Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:34, 3 September 2009

Table of contents
First discussion
End of page
New post

Shortcut

WP:VPM

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals pages, or - for assistance - at the help desk, rather than here, if at all appropriate. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

« Archives, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78

Academic Research Study Survey: Final Call

Thank you to the Wikipedia community for your participation so far in this ongoing research study, and for your response to our previous post on the village pump. We plan on keeping this survey open for one more week and would like to encourage anyone who has not yet had the opportunity to participate to take the survey described below.

As part of an ongoing research project by students and faculty at the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science and headed by Professor Robert Kraut, we are conducting a survey of anyone who has participated in the Request for Adminship (RfA) process, either voting or as a candidate.

The survey will only take a few minutes of your time, and will aid furthering our understanding of online communities, and may assist in the development of tools to assist voters in making RfA evaluations. We are NOT attempting to spam anyone with this survey and are doing our best to be considerate and not instrusive in the Wikipedia community. The results of this survey are for academic research and are not used for any profit nor sold to any companies. We will also post our results back to the Wikipedia community.

Take the survey

Thank you!

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free comment on my talk page.

Largest wikiproject?

Is the largest wikiproject military history?

Is there a list of largest wikiprojects?

If not anyone object to me starting one? Ikip (talk) 05:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the answers will be "Yes, No, No," but you should verify that here. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 05:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Define largest: by number of articles, number of registered editors, number of featured articles? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be a strategic concern, over at WP:LAW, to convince all those people to go to law school. :) Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 03:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number of editors, I found this from 2007:

User_talk:Dev920/Archive6#Top_20_WikiProjects

Many of these projects are no longer active.

Video games seems as large or the second largest compared to wikiproject military history.

But military history says they remove inactive users, Videogames appears to not to.

Based on what I found, I created this:

Other wikiprojects:
- Video games 1,281 members
- Military history 967 active members
- Biography 596 members
- Wikipedians against censorship 577 members
- Comics 547 members May 2009

Ikip (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't official (I only checked the article counts of some of the main topic Wikiprojects) but I believe it is, based on the number of articles, WikiProject Biography. They were the only one I saw with a six figure article count (currently 726,979). - kollision (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably say that WP:MILHIST is the largest WikiProject out there, just because it is that much more comprehensive and deals with a larger volume of articles than VG does – MILHIST has about 93,000 articles while VG has about 23,000. Being a WPVG member, I would also agree that the VG project's member numbers might be inflated and may include retired/inactive members because the project at large doesn't do any membership updating. MuZemike 18:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting, incidentally, that "Wikipedians against censorship" isn't a WikiProject in the conventional sense of the term; it doesn't deal with a particular topic area or maintenance task. The page should probably be renamed to just Wikipedia:Wikipedians against censorship, and considered a more general Wikipedian organization, not a WikiProject. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 19:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, now that the WikiProject platform is being used to impose accountability on article content, I agree that it interferes with that purpose to have WikiProjects like "Wikipedians against censorship". I agree that we should propose making it a WP: page. Though I need some more peer pressure before making the proposal over there myself. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 23:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Again, as Gadget850 noted, how you define largest is relevant. Do you refer to the number of articles under its scope, the number of editors involved, etc.? If you are discussing the number of articles under its scope, WikiProject Biography has, at present, 726979 out of a total of 3,008,285 articles Wikipedia wide. That is over 24% of the entire encyclopedia, not counting the many that have not yet been assigned a category. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, as most editors aren't members of any Wikiproject, it seems safe to assume that many of the articles within the scopes of various projects have had nothing to do with the project. I'm one of the coordinators of the Military history project and regularly scan the lists of new articles, and a high proportion of them aren't tagged as being within the project's scope by their creator. Nick-D (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recall cruising through the milhist list of active and inactive users recently; if I recall correctly, the total number from both lists came out to something like 1,600 members. The list are off by about 200-300 names; our active members total nearly 1,000 and the inactive totaled something like 700. These should be taken with a grain of salt though since I'm not sure when the last update of our membership lists occurred. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the number of articles dealt with, then I'd say Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting has all the others beaten. However many of the articles don't stay around longer than a week. Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Website White House Black Market uses same tab logo as Wikipedia

I just noticed it's the same logo, the black W in a white square. Is this going to cause any problems?--12.48.220.130 (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HOLY CRAP. Just FYI, the reference is to the Favicon. WOW. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 23:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1)I don't see what you're referring to. 2) what sort of problem do you see as a possibility? 3) assuming that there is some sort of problem... we're just users. Shouldn't the WP:OFFICE take care of potential legal issues?
— Ω (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Re :1) http://www.whitehouseblackmarket.com/favicon.ico = http://en.wikipedia.org/favicon.ico. Otherwise I'm not sure if this is a legal issue or just poor form from the designer of that site. - Optigan13 (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've just posted a link to this thread at WT:OFFICE. Is there anything else we should do to bring this to the attention of the right people? Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 23:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Ah, I see what you're referring to now. Note the license on commons:File:Wikipedia-favicon.png, though
        — Ω (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:OFFICE only applies to legal complaints and stuff TOWARDS Wikipedia. However, that favicon isn't specifically a Wikipedia trademark, and I'll give them a free pass since their logo appears to be in the same font (or similar) used in the Wikipedia logo. ViperSnake151 Talk 14:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - As mentioned above, the favicon is not copyrighted in any event and there is simply no action to be taken here. Shereth 14:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well it's obviously not eligible copyright, but are there any non-copyright issues, like trademark? Powers ^T 15:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No—it's impossible to trademark the letter "W". Dendodge _T\^C 15:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        (ec) To my knowledge, the only thing trademarked around here is the Wikipedia name itself. Shereth 15:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The best doctrine would be Passing off rather than design marks. The "W" as a favicon is arguably well known and so this other company is passing off their browser tab as the much more widely known Wikipedia. I imagine that the public also glance down a list of bookmarks and hunt for the "W". IANAL. Ttiotsw (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, but it's just a "W" in Times New Roman, or some font like that. It's not like it's much of a design, like the Google colored G. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        To me, the icon actually looks more like two overlapping Vs than a standard W. —Ost (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, the joy of falsely generalizing from some 20th century computer fonts to what is "standard"! ☺ I suggest reading our article on W. Uncle G (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date formatting redux (TfD {{start date}})

With reference to the recent poll about date (auto-)formatting, please note that {{start date}} is listed on Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_August_24#Template:Start_date. -- User:Docu at 03:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the discussion was "Speedy keep", owing to supporting the reason being false. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new wiki

I am currently planning creation of a new wiki that will begin as a fork of part of Wikipedia. I won't be needing editors for a couple months yet (need to iron out domain, hosting, etc), but when I do, what is the best way to go about getting interested editors from Wikipedia without spamming/being accused of spam? My guess is there will be too many potentially interested people to make individual tpage notices (even with AWB) practical. → ROUX ₪ 15:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I even consider this post of yours to be spammy - I don't recommend that you personally make any edits about this idea on Wikipedia itself. I think an external blog and/or getting coverage in a news service like Wikipedia Signpost or WikipediaWeekly (or even the New York Times) is the way to go.--Commander Keane (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, except for the fact that I said nothing about what it is, and indeed will not respond to any inquiries, it's definitely spam. Your suggestion about the signpost or WW is good, pity you couldn't make it without being rude. → ROUX ₪ 22:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with the Favicon?

I don't know if you noticed, but why is the Yahoo! favicon in the place of the wikikipedia one? SCG 147 21:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Favicon fail.JPG

I did not edit this

This file may be deleted at any time.

It looks fine for me. Perhaps your browser is misbehaving :) Shereth 21:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Favicons do this quite a lot in my experience (in FF 3). Algebraist 21:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be fixed? SCG 147 21:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried restarting your browser or clearing your temporary internet files? Shereth 21:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's all cleared up now. Thanks! I wonder if I can keep the image up. SCG 147 00:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Hudson River mid-air collision. Is the phone call relevant?

I opened an RfC on this article, 2009 Hudson River mid-air collision, and got no takers. The issues raised touch on WP:NPOV, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTCENSORED, so pumpers take note. So please read the article, and read the RfC, and discuss there. Talk:2009 Hudson River mid-air collision#Rfc: Is the phone call relevant patsw (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portals: When do we create/delete one?

Since the policy behind Portals is a bit unclear, a discussion started in Wikipedia_talk:Portal#Does_a_portal_need_to_be_actively_edited_in_order_to_be_useful.3F. Please raise your voice. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about research

I wanted to ask a question about some research I want to do. I want to search approximately 20 different terms in google and find out where the Wikipedia page for each term ranks compared to other online resources. Specifically, I would be looking at terms for dermatologic conditions. So, for example, with the following search [1] on my results screen Wikipedia is the first entry, followed by medscape. Can I use google trends/"Google Insights for Search" to accomplish this? Or is there some other way I can compare google pageranks? ---kilbad (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As there are only 20, why not just Google each one as you have done? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 12:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe kilbad wants to easily find the PageRank and not just the SERP position. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation

If there is a category named after a person, should the various categories be listed on that particular category page or on the article page itself? Chesdovi (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I encountered the same problem. I would say: not all of them. I think the deaths/births categories should not be included for example becasue they cause problems moreover, if you are lokking in xxxx births category you only need to look for the person not the category after the person. Maybe the only category that it should be subcategorised is the most relevant with the person, usually the profession-- Magioladitis (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is some discussion at Category talk:Categories named after people. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Input needed on rename proposal in silent corner of Wikipedia

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Stub_types_for_deletion#Rename and comment there. Thank you! Debresser (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of zombie novels

List of zombie novels - a huge list of non-notable novels by non-notable authors. This would be like putting all of the bands that don't meet WP:BAND into List of punk albums What's the consensus on lists like these? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think of lists like that as wikipedia's equivalent of honeypot traps - they lure in a certain type of editor and occupy them with endless, pointless fiddly work, keeping them busy so they don't wander around and clutter up valuable articles. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well many bands that don't meet WP:BAND would do very well in a list. Notability is the criterion for having an article, not for inclusion in other articles. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 00:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others.. As far as I'm concerned, that "others" includes notability. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honey lures in the flies, but so do piles of something less sweet smelling. With all due respect (where it is due), this list is more akin to the latter. I am not sure if there is any kind of consensus to be found on these things, but I still believe that they serve as little more than a dumping grounds for things that just don't warrant a mention, at all. Shereth 20:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Political correctness or appropriate language?

Schmirius(talk|contribs) just edited two dozen articles, changing occurrences of the phrase "confined to a wheelchair" to "uses a wheelchair", commenting that it is the "preferred usage". In at least a couple of cases ([2][3]) it appears to weaken the prose in which the confinement to (required use of?) a wheelchair was central to the point. In other cases it seems to introduce a certain ambiguity, as many people who have limited mobility (those who are only able to take a few hundred steps daily following knee surgery, for example) use a wheelchair to extend their range. The phrase "uses a wheelchair" seems appropriate there, where "confined to a wheelchair" does not. Striking the latter phrase from our vocabulary would remove this distinction. Wikipedia has no reason to go out of its way to offend, but how far out of its way should it go to avoid offending, perhaps at the price of less precise language, and is this even such a case? Is there any policy that addresses this topic? WP:PC, to my disappointment, is about press coverage. -- Thinking of England (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPADE might apply. Powers ^T 13:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. It is an essay on project-space behavior, not article content. Mike R (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must say it makes sense to me to distinguish between those who simply use a wheelchair for ease and those who are physically unable to get around without one. Language has a lot of little ways of doing things and killing that in cases like this seems a bit too POV. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't offer any guidance, but I must say that I get goosebumps hearing about systematic revisions like this. I once saw a thread (I don't remember where) in which someone said they were systematically removing, from biographies, statements like "so-and-so was born to Jewish parents" or "raised ethnically Jewish" etc. He claimed that he was offended by the "racist" implication that Jewishness was a factor in that person's accomplishments, but I assume this person has done much towards making Wikipedia -- dare I say it? -- Judenrein. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 17:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's my European insensitivity, but while I understand the semantic difference between "uses" and "confined to", why would one of the phrases be considered more or less PC than the other? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the first instance, it could say, "A user of a wheelchair for mobility, ..." In the second instance, it could say, "...when he was restricted to using a wheelchair..." Bus stop (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In PC-speak, "confined to" has a negative connotation to it (directly implies powerlessness) whereas "uses" is more neutral (implies some kind of choice on the user's part). A bunch of silliness if you ask me, but there you have it. Shereth 20:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without taking sides in the overall debate, I reverted one change, to Spike (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), because the "confined to" wording appropriately conveyed a plot point, accurately depicting how a normally able-bodied vampire was reduced to a wheelchair-bound state and supplanted in the "pecking order", thus motivating him to sell out another vampire to Buffy. The issue in this case was that the negative conotation was intentionally applied to a fictional character, and the attempt to use more sensitive language actually reduced the focus of the sentence in a way that a non-content expert would not have realized. Jclemens (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An IP address has been continuing to make such changes, with non-AGF edit summary language. It doesn't look like the same person, but is probably someone sympathetic to the original editor with a bit less tact. Jclemens (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored. Being precise and factually correct is far superior to being politically correct. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 00:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It reminds me of my language Danish where there has been successful PC campaigning to get people to say drivechair (Danish: kørestol) instead of rollchair (Danish: rullestol). It sounds more active to drive than to roll (it has never been called wheelchair in Danish). At least there is no significant difference in function in that case. I don't like systematic change to "uses a wheelchair" without consideration of the context. I wonder whether "wheelchair-bound" with 367 Wikipedia search hits will also be targeted by PC. Oh, after writing that sentence I see Schmirius is also doing that.[4] PrimeHunter (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Access Center offers Talking About Disability: A Guide to Using Appropriate Language which advocates these language changes. Also, Schmirius has not edited since this discussion was started less than a day ago, and he should be given a reasonable time to accept his invitation to respond here. -- Thinking of England (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We appear to have consensus to date that it would be appropriate to revert those changes where the confinement to (required use of?) a wheel chair was central to the point. What about more general cases? Taking one edit at random (to Kim Jong-il):

Old text: In a subsequent best-selling book, The True Character of Kim Jong-il, Shigemura cited apparently un-named people close to Kim's family along with Japanese and South Korean intelligence sources, claiming they confirmed Kim's diabetes took a turn for the worse early in 2000 and from then until his supposed death three and a half years later he was confined to a wheelchair.

New text: In a subsequent best-selling book, The True Character of Kim Jong-il, Shigemura cited apparently un-named people close to Kim's family along with Japanese and South Korean intelligence sources, claiming they confirmed Kim's diabetes took a turn for the worse early in 2000 and from then until his supposed death three and a half years later he was using a wheelchair.

Does the loss of precision justify reverting these changes in general? -- Thinking of England (talk) 03:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Use a wheelchair" is clearly more precise than "wheelchair bound" or "confined to a wheelchair" in at least 99% of the cases - the users are not hogtied, locked, or criminally sentanced into the chair. In the specific example above, depeding on what the source actually says, the grammar of the rest of the sentence can be changed: "from 2000 he was not seen in public without using a wheelchair" or somesuch-- The Red Pen of Doom 03:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd say that's a bit less precise since the earlier forms communicated that the wheel chair was necessary to the person's mobility, rather than something they merely used for any other purpose, hell a healthy actor could "use" a wheel chair for a part, or someone could merely need one for occasional assistance or when leaving surgery, or anything. I'm struggling to think of a better way to say it (I have a feeling that "Bob is dependent on a wheelchair" isn't an improvement.)"Bob requires a wheelchair for mobility"? "Bob relies on a wheel chair for mobility"? Abyssal (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Pen may be falsely conflating precision with accuracy. I would agree that "confined to a wheelchair" is not literally accurate, but that it is a figure of speech which is precise and well understood. It is also, because of its literal connotations, offensive to some. Perhaps the difficulty behind finding precise, terse replacements for figures of speech is that they carry meaning beyond their literal words. -- Thinking of England (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why we would not want to be literally accurate as well as factually acurate? -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Restricted to" eases some of the ugly imagery associated with "confined to." "For mobility" specifies the reason for the referred to wheelchair use. I think the language could use a refresh. It is not just about political correctness. I think there is a slight issue of perpetuating outdated and false impressions and stereotypes associated with disability. If we are quoting someone else's reference we quote it verbatim. Stephen Hawking is also restricted to using a wheelchair for mobility. Bus stop (talk) 11:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A noble goal, but I don't think "restricted to a wheelchair for mobility" is a well-recognized idiom in English. Powers ^T 12:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "restricted to a wheelchair for mobility." Those two sentence fragments have to be separated. That could be "reliant on a wheelchair for mobility." That might also represent an improvement. Bus stop (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems quite clear that none of the participants in this discussion so far are themselves wheelchair users. I am, so permit me to bring some actual real world experience to the topic. "Wheelchair bound" is rapidly becoming just as stigmatised as "crippled" or "retarded", please try not to use it. The simple fact is that wheelchair users are not literally tied into their chairs. To distinguish someone who has to use a wheelchair all the time from someone who uses it only in certain circumstances we have "wheelchair user" (without a qualifier) or "fulltime wheelchair user" versus "occasional wheelchair user" or "part-time wheelchair user". If one looks at sources such as web forums for wheelchair users you would notice that usages such as "wheelchair bound" and "confined to a wheelchair" are being slapped down quite often. A common explanation given for why "confined to a wheelchair" is incorrect is that a wheelchair is an instrument of freedom, not confinement. If you need one but you don't have it, you are truly confined - usually to a bed or wherever someone else (your caregiver) puts you. Roger (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And so the euphemism treadmill progresses. Soon "wheelchair user" will start to become stigmatized, too. Powers ^T 13:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not euphemism. It is perspective. One can chose the perspective of liberation or confinement. Bus stop (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, thanks for this information. You actually changed my mind on this topic. It sounds like "uses a wheelchair" should be our generic text, and if we know more info (e.g. the person is "confined" to a wheelchair) our text should be, "he uses a wheelchair, and is unable to walk" or something. Our goal should be to present information, not perspectives. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 18:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 'perspective' should be NPOV, not necessarily one of empowerment or "liberation". 72.10.110.109 (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Fulltime Wheelchair user" commonly used anywhere? I've never heard it. I am not confined to a wheelchair, nor do I use one, but "fulltime [X] user" sounds vaguely critical and gossipy to my ear. I instantly try to imagine some sort of drug abuse, except with a wheelchair. Which puts my imagination in a weird place. 72.10.110.109 (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Fulltime" and "Part-time" are simply adjectives to disambiguate (if really necessary) the situation raised by some of the previous posts, where it would otherwise be incorrect to call an occasional user "wheelchair bound". The term is simply "wheelchair user". If we accept the claim by some that it is just an undesirable PC euphemism, by the same logic the terms "black" or "African American" are also merely undesirable PC euphemisms for "nigger". Roger (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That last is an inflammatory comparison. An equally inflammatory and unjust reply would be to ask how you would respond to an editor following NAMBLA speech guidelines and changing all references of pedophilia to "intergenerational relationship". More enlightening would be to consider how we would respond to an editor changing "atheists" to brights. Some might argue that a large fraction of the group do not identify with the new name, but the more important point is that it is not the common term used (although one goal of the Brights movement is to change this). Languages do change, and occasionally these changes are directed. For Wikipedia to be on the vanguard of nascent directed change is clearly POV. What we must consider in this case is if the new idiom (and yes, "uses a wheelchair" is an idiom if it implies "requires use of a wheelchair for mobility") is sufficiently entrenched in the language, if the old idiom has been sufficiently replaced, and, if they are both in common use, then does the new offer a suitable and desirable replacement for the old in all contexts. I don't know the answers and that is why I raised the question here. At this point I would say that the developing consensus I remarked upon earlier is no longer present. -- Thinking of England (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the comparison to be valid. People who use wheelchairs take offense at the term "wheelchair bound" just like black people are offended by "nigger" (notwithstanding its use by rap artists). Your "pedophilia" analogy is not equivalent because it refers to a crime that causes actual harm, to "whitewash" it is even more deeply offensive. Being black or paralysed is not at all comparable to being a pedophile. But that is a side issue, so lets leave it. The simple fact is that the term "wheelchair bound" is considered offensive by a significant proportion of affected people - it is not proper for WP to be gratuitously offensive. Roger (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran across this edit in Christopher Pike (Star Trek), where "confined" is about as accurate as you can get. One of the other editors and I compromised with "dependent on a wheelchair". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The logic given in the case of the Captain Pike thing is obviously false logic. It's entirely possible to be confined to something that enables you. There is no logical conflict. The conflict is entirely emotional. Pilots are said to be confined to their cockpits. Submariners are confined to their ships. In both cases confinement in one sense results in freedom and enablement in another. No one would complain about this usage. An astronaut on EVA is probably the least confined human in the universe, but it's entirely appropriate to describe him or her as "confined to their suit".

(That's not to say that it might not still be offensive, of course. But any claim that the word "confined" is technically incorrect because of a perceived contradiction, is an incorrect argument.) APL (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with "dependent on a wheelchair" or "wheelchair dependent". Roger (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That phrase does have the advantage of not being an idiom -- of standing on its literal meaning -- and also of being as terse as what it is being proposed to replace. -- Thinking of England (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One can say exactly the same of "wheelchair user" or "uses a wheelchair". Roger (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Wheelchair dependent" at least has the advantage of successfully communicating that the subject requires a wheelchair and is not simply using one for who knows what unspecified reasons. It's not required to speak in idioms. APL (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers and the AP seem to routinely use "wheelchair bound", "wheelchair user" seems to be almost exclusively a self-label. Perhaps in the future "wheelchair bound" will be considered as offensive has "negro", but that obviously hasn't happened yet.

While WP shouldn't be intentionally offensive, is appropriate for Wikipedia to be "leading" this revolution in nomenclature? Should WP be used as a champion for the oppressed? I hate to see Wikipedia being used as a driving vehicle for a societal change, even a minor one like this. APL (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has to do with the spin put on the locution. Bus stop (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Locution just means 'word choice'. This certainly is a discussion about word choice, but how does that specifically related to what I just said? To briefly put it in your terms I argued that Wikipedia should not make a conscious effort to "spin its locution" away from commonly accepted styles used by the majority of print media, towards a style favored only by a small minority. Then I implied, but didn't quite say, that making this sort of change before the major media outlets, was a form of minor POV pushing. ("Spin pushing?") APL (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue. I think each editor speaks in his/her own language, even if it is all English. No two editors are going to come up with the same language to express a thought. If it is obvious that a quote has to be used, then that is going to determine the particular word construction, or locution. But we are just going to write as we choose, and if someone challenges our particular phrasing, that will be a little disagreement that will be somehow resolved. I think there is a limit to how productively and extensively something can be argued in the abstract. After awhile the participants are no longer focussed on anything. Each writer will write with their own language, and I think there is a point beyond which it becomes impossible to nail down language any further. Bus stop (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That it is a "Self label" is an interestiong observation. The WP:BLP rules require us to adhere strictly to "self labels" for things like religion and ethnicity of a subject, why not also apply it to disability? Roger (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but, for example, Pike never self-identified as anything. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP seem to require it to be evaluated on a case by case basis. (Which is sort of what Bus Stop is saying above, I think.) If someone is known to self-identify with or prefer some certain term, then using that term seems to be indicated. Otherwise, I guess the next best would be to use the wording used by the cited source. (Especially important in cases of folk who are no longer LPs.)

This line of reasoning would probably wind up with a lot of articles using the more positive, but less familiar phrasing. However, it would seem to speak strongly against going through and changing the articles wholesale on general principal. (Which is what started this conversation.)

I wonder how that applies to Captain Pike. APL (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have tampered with the threading and post order to restore what I believe is the intended flow for this conversation.

If I understand correctly from the comments above, the only reason not to say "uses a wheelchair" instead of "confined to a wheelchair" is to distinguish between people "choosing" to use a wheelchair, and people who "must" use it to get around. But 99% of the time, this can be easily gleaned from context. In the remaining 1%, where it's actually important to distinguish (and this is theoretical; I can't think of an actual, practical case where it's important to make it explicit (and by "practical", I mean, "not Star Trek")) adding the words "sometimes" or "often" in front of the former solves the problem.

If we were being asked to start using the phrase "kerfinkles a wheelchair", I could understand the resistance. But this is a trivially simple change, uses clear, standard English, and is evidently more respectful to some of our fellow humans. Why in the world would we insist on not using it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an understandable recalcitrance toward modifying articles in a fashion that seem to put a euphamistic spin on things. While the intent in this particular case is noble enough on its face (attempting to use a term/phrase that is more acceptable toward those with disabilities) there is a certain amount of validity to the "slippery slope" argument; how far are we willing to go in altering our language to placate a certain group? I am personally somewhat ambivalent toward the distinction between "uses a wheelchair" and "confined to a wheelchair", but the systematic replacing of the latter with the former smacks of political correctness for its own sake, with no benefit in terms of encyclopedic content. Ultimately it is a POV issue. Shereth 21:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Uses a wheelchair" is not a euphemism. It is clear, straightforward, descriptive, standard English. It is certainly not POV. I don't think POV actually comes into this, but if it did, "confined to" is more POV than "uses". I don't use a wheelchair, and I guess not particularly empathetic, so I'm not offended by "confined", but I can accept that someone who does use one might be. Since they are replacing one crystal clear phrasing with another crystal clear phrasing, and doing slightly less harm in the process, what actual harm is accrued if someone wants to systematically reword every instance in the Encyclopedia? Rather than worry about slippery slopes, I'd be inclined to wait until someone proposes something that is actually even remotely unreasonable before resisting. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no inherent harm in it, but again, there is no benefit in terms of encyclopedic content. I apologize for being less than clear - I don't believe that the phrase "uses a wheelchair" is POV, what I was alluding to is that it is ultimately a subjective question as to whether or not "uses a wheelchair" is better than "confined to a wheelchair". The improvement (or harm) in making this change is inherently subjective, and I believe therein lies the resistence. People like to see a solid, objective rationale behind systematic changes, simply because it becomes increasingly difficult to "draw the line" down the road. Hence the slippery slope. Shereth 22:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5,000,000 files!

Wikimedia Commons has just reached 5,000,000 files uploaded. Congrats, Commons! BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 11:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, what was the 5,000,000th?--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 22:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Commons:Main Page, it was File:Kjøbenhavnsposten 28 nov 1838 side 1.jpg. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)There's a press release here: wmuk:Press releases/Wikimedia Commons 5 million files, but this thread on Commons is probably more descriptive in some areas. :-) The (suspected) 5,000,000th file is

. Killiondude (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation mark on Wikipedia

I noticed that basically all quotation marks on Wikipedia are written "like this". However, this is wrong, it should be “like this” (look carefully).

Since there are too many articles to edit it manually, could there be a very clever bot doing this? 86.61.29.194 (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according to the manual of style, the former is correct.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 22:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 227: / Line 227: @@
 :So, what was the 5,000,000th?--[[User:Unionhawk|Unionhawk]] <sup>[[User talk:Unionhawk|Talk]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:EmailUser/Unionhawk|E-mail]]</sup> 22:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 ::According to [[Commons:Main Page]], it was [[:File:Kjøbenhavnsposten 28 nov 1838 side 1.jpg]]. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 22:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
-:::::{{ec}}There's a press release here: [[wmuk:Press releases/Wikimedia Commons 5 million files]], but [[Commons:COM:VP#5.000.000|this thread]] on Commons is probably more descriptive in some areas. :-) The (suspected) 5,000,000th file is [[File:Kjøbenhavnsposten 28 nov 1838 side 1.jpg]]. [[User:Killiondude|Killiondude]] ([[User talk:Killiondude|talk]]) 22:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
+:::::{{ec}}There's a press release here: [[wmuk:Press releases/Wikimedia Commons 5 million files]], but [[Commons:COM:VP#5.000.000|this thread]] on Commons is probably more descriptive in some areas. :-) The (suspected) 5,000,000th file is [[File:Kjøbenhavnsposten 28 nov 1838 side 1.jpg|300px]]. [[User:Killiondude|Killiondude]] ([[User talk:Killiondude|talk]]) 22:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 == Quotation mark on Wikipedia ==