talk 04:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

(Deindent) Would it be possible/advisable to have some sort of way to be prompted to provide the required info for your merge/translation edit summary, which would then be processed and put into a standard/machine-readable form? The problem is that edit summaries currently are not machine-readable, which makes it impossible to properly credit authors in applications like the new books feature. (This does not include edit summaries in attribution, but presumably could be made to detect these sorts of things and then look to the source article for additional authors to include.) We could also use this to make some sort of bot to go around removing article-space templates like this and including a machine-readable translation edit summary. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That would save the template clutter and solve the book problem. Maybe ask a dev to see what they think. Agathoclea (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

How would I go about doing that? Just the normal bug report process? Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of indefinitely blocked user talk pages

I have raised the issue of deleting the user talk pages of indefinitely blocked editors at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Deletion of indefinitely blocked user talk pages. Comments and suggestions are welcome. --Vassyana (talk) 09:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion criteria / Deprecating categories without discussion

In this edit, I declined a speedy for a category: apparently the category was just emptied, and an editor (not the creator) tagged it with {{db-empty}}. After I left a short note on the tagger's talk page, explaining that I'd declined it because this was criterion for the deletion of articles, not of categories, I received a reply of "A db-empty is a db-empty." The category itself is empty, so in a few days it will qualify under C1, but is it really right to delete a category under A1, as was attempted here? Nyttend (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No, of course it isn't. The article speedy deletion criteria are for articles, the category criteria are for categories. The tagger should read policies before applying them, and read templates before transcluding them. Algebraist 13:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Categories have their own criteria for a reason... What concerns me is that this editor seems to be eliminating categories without discussion... –xeno (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You should have deleted it under G6 housekeeping IMO.--Patton^t/c 13:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You certainly should not. There are reasons C1 requires a four-day wait, and one of them is to stop this sort of unilateral category removal. Algebraist 13:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, guys chill out. I have created new categories to replace them per our standard naming convention. See Category:Cities, towns and villages in Ecuador. I have created new categories by province and have recategorised the articles accordingly which were once in these now redundant categories. Seems as I have done this with practically every other ocountry on wikipedia and am working my way through referencing and standardizing these articles and making them consistent all I asked is to remove the empty categories which have been renamed as towns as they should be. This is certainly not a big deal to bring it here. The reason why I have replaced them is that they are named "canton seats" yet many of the articles combine the canton and main town into one article so it was an awkward naming. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

and this task is so urgent, that you can't file a CFD? CFDs serve many important purposes, one of which is ensuring proper GFDL attribution is retained when renaming categories. –xeno (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Given how little time I have to what I want to achieve on here yes. I've done exactly the same thing with other countries on here and nobody has said a thing and glady deleted the empty categories. As a result or organisation and articles on towns in general are better organised than they have been since wikipedia started. I'm also going through Mexican municipalities and referencing them. Am I expected to propose that too? GFDL for simple category naming. Sorry I don't follow. It doesn't matter who starts the categories, I have a job to do which I'd now like to continue doing. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Proper GFDL attribution is not an option or something we can discard just because you don't think it's important or you're too busy boosting your create count. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions: "any significant history of the category introductory text should be pasted into the new category talk page". –xeno (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The categories for Canton seats has nothing to do with cities, towns and villages. It is a fresh start on a basic category created by me. Do you think its feasible to start listing the names of editors who ever created any categories for Ecuador since 2001 to "comply with guidelines". Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see that GFDL has any relevance to this discussion, unless there is some significant authored text on these category pages (in the vast majority of cases there isn't). Seems to me this is a case of editor working hard to improve Wikipedia vs. bureaucrats trying to make things more difficult. --Kotniski (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What I see is someone eliminating a categorization by "Canton seats" unilaterally, without discussion, and trying to force his changes through using an inappropriate CSD criterion. That's not how Wikipedia works. Now, perhaps we don't want to categorize articles by Canton seats, but there is no deadline to eliminate this category and CFD is relatively painless. –xeno (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly Kotniski. The fact is while people sit around fussing about my "misconduct" I'm the one coming up with the goods every minute on here by standardising articles like this, wiki knoming which a lot of people here rarely give me credit for. I'm sorry if people feel I am some sort of rogue editor who ignores "policy" but I feel I am doing good work and improving wikipedia. All I asked was for somebody to delete the empty categories, plain and simple. I certainly didn't expect people to make a big thing about what seems a very simple procedure. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You know what else is a simple procedure? Filing a CFD. We're not trying to discount the good work you do here, but there are processes in place for these things. And it's not process-for-processes sake. How do you know people don't want categorization by Canton seats? –xeno (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Recreating deleted categories is painless too. Let's not overdramatize here - most of what happens on Wikipedia is done unilaterally without discussion, and quite rightly. There's a problem with this C1 criterion; it's been discussed before. It ought to be possible to tag a category as empty as soon as you've emptied it (if you're dealing with a lot of categories, you lose track if you have to wait four days). It's then up to the deleter to decide whether the category's been empty long enough. You can't do this easily of course - although you could look at whether it's been tagged for deletion for long enough. Anyway, the upshot is that the perfect solution is to use PROD to delete empty categories; and naturally, like any good solution on Wikipedia, this is opposed vigorously.--Kotniski (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats exactly how I feel. And if large scale changes are made to a normal convention then it is the time and place to engage in a lengthy discussion. I saw this as just a minor change to cleanup the confusing nature of the categories e.g many articles on cantons were categorised as "Canton seats in so and so province". Which is an error that needed fixing. It would be like Adams County, Pennsylvania being categorzed as "County seats or county capitals in Pennsylvania" -a clear error, then of course some cantons are combined and others aren't -too confusing at present. By creating universal town categories I have solved this problem, which I had hoped to do a lot more quietly. If ther eis some outrage in the futre that we must have these categories then they can be recreated within minutes. As it was though the basic system was inconsistent and needed sorting. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I applaud your efforts to more logically order these categories, and I think the best way go about it without causing all kinds of shoe-throwing would be to file a CFD explaining the changes, and ensure that everyone agrees what you are doing is a good idea. –xeno (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Xeno here. This is not like recreating a deleted article. If the category is renamed or deleted and the articles relocated/removed, sure, it's easy to recreate the category, but unless you know who did the article moving, it's extremely difficult to repopulate it. It's much easier to get consensus for such actions before than to try to fix things after. --Kbdank71 14:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we can see where you're coming from, but as I know from my own practical experience, categories in obscure areas of WP are often very messy, and tidying them up requires enough work as it is, without having to go through additional unnecessary bureaucractic processes as well. The Doctor is doing us all a favour by marking these empty categories for deletion (after all, he could have just left them lying around orphaned in category space), so we should be finding ways to make this task as easy as possible, for him and others - and certainly not criticizing him.--Kotniski (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Real consensus or getting "everybody to agree" rarely happens on here. The people who comment at CFD are minimal in comparison to who uses wikipedia and often a lot people who comment don't work on articles related to that subject and might know less about how things are organised than in their more familiar topics and that goes for any topic on here. Discussion is a good thing if a major change is being made but the way I fele is too much time is wasted on here with very little real gain for the encylopedia. For instance people could spend hours arguing at some arbitration request about some awful wikipedian. Yes it might helped evaluate the siuation but how does it actually improve the encyclopedia itself. By the time I've waited days for a couple of random editors to say whether they like it or not I could have got the whole thing done and filled in missing articles and references to boot. Maximise mainspace output minimise chit-chat is best in my view. Gaining real consensus given the severe restriction of jkust a minute handful of editors is not really on cards, even if a few people say I like it or a few say "I hate it." Sorry thats how I feel about it. And while I've tried to justify myself here I could have referenced 3 or 4 more articles. And nobody is throwing shoes, I respect my Zapatero too much... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

While you wait for the CFD to run its course, you could add your new categories, leaving the "Canton seats" cats in place and then a bot would remove them if consensus existed to not categorize by Canton seats and an administrator would delete them (see WP:CFD/W). Just because you don't feel its worthwhile to categorize by Canton seats, doesn't mean someone else doesn't. For the record, I didn't have any idea what a Canton seat was before this discussion, so I'm speaking from general principles here. –xeno (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Two questions: 1) Is the consensus of a few people at CFD better or worse than the unilateral decision made by you and you alone? 2) Concerning wasting time, CFD's run five days. Is Wikipedia so fragile that it's going to be damaged in any way while the CFD runs? --Kbdank71 14:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe someday when all of the canton town seats are expanded into seperate articles and it is consistent they can be readded if there is "consensus" that people really want them, as it was though it was easier to avoid the confusion. Yes some of the articles are so poor on here that I can't waste time in too many debates. They need urgent attnetion seriously. How is this discussion helping improve what is important, the encyclopedia? 14:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Blofeld (talk • contribs)

By making sure things get done right. --Kbdank71 15:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, then file the CFD, state your reasons, and then don't visit it again and do whatever work you feel is so urgent that it has to be done this very second. If people agree with you, everything will happen in due course. This discussion is helping the encyclopedia because, hopefully, your behaviour will be modified and you will file the appropriate discussions to log and perhaps prevent these changes if consensus does not exist for them. For example, we may not wish to do double-work re-categorizing these by Canton seats further down the line. –xeno (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Who is the authority to judge what is "right"? Might I point out that wikipedia as an encyclopedia would not be what it is today if individual editors didn't take the initiative themseleves to make their own choices and edit articles individually. A massive percentage of encyclopedic content on here (which is why we are here believe it or not) is not generated through endless discussion and branding policies it is created through individuals like myself being WP:BOLD having guts to do things themsevles and sheer hard work. Wikipedia is still the free encyclopedia that anybody can edit. A lot of the time editors make changes which they believe are beneficial to the encyclopedia and they are done and a lot of the time go unnoticed by later editors as problems have been fixed and solved without heavy discussion needed. I can see you can't understand how I operate on here but I can see why you think discussing everything is important. I disagree, sorry. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And it's clear you feel that your opinion supersedes the opinion of those who originally felt categorization by Canton seat was worthwhile. You seem to operate on the basis that you have the sole authority to judge what is right, and everyone else's opinion be damned. –xeno (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, let's not overdramatize, and let's not say things that might start to sound like personal attacks. The Doctor has done nothing worse than be bold, and Wikipedia greatly benefits from people's doing that. Not everything needs to be discussed beforehand, and not every process needs to be followed to the letter.--Kotniski (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my answer to Kb's first question is probably "worse". I don't know about CfD, but at other .fD's that I've seen, people just pass by and comment without any real understanding of the issue. One experienced editor who knows the subject is probably more likely to get it right. Other editors with an interest in those articles might have something of importance to say on the matter, but they'll comment when they see the categories changed on the article pages, not as a result of anything happening at CfD. --Kotniski (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Where's the fire? I don't understand this artificial urgency. -Chunky Rice (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Its hot on your ass boy you better watch out!! Reach for the hose. Just kidding. The urgency is obviously in the 80% crappy unreferenced stubs on articles which should be fully developed by now and other crap that exists on here which people couldn't give a monkeys about. A lot of articles on here need urgent attention if you take our content seriously. Our main priority on her eis the produce an encyclopedia of the highest quality. With well over 1 million unreferenced stubs... and many more nursery school level english quality articles. Thats why I'd rather not sit around discussing minor categorical changes when so much needs doing on these articles now this very minute. I rest my case. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Happy editing. Consider WP:CFDs, if only to log what was once there. –xeno (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a discussion in a short time! This matter has led me to propose a revision of speedy criterion C1 at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, header "Category speedy deletion"; would you please offer opinions there? Nyttend (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Disputed content

In the article Chris (Everybody Hates Chris) I saw two possible years of birth, and footnotes indicating that his age was 13 in Season 1 and 15 in Season 3. The writers of this show weren't known for consistency. But in one episode they showed his driver's license, and we knew exactly when he was born, regardless of what had been said in previous seasons. Still, I think the disputed information should somehow remain in the article, probably in the footnotes as it was before, to show the inconsistency. That is part of the character's history.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it even disputed? Is maybe season 5 set two years after season 1? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 23:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe disputed is the wrong word. At the start of each episode they tell us what year it is. The first season, it was 1982. Chris was starting junior high. Since his driver's license said he was born April 4, that would make him 11 (though the footnote says Chris turned 13 that year). That's reasonable, since he's very bright. And he did just start high school this season. The Everybody Hates Chris article does point out the discrepancy; one sentence says each season was set 22 years ago, except the first which was 23. Now M*A*S*H lasted much longer than the Korean War, and Head of the Class was the same way. Do Over was worse since they actually went back in time. A time travel show can do that, but from the time it first happens, you're supposed to go forward.

I messed up. It's just season 4. I don't know where I got season 5 above. I was tired.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:DERM:CAT

I wanted to get feedback on proposed guidelines at WP:DERM:CAT regarding the categorization of dermatology-related articles. Are there any issues that need to be addressed to make them better or more consistent with other wikipedia policies? ---kilbad (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Renaming Articles for Deletion to Articles for Discussion

There is an ongoing proposal to rename Articles for Deletion to Articles for Discussion. Interested editors are asked to comment and make their thoughts known. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 04:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Bilateral relations

I have started a discussion at the AfD talk page about a possible notability guideline for bilateral relations articles it can be found at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Bilateral Relation AfDs/ Rough Guideline Proposal. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that this is an important topic because:

1. there are roughly 20,000 pairs of independent countries, and
2. some people have already started creating articles on unlikely pairings such as Malta–Uruguay relations, which led to considerable tensions. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Note: A Centralized Discussion of this topic has been created at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations TonyBallioni (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Trademark image usage

Ok, I know trademarks are "free" in that they can't be copyrighted (well, usually). Therefore, they do not fall under WP:NFCC policy. But, I'm really wondering if our treatment of non-copyrightable trademarks is in our bests interests. We have a number of trademarks that are available in the file space, but are not used in article space. Case point; File:RedBlueP.jpg specifically uploaded to populate userboxes.

Do we really want to be hosting trademarked files for purposes having nothing to do with the encyclopedia itself? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

In practice this would be unworkable because no files are "trademarked" in the same sense that files are copyrighted. Anything can be a trademark; it's all a matter of the context and way it's used, not what it is in the abstract. And in the abstract, this is just a two-color letter. It's furthermore being used in the userboxes "nominatively," which in trademark legal jargon means to identify the actual trademark holder. Postdlf (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

How exactly is it "not in our best interests?" Mr.Z-man 16:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ditto Postdlf - trademarks in the abstract are unprotectible (unless they indeed contain copyrightable elements, which must be rather involved), so an image of a trademark is as available to us as an image of the Statue of Liberty. No legal issues, and really these files don't take up much space. bd2412 T 17:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• It's not the space that concerns me. It's the willy-nilly use of intellectual property. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Trademark only covers specific uses of the protected symbols. For example, UPS has a trademark on the color "brown", but there's no problem with people using brown on their userpages because the trademark only covers the use in relation to delivery services. --Carnildo (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sure. I can also use the letters UPS. But, if I were to make brown bumper stickers with UPS on them, I'd be encroaching. I don't see much difference between a bumper sticker and a userbox. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I do: your userpage isn't delivering packages. --Carnildo (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's non-infringing use, who cares? -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Any trademark that is viewable in file format to be uploaded to Wikimedia can also be copyrighted, as they contain all the same elements that meet copyright law. Anything prohibited by our rules on handling copyrights should also be prohibited for visual trademarks. Hell, trademarks are protected even MORE strongly than copyrights, so we'd have even LESS right to use them. Can't imagine how any userpage use would make any sense at all. DreamGuy (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? I don't know if anything you just wrote is correct. Any plain text can be converted to an image trivially. As long as the arrangement of the text is not copyrightable (like an image of an entire sentence or paragraph) and the design of the image isn't artistic enough to be protected by copyright, it can't be copyrighted. The fact that its a PNG or a JPEG versus text has nothing to do with it. Trademark is only protected in cases of similar usage. As Carnildo says above, the UPS trademark prevents people from using it to start their own delivery service, but using it on a userpage is not at all infringing. They are certainly not "more protected" except that trademarks don't expire as long as they're in use. Mr.Z-man 17:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability of educational institutions

There are 256 articles in the category High schools in Massachusetts", and many may not meet the usual criteria for notability, as the institutions are not of national influence and are not documented in reliable independent sources -- at least, not apart from their athletic programs. 159 Massachusetts school articles are stubs.

Is there a different criterion for the notability of educational institutions, based on mere accreditation, state recognition, or attendance? Chonak (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTCOMESsuggest that most high schools are notable, while elementary and middle schools are generally not. This is very broad of course. Unless I am mistaken there is no policy regarding schools, and at this moment it isn't causing much of a problem. Of course this could change, but until it does I think things are fine the way they are now. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There was an old, and very silly (in my view) argument that high schools were automatically notable (i.e. WP:SCHOOLS), I've always found it silly, and the suggestion that a high school is automatically notable is as silly as the idea that any other random building is notable. I would be happy to see this assumption reassessed, as clearly not all schools, regardless of the age of their students, are notable. Resolute 21:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

To suppress or not to suppress: that is the question

I've hacked together WP:SUPPRESS to help explain when one should suppress redirects, and when one should not. Additions, tweaks, comments, invited. –xeno (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

IMO, for the most part "suppress" should just be a shortcut for "CSD the redirect immediately after moving the page". Anomie⚔ 21:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the policy should be that you only do it when the redirect would otherwise be speedyable. --NE2 21:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

New articles with similar content; hatnotes

I have a couple of concerns. Because one would expect one infobox with an article about one mountain peak, I chose to create two articles. But the articles have very little separate content. What would be the appropriate action to take with Eaglenest Mountain if there is a North Eaglenest Mountain that is actually higher and more famous than Eaglenest? I have no photo I can use of North Eaglenest, although I could probably find one and link to it. But it is used on lots of postcards and publicity information for the area.

My other concern is about a link from said articles. I ended up linking to Cloudland, which wasn't what I hoped it would be. But I added to the hatnote on that article's page. I'd appreciate someone checking to see if I did it right.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to redirect North Eaglenest to Eaglenest for now and put both infoboxes there, and fix the disambiguation page accordingly. If I've done anything improper let me know, and I'll fix it tomorrow. Or anyone can.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've discovered a problem. The coordinates are the same in both boxes. I guess that justifies two articles, although I can't figure out how both will qualify.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

CfD CATGRS test case needs input

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 13#Category:Female pool players. This is the third time this particular category has been up at CfD, as it keeps closing without consensus. This time it should close with a clear consensus, one way or the other, as it has high precedent value with regard to whether, under WP:CATGRS and WP:OVERCAT, categories (and especially sport[s] and competitive gaming biographical categories) should be broadly gender-divided (e.g., a Category:Female snooker players, a Category:Female chess players, a Category:Female basketball players, etc.). To date, the majority of respondents have been the same in all three CfDs. Broader community input is clearly needed to prevent yet another finding of no consensus. Disclaimer: I am the nominator for discussion at CfD. As I have stated there, I will be entirely satisfied with a consensus decision either way (though I clearly favor one outcome over the other in my arguments there), as long as a consensus decision is actually arrived at, finally. The nutshell version of the issue is that in some cases women compete separately from men in professional and amateur pool (pocket billiards), and in other cases they do not. One camp says that this is sufficient gender division within the industry to warrant a gender-split category, while the other side disagrees. The arguments on both sides have well-reasoned and plausible rationales, thus the lengthy dispute. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution question

I'm dealing with a rather stressful situation and would like to know where I can turn for help. A content dispute started with things being said by both parties which probably shouldn't have been said. I'll cop to that. I'm the only one copping to that. So, the page was locked down so that we could resolve our differences. When I tried to do so, the other editor continued making personal attacks. He also started screwing around with my comments on the talk page (removing them from view). I tried to restore them and an admin friend of his blocked me from making edits to the talk page (as well as ignored the ongoing personal attacks). What dispute resolution processes are available to me?-166.199.213.120 (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There are several, such as WP:3O (a third opinion forum), and WP:RFC (Wikipedia requests for comment). It's also fine to just informally ask others to have a look at the situation. Which page are you talking about? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Input sought: Should WP:NOT include considerations for plot summaries

A straw poll and discussion on whether WP:NOT should be giving advice in regards to plot summaries is opened and seeking additional input, and can be found |here. --MASEM (t) 12:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Survey at Talk:Autofellatio#RfC: Should the human image be placed in a drop-down/toggle box

Hi. This project seems to be a good place to tell people that there is a survey running at the Autofellatio article regarding whether the top image should be placed in a toggle-box, defaulting to "hide". Opinions are welcome. I've cross posted this message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Geography graphics for cities/towns

When will English Wikipedia start promoting the use of the really eye-catching and useful auto-created images for entries on ciites and towns which show the subject of the article in its geographical relationship with other places, as other languages (Portugues, Dutch, etc) use? E.g.: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_Beach, http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_Beach —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.230.71 (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have seen worse on de-wiki. But please never. Agathoclea (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Credential Stuffing: Is there a policy on the inclusion of personal details when they aren't relevant?

It's probably easier to give a example than try to explain. "Harvard grad Offe Dawalle is a prominent critic of the theory that humans require regular hydration to survive." This sort of thing which I maybe unfairly call "credential stuffing" occurs often in controversy or criticism sections. The problem I have is that the alma mater of Offe Dawalle is totally irrelevant to the argument he presents, yet when it is included, it makes him look like he has some sort of authority on the subject. It's one thing if he has a relevant degree, ("Human physiology major Offe Dawalle is a prominent critic... ") but what about when he has a degree in say, music? Is it good form to remove such epithets as irrelevant and potentially misleading details, or am I in the wrong? I'm specifically talking about cases on non biographical pages, or biographical pages where those details can be included elsewhere. Hopefully I'm posting this in the right location... Sifaka ^talk 02:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight is similar. --NE2 03:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not quite right though. In my experience, U.W. isn't often enough to make a successful case against these sorts of things since they are facts (vs opinions or viewpoints), people could argue their inclusion helps establish appropriate weight, and they're just a couple extra words so people don't want to fuss about them. As I see it, "credential stuffing" is a way to appeal to authority to lend weight to a viewpoint rather than go by the merit of the statements themselves. Undue weight concerns itself more with not giving more air time to fringe and minority views than they are worth. Sifaka ^talk 04:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about username blocking

FYI, there is a discussion about username blocking going on at WP:AN#Username blocks - can we clear this up once and for all?! In retrospect, this may have been a better venue but I don't want to move it partway through. (Anyway, it is chiefly about admins and the inconsistent blocking practices with respect to usernames). —Wknight94 (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Too many names?

When presenting people with all their given names in articles about them, I propose a policy standard of putting second names in brackets or italicised to separate them from the first name(s) this person is commonly known under. E.g. Erik (Alfred Leslie) Satie or some other way of distinction that is often used in real encyclopaedias. Here is one example from Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marcel/

Some may claim that one needs only to look at the heading, but for the careless reader this small distinction in the beginning of the text would preclude misunderstandings as to which of the many names the person is commonly known under.

Educated or experienced people of course don't need such distinctions, but many of the younger generation often don't seem to have a clue and may easily start thinking - and writing - of certain writers, artists or composers with all of their names, not knowing the proper or common use. Lorielle (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments sought on External YouTube link

Your views are welcome on the subject of adding an External link to the Susan Boyle article. Talk:Susan_Boyle#RfC:_Should_the_Susan_Boyle_article_include_an_external_link_to_a_youtube_video_of_her_4.11.09_performance_on_Britains.27s_Got_Talent.3F SunCreator (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Medical articles

Feedback requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)#Style.2C yes please.21. --Arcadian (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete redirects

Hello all,

I'd appreciate comment on my BRfA for ListasBot 3. Details of what I'm asking comment on will be posted in that BRfA. Thanks! Matt (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)