Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive

Village Pump - Archive

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

Discussions older than 5 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These discussions will be kept archived for 9 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After that the discussion will be permanently removed.

Post replies at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Note: Please add new material at the bottom of the page and remove any duplicate sections.

This talk page is automatically maintained by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Village pump/Archival dump, where they are deleted. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

NC and wikipedia only images

It's been well over a year now I think it is time to clear out Category:Images used with permission and Category:Non-commercial use only images.Geni 15:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a "sunshine law" that deletes uploaded images that haven't appeared on any page after two years, three years, or whatever?--Wetman 16:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If they are fair use 7 days. Otherwise not directly.Geni 20:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Debate now at Category_talk:Non-commercial_use_only_images#Time_to_clear_this_lot_out. Inless I hear some valid objections by the next weekend I'm going to remove the remaining images without a fair use claim.Geni 21:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd be careful though and make sure that they wouldn't be legit fair use first. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Specific notability criteria for current events

There is a serious lack of policy concerning the notability of current events. As far as I can tell, nobody has proposed a specific notability criteria and in this case, WP:N is really not applicable. Any current event, by definition, will be the subject of multiple, non-trivial current events, and there are many, many events that occur every day that are covered by multiple media sources but are not remotely notable enough to include in an encyclopedia. For a silly example, take an incident last week in which a really fat cat ran away and got trapped in a doggy door. A google news search on the cat's owner reveals 143 results[1]. Admittedly, many of these are from the AP wire, but I found two independent sources. If someone created an article about this event, there would be no policy reason to delete it, and thats absurd.

For a more significant example, take Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proposed Israeli Nuclear First Strike on Natanz Facility. This article is problematic because of OR problems, but should we have an article about a newspaper report?The report in question was widely talked about initially, it was the top story in Israel and probably Iran too. However, will it prove significant in the long run? Discussion seems to have died down very quickly and I doubt it will warrant more than a footnote in any history book. The problem is that nobody has sat down and thought about what makes a current event notable, and as a result there are no guidelines for those of us trying to decide whether to delete article's about current events. I don't have a proposal, but I do want to gather some input.

So in order to start the discussion, what makes current events notable? How can we judge their notability without violating WP:NOR when there hasn't been enough time for secondary sources to evaluate an event's importance? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GabrielF (talk • contribs) 01:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Mostly what is needed is a cluestick.The primary notability criterion states specifically that, "Several newspapers all publishing the same article from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works."This covers the 143 instances of the same AP story, so there would be a guideline (if not a policy) reason to delete the Fat Cat story.A single speculative newspaper story comes under the same head, IMO.If it developed into a notable speculation in several publications, then Wikipedia:Wiki is not paper may govern.Of course Wikipedia is not a newspaper either, so judgment is available on whether a story is encyclopedic.Notability and encyclopedic nature are not presumed, they must be established using information gleaned from reliable sources.Robert A.West (Talk) 03:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the initial Proposed Israeli Nuclear First Strike on Natanz Facility article wasn't too hot, it was 65% OR.I've rewritten the majority of it now to (a) remove the previous OR aspects, (b) establish notability via multiple independent reports, and (c) balanced it with official reaction and context.Not a great article, but its better than many.--70.48.242.16 04:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• We do indeed have a systemic bias towards recentism. A reasonable rule of thumb is "would anyone care a year from now?" Regarding the cat the answer is obviously "no", and I believe AFD usually makes that decision correctly. At any rate, if this is a serious problem, Wikipedia:Avoid recentism could be created to address it. >Radiant< 11:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  Actually, there is the Wikipedia:Recentism essay. Contains lots of clarifying examples. --Francis Schonken 15:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I think recentism only occurs because the sources are convienent and people are interested enough to write.Wikipedia could have tens of millions of well-referenced articles if we covered every year in the 20th century to the depth we covered the present.I don't think recentism is a problem, because people are writing about things in the news, and hence automatically things with reliable sources available.It'll take later work to update, summarize, and merge prune or delete if necessary, but getting down plenty of detail about the real, newsmaking events in the world is an awesome thing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Night Gyr here, Wikipedia's not paper seems to be the most applicable thing: if the article is reliably sourced, then there's no ground for deletion. In regards to Wikipedia not being a newspaper, I think that is primarily there to discourage first-hand journalism; it ducks the issue of inclusion by saying "historical significance", which is subjective. Is it our job to guess what people will care about in the future? Trebor 13:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• The issue isn't that people write about present-day things, the issue is that people tend to consider recent issues more important than old issues. For instance, if you make a survey of who people consider the most important person of the 20th century, a disproportionately large amount of nominees will be people from the 1990s. >Radiant< 14:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even sure it's that: people write about subjects they know, which have easily accessible sources, and that tends to be more recent stuff. But I don't think that's necessarily a problem, Wikipedia is in no way consistent in the depth it covers subjects in; I'd much rather have detailed articles on more recent events and less-detailed articles on older ones, than start trimming the recent events articles for consistency (well actually I'd rather have detailed info on all events, but unfortunately we live in reality). Is there a problem in having articles on relatively minor recent events, provided they are sourced? Trebor 15:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think well-researched articles on recent news stories are not a problem, they can be used to increase the quality of the articles they'll be merged into once a current hype is over. Kusma (討論) 15:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but that kind of defeats Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is generally permanent (quote: "Thus, if a topic satisfies the primary notability criterion, it continues to satisfy it over time") - which I disagree with. --Francis Schonken 15:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you disagree with it? Or do you disagree with the whole definition of notability as it currently stands? Because if you use the current definition, then notability is definitely permanent - multiple independent sources don't change with time. Trebor 15:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your original research - never heard about acidic paper? Also not everything ends up in permanent web archives (for the next 100 year?)... --Francis Schonken 16:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, okay, the record of the sources may (in what I'd estimate to be a very small minority of cases) be destroyed or decay. I thought you meant you disagreed with the idea that notability is permanent even if there are multiple independent source. Trebor 17:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I still object to the crystal ball that appears to be the basis of your reasoning. You estimate "a very small minority of cases". My estimate is considerably larger (for various reasons I need not explain). You don't know, I don't know, and we would need a crystal ball to prove either of us right today. So, this can not be the foundation of frivolous speculations like "if a topic satisfies the primary notability criterion, it continues to satisfy it over time": it might, it might not, no conclusion in that sense can be drawn, and this should not be in a Wikipedia guideline. --Francis Schonken 12:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested to hear your reasons: I'd say the majority of (paper) sources used are newspapers and published books, and they don't suddenly disappear. But if you're think the wording of the guideline is misleading, then change it. It's only meant to mean that notability does not require consistent or ongoing coverage; it's not meant to mean that if the sources are no longer in existence there should still be an article. Trebor 16:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter wheter something is or is not a recent event - this is an encyclopedia - not a newspaper.If something won't be notable in a year or ten years from now then it shouldn't be notable now.However even if you stick with that rule, 'recentism' is inevitable because whilst a lot of people are interested in something like the Alexander Litvinenko poisoning in 2006 and there is a ton of information and references to write that article, it's unlikely that an article will be written about someone getting poisoned in 1906, 1806 or 1706 simply because there is less information out there and less chance of an editor being interested enough to write it.Hence we have a huge article about Litvinenko and a separate (even longer!) article about his death by poisoning - but the more strictly notable poisoning of Aratus of Sicyon (the ruler of an entire Greek city state) in 213BC rates just one sentence.That systemic bias towards recent events is nothing to do with notability criteria - it's just about what people care enough to write about and how much information is available. SteveBaker 15:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you meant notability in terms of significance/importance/fame or the definition given in the guideline? They aren't the same, and to say the poisoning of [[Aratus of Sicyon] is more strictly notable doesn't really mean anything. Individual editors might judge as more significant/important but that's objective. It's almost certainly been covered in fewer sources though, so using the strict Wikipedia definition it is less notable. That's the problem of using a loaded word like notable. Trebor 16:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I sometimes wonder if we ought to have a "2 day hold" on events before they can be put on Wikipedia... the concept being that if a news story is still being discussed after two days of it's initial report, it has a degree of notability... or something like that.There are a lot of news stories that initially may seem important, but turn out to be erroneous or not all that notable. Blueboar 18:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that would ruin Wikipedia's useful coverage of current events - if I want a collated story combining lots of sources, here is the place to go. But in principle, I think the idea has merit. Two days is a (necessarily) arbitrary limit, but it might be along the right lines. Trebor 22:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a VERY early draft of a notability criteria:

In order for an event to be notable, the length, breadth, depth and prominence of the media's coverage of that event must be greater than average.

• Prominence refers to the degree to which the news media itself feels that an event is notable. Events that were covered on the front page or the lead of a news broadcast are far more likely to be notable than events that were covered on page E22 or as the last story on the evening news.
• Breadth refers to the number of media outlets covering a story. An event that has generated only local coverage is probably only of local interest and therefore not notable, but an event that received significant coverage in every news outlet on the planet probably is.
• Depth of coverage refers to the type of coverage the media has given an event. Did news outlets try to answer questions about the event beyond "what happenened" and "where and when and how did it happen"? Did the media analyze the importance of an event and come to the conclusion that it would result in some kind of important change? Did they spend any time discussing what had caused the event to occur? Was there an op-ed piece or a political cartoon? If the media has reported the facts without analyzing the event and what it signifies, than the event was probably not notable enough to be worth analyzing.
• Length of coverage is, among other things, a measure of the degree to which the media believes that an event will be interesting to its audience. If nobody is talking about an event after five days, it most likely wasn't significant enough to warrant a wikipedia article.

Thoughts? GabrielF 19:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it, because it introduces a lot of room for subjectivity and people to say "Well this wasn't a big story and we're not wikinews... DELETE."We don't only cover the big stories.Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there's going to be subjectiveness in any guideline put forward for this, but there is obviously a need for wording about it. At present, the article on the fat cat would be included; yet, I don't think anyone would agree that it should be. There is some measure people are subconsciously placing on an event's notability, regardless of sources. There's discussion going on here about it too. GabrielF's wording is a start, but I don't think a good solution will be reached easily with this. Trebor 22:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with most of the guidelines that GabrielF has listed, however, based on the individual nature of every event, this should never become Wikipedia policy.Policies like notability already covers this in the general sense.Also, small stories may not be suitable in articles of their own, but should definitely be included in larger articles (Ex: A school bus accident in Pennsylvania is covered in the high school's article, Pennsbury High School, but certainly would be up for deletion if written on its own).So yes, I would support a guideline, but not a policy.

Another factor we might also want to also consider is how integrated an article on a recent event can be.For instance, the articles on the Somali War that just occured have hundreds of interlinks, as well as other historical, geographic, and biographical links.The more obscure the event, the more likely is that it will have few if any wikilinks. Joshdboz 20:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

All the pages related to notability are guidelines; I don't think there'd ever be a large-enough consensus to make it policy. But I think a specific guideline, something like Notability (recent events), would be a good idea to allow for the fact that we live in a very source-heavy time. Trebor 21:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Date formats

On [[2]] (a link page, to link the battles off, so you can easily find which battles occured in a particular time period). This is an ordered chronological list and originally only the years were wikified, but not the month and day, because it is much easier to follow if the format is "Year Month Day". You'll notice that people keep "wikifying" the date format, meaning that dates become "day month year" or "month day year" depending on user prefs. What's worse, the latest modifications only modified SOME of the dates, meaning that (if you can follow this) the first incidence of a year is wikified but not the rest, but ALL months and days are wikified, meaning that in some cases you get "year month day" and in some you get "day month year", as well as some where only the month is known so you get "year month" as well. In addition to THAT, someone has decided to remove more than the first incidence of some years, and list each battle in that year as a sub-indent. They've only done this with some years though, so you get "1884" on one line and then just "month day" or "day month" on the next few lines. This is very difficult to read and I've reverted it twice but they use bots to keep wikifying the dates. Can anyone stop them? I'm not an admin and they just ignore me. The format I prefer is "year month day" on every line (most years don't have more than 1 battle anyway so having the year and then sub-indents just looks silly). It's a page I've contributed a lot to, not that that means much perhaps, but it's already gone through one deletion attempt and formatting it this crazy way is not helping its usefulness. Thanks muchly!SpookyMulder 13:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• I see no evidence of bots being involved - why do you say that?
• There appears to be one person (User:GraemeLeggett) making the date format changes you don't like.You've exchange comments via edit summary (a start); I note that the user's last edit summary comment was restore wikified dates as per MoS.So what we have is a content dispute.
• You posted a note on the user's talk page twelve minutes before you posted here.That was the only communication you've had with the user other than edit summaries.And the note here (which the user is probably unaware of) is much, much more detailed than the note on his/her page.That's a mistake.
• You haven't posted anything on the talk page of the article.That's where such a discussion should take place, since it preserves the discussion for future editors, rather than here or on a user talk page.
• Your user page posting included I can have it ruled on if you like.I'm not sure what you meant by that - there isn't anyone at Wikipedia who issues "rulings" regarding content disputes - just behavior, and certainly the other user hasn't violated any behavior norms to date.Also, some people might take that sentence as a threat, which isn't a good way to start a discussion.
• If you can't work out the problem between the two of you, please see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, which includes an escalating set of procedures to deal with differences of opinions on content - for example, asking for a third opinion (and no, that isn't done on this page.)John Broughton |^(♫♫) 15:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

merge Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Consensus can change

Now that both these elements have acquired the statues of policy (which really shouldn't surprise anybody), it is clear that there is no reason to state these elements on two different pages, but I'd like to gather some more opinions before I initiate discussion on the talk pages.Circeus 16:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

So long as WP:CCC redirects to the appropriate section, then I'm all for it. CCC is pretty short anyway (and repeats itself a fair bit) so could be incorporated into Consesus fairly easily. Trebor 16:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Good idea. People have recently taken to wikilawyering WP:CCC to mean "ignore any consensus that I don't agree with" (which, rather obviously, is not what it means). Merging may alleviate that. >Radiant< 10:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Citing copyvio web site

Wikipedia:Copyrights says that "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work". Does the ban against linking to a copyvio site extend to citations based on that site? In particular, can I use a fair use-violating lyrics web site as a citation in the List of backmasked messages when no other citation can be found? Λυδαcιτγ 00:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean a citation, but without a convenience link to the web site?I'd still stay away from it.If it was me writing an article that needed to reference song lyrics, I'd just cite the song itself as a reference.The song is published material just like a book is. Squidfryerchef 02:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Does that website actually talk about the backmasked lyrics?I think that it would be shaky as it probably wouldn't be the most reliable source.It also depends on what the website is - is it a fansite?A music magazine?ColourBurst 03:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a commercial lyric farm. The problem with the backmasking stuff is that the messages are hidden in the songs, and "discovering" them would be original research, so I can't just cite the song. The website is useful in this case because the lyrics on the song page include the backward ones. Λυδαcιτγ 00:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Biographies of Living People question (Souhaila Andrawes as a case study)

I came across the article of Souhaila Andrawes which looked like this. It was correctly tagged as a biography of living person but it did not really meet the strict requirements for such bios, there was not a single source in the article and the article was of a negative tone (the article claimed the person was a terrorist, airline hijacker, sentenced to 12 years, etc.) But then again, it is not exactly difficult to find information about her, and I remember that the case was a big news issue in Norway in 1995. The article was definitely not created as a bad faith attempt to disparage the subject with libellous, slanderous and false accusations.

Question 1: In the form I found it, was the article a WP:CSD#G10 candidate for speedy deletion per the WP:BLP policy?

Question 2: Should unsourced articles about people with the considerable amount of notoriety in media be candidates for speedy deletion, or should we always make a reasonable attempt at sourcing before pulling the trigger?

For this particular article the question is moot, because the brevity of the article made it fairly easy to source it (which I have now done). But I am wondering what our policy is on things like this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll take the easy question - #2 - yes, in the best of worlds, an editor would always try to source an article before killing it.Some editors don't have the time, of course.It's more complicated if the editor isn't sure at all of the notability of the subject of the article - is it worth looking? - but even then, a quick Google search seems well justified if there is time.The most important thing is to do something, immediately, to fix the problem - source or kill.(And if doing a CSD becuase there isn't time to research or initial research failed to find anything, definitely delete all of the negative info on the page, even if that leaves it with (say) only one sentence.John Broughton |^(♫♫) 14:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say you should always favor deletion with such problem articles (all negative without sources).Its rare the old content, unsourced, actually has much value.We need to find sources first, and then write based on them.Creators of articles have no incentive to provide sources, if others fix the problems for them.Also, what I've found, is that when you add sources "after the fact", its very easy to lower your standards for sources.A quick Google search may find "hits", but not always authoratitive stuff.If you find the source first, and write based on it, then you can be more confident that the source is good, and the content fully agrees with the source.If you're doing a bio on Mr X, go find everything you can, good and bad, from reliable sources on Mr X, and let the sources guide you.Don't start with a negative sourced articles, and try matching sources to content.Maybe you quickly find one "hit" agreeing with the notable claim, but don't bother finding other sources, contradicting it, or explaining it properly.Finally, we need a rapid approach, to enable a small number of people to monitor a massive growing number of articles.If patrollers are doing research, that the article creator failed to do, there is no way the patrollers can keep up with the article creators. --Rob 15:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo on blanking --Larry laptop 15:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Stubify and then notify the article's major author is sometimes useful. WAS 4.250 16:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

I have proposed changes to Wikipedia:Copyrights, in order to move it a little closer in line with the GFDL (in my view).Please contribute your thoughts at Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#GFDL_Notice. Superm401 - Talk 21:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Would this be considered a personal attack?

I was deeply offended by what an admin said concerning me. He refuses to apologize on the grounds that I mischaracterized him, when I mistakenly accused him of semi-protecting a talk page in an ongoing debate. Would saying that another user has his "facts" wrong as usual be considered a personal attack? you can find the edit in question here--Acebrock 22:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really consider it such.It's a comment on your contributions (and you did have your facts wrong in this case; I believe MONGO was referring to past incidents regarding Cplot, a pretty egregious troll, no?), it's not a personal attack on you in my mind.Perhaps slightly incivil, and I don't know your history with MONGO (who, by the way, is not in possession of mop and bucket).—bbatsell ¿? 23:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• I am not an admin. Acebrock misrepresented my actions by claiming that I had semi-protected an article talkpage here in the form of an accusatory question, and here again, when the talkpage in question was never semi-protected by myself[3]. Acebrock also accuses me of blocking an editor "out of process" namely, the notorious User:Cplot, who was harassing numerous editors and continues to do so via the creation of more sockpuppets than anyone has recently encoutered on wiki. Next, Acebrock then comes to my talkpage and makes demands...and uses edit summaries such as "MONGO seems very paranoid to me" Just wanted all the facts of this matter to be obvious.--MONGO 23:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, in one case, and that was a simple screw up on my part. That's not really any reason to make a broad generalization about my editing. If you wish to see our history, look at archives 23, 24, and 25 in the September 11, 2001 Attacks talk page. Also Cplot wasn't trolling in my or some other people's opinions, he was trying to reasonably debate but was met with resistance on all sides, also where'd his adminship go?--Acebrock 23:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

MONGO and Seabhcan lost their adminship in an arbcom case.--Bobblehead 23:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That remark about paranoia was made because I was incredibly angry and offended, I have apologized for the false accusation and am sorry about that, but an attack on someone's character because they made asimple mistake is far worse than accusing someone of a very controversial act. MONGO, all I want is an apology, for that remark, and that you withdraw it, it's that simple. It won't change my feelings about you but it will get me to stop cluttering up your talk page and wasting everyone's time--Acebrock 23:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You are just being paranoid and oversensitive.Give it up.Gene Nygaard 23:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Could I gently suggest that Acebrock try to develop a slightly thicker skin. He falsely accused MONGO of making an out-of-policy block. MONGO falsely or justly (I don't know) accused him of often making errors. Without having looked into Acebrock's history, I'll assume that MONGO's accusation is false. So we have (first of all) editor A implicitly accusing editor B of a lack of integrity, and editor B implicitly accusing editor A of a lack of sense. Then we have editor A being deeply offended, demanding an apology, and taking the matter further, while editor B seems to be able to move on. Acebrock, is it really worth this fuss? To me, the accusation made by you was worse, and was demostrably false — just look at the logs. It's pretty bad to go to a protection page and accuse a (former) admin of violating policy. And how can saying that you have your facts wrong "as usual" be an attack on your character? It's perfectly possible to be a good person and to get your facts wrong. Why not just drop the whole thing now and move on with dignity? If you keep going, you're going to get more upset, because nobody is going to think that what MONGO said was worth making a complaint to the community about. Musical Linguist 23:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What is acceptable on talk pages for living persons?

I wish to know if this version of Joanna Lumley's talk page is acceptable: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joanna_Lumley&oldid=101844308

I have since reverted the offending section - is this a case of vandalism? Pendragon39 22:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are celebrity promotional photos no longer allowed for living persons?

Since I run the Christian Music wiki at Wikia.com, I would like some help understanding the reasoning.My policy had been to attempt to obtain one image (or more, if requested by the artist) per artist.I typically e-mail the promoters for each artist asking for offical photos.Several times I have gotten replies providing them -- in one case, at high res!

So, should I now turn those images down? Will (Talk - contribs) 21:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether you should turn them down depends on Wikia's overarching policies and that particular wiki's policy.I can't help you with the former, and I hope you know the latter.

We no longer use "fair use" images of living people because we decided that the odds of such use actually being fair is too low, and conflicts with the goal of creating content that others can use freely.If a promoter released into the public domain or under the GFDL, we'd use it. GRBerry 22:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I control the policy other than what Wikia.com declares.(They chose GFDL, but for the most part it is up to me to interpet and apply that policy.) Will (Talk - contribs) 22:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Might I ask what is your position which allows you to do this?I couldn't figure that out from your user page.Thanks,Badagnani 22:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As previously stated, I admin Wikia:ChristianMusic:.My page there is Wikia:ChristianMusic:User:Will Pittenger. Will (Talk - contribs) 03:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? Is this Wikia, no... So, to the OP you're asking in the wrong place! Ta/wangi 22:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really.If you read carefully, you will see I am asking about Wikipedia's policy and why it is that way. Will (Talk - contribs) 03:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy has no bearing on Wikia.They are merely sister sites.User:Zoe|(talk) 03:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As previously noted, the templates I created (and the policies those templates reflect) were based on Wikipedia's.I don't care if "Wikipedia policy has no bearing on Wikia."All I care is Wikipedia's policy changed.So I need information if the policy at Wikia:ChristianMusic: should change. Will (Talk - contribs) 02:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Why?WP:FUC criteria #1 prohibits using fair use if a free one could be reasonably located.It's just being enforced more heavily now, espeically with the introduction of {{Replaceable fair use}}.Such removal has been controversial - some users think that it's better to have an image than none at all, or that free images don't look as professional as promo images.But it's still going ahead. Hbdragon88 04:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Basically, we want to encourage the creation or release of free content, so we tell people to license promo photos freely or create one themselves.That's how we end up with a lot of celebrities illustrated with public domain images from the US military, for example. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

clarify parameters of Biography of living person

I am a new contributor to Wiki and am working on a Bio of a LP. The person has recently reached celebrity status though his main contribution is in the field of canine management.

My approach would be to treat the bio in his main field, with, of course, his celebrity status being a large part of his current international influence. On first reading the article struck me as emphasizing the celebrity and controversy more than his actual profession. Of course that may change over time, but currently his profession is primarily in handling canines.

This Bio is tagged to go into the larger Canine Portal.

Other difficulties are in establishing MPOV. Because of media attention and the nature of the [dog]industry it is very difficult to find NPOV sources. There has been controversy over certain handling methods long before Cesar Millan came along and this is the direction I have taken in handling it. I have tried to downplay the controversy so that it is not the focus of the bio.

Should ONLY sources of equal weight be included. ie one expert vs another, one shelter manager vs another etc?

The POV that criticises him and causes most of the controversy IMPLIES and states that they ARE the current standard in dog handling, but there is no real way to measure this.

The popularity of the show alone would say otherwise. Can this fact be used?

Thank you Tintina 03:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• It is okay to use sources that are POV. It is the Wikipedia article as a whole that has to be NPOV. --Eastmain 18:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The popularity of the show alone would say otherwise. Can this fact be used?The fact that the show is popular can be used.That it's popularity means anything (other than a lot of people watch it) is POV, just as inferring that a chef on a cooking show is using standard/best/whatever cooking methods just because the show is popular; no, I don't think it can be used, at least not if it's you that thinks that popularity equals "current standards".
  • In general, when someone or something is controversial, it's best to paraphrase a neutral source (like a paper) that says he/she/it is controversial, or to paraphrase a critic as in "Susan X, a certified judge at many shows, said A, B, and C".And, as noted, you can use a POV source (Susan wrote an opinion piece, for example, or even said that on her website - quotable because she is an expert in the area being quoted about).-- John Broughton |^(♫♫) 02:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay thank you! Tintina 02:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Throwing an idea out here. Wanting to hear what people think.

Just an idea to throw out here. Since IP blocks aren't effective (with all the new Tor and open proxies appearing everyday) and problematic when it's a shared IP like Qatar, would it be a bad thing if Wikipedia required Java enabled to edit and then the Java read some hardware serial number? Not MAC address, which is easily spoofed and some people don't have, but some other thing like CPU ID or hard drive serial number. Or would this be shunned as a privacy violation (even if the hardware data is encrypted and salted--like they are in Second Life and how passwords in MediaWiki are encrypted and salted)? Anomo 04:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No.Requiring java is setting the bar way too high.Even on machines that can run java, loading apps is often slow and painful.Plus, it's just begging to be spoofed. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this would be a little over the top. Night Gyr has a point (I don't use Java 99.99% of the time), and it is our aim to keep Wikipedia W3C-standards compliant and accessible on all sorts of devices (text-only browsers, cellphones, PDAs, etc.). Yuser31415 05:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A bad idea in every respect. —Centrx→talk • 06:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As an individual who's spent far too much time living under a repressive government that banned wikipedia, and can jail you for editing it, I'd fight tooth and nail to keep out any initiative that linked my PC to my Wikipedia account. If a government hacker were to find the serial numbers of dissidents hard drives (etc) on a Wikipedia server, or intercept them in IP packets going to or from Wikipedia, they could use it as a who's who to torture and imprison.

Tor might be a pain in the neck for blocking, but it can be the difference between freedom and a 10 year sentence for revealing state secrets for some people.

perfectblue 12:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Perfectblue, hopefully you use Wikipedia's HTTPS secure server to view and edit from, which should encrypt your information. Anomo 10:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Policy for images that can be replaced with plain text

Someone recently uploaded an image containing nothing but text which he had made for use as a subheader in one of the articles he'd been working on. It was subsequently replaced with plain text and the image was listed for deletion. A rather heated argument ensued, and the creator of this image is now threatening to quit Wikipedia. It seems that many of the people involved in this argument aren't aware of the benefits of plain text over text in images, so I was wondering if perhaps there should be an official Wikipedia policy on this issue. I've made a template that could be used to flag images of this type. It's based on the {{BadJPEG}} template — feel free to make whatever changes you feel are necessary). Wealso need to set up a new category for these images (Category:Images that should be replaced with plain text, perhaps?), and make suitable changes to the WP policy pages. There are probably other things that will also have to be done that I haven't thought of. Is this idea worth pursuing? Can anyone provide any pointers? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 13:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we definitely need a policy for this. Preferably one that reads as follows:

• When you find an image easily replaceable by plain text, you must go through the following steps.
  • Replace it with plain text.

Really, not that hard. Why do we need a set of templates and complicated process for something as simple as replacing the image with text? (instruction creep anyone?) You'll expend more letters typing the template code than you will just replacing the thing yourself. List the image for deletion afterwards if you feel like it, but since it's going to sit in the database regardless even that wouldn't be necessary. --tjstrf talk 13:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? Because apparently some people are unaware of how to style text without using images. Because it would cost nothing to at least get the image policy changed to reflect this. And because it just might prevent a useful contributor from quitting Wikipedia. Incidentally, comments like this aren't going to help the situation. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 18:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Refusal to tag + ownership issues

I've got a problem with a user who is systematically reverting every change made to a page and I need to know if there is a policy that I can hit them with or what the most appropriate admin intervention to ask for is.

This user has apparent ownership issues with a page, they revert every change that I've made and put these really loose reasonings in the summary box. They also refuse point blank to tag anything or discuss why they are reverting. For example, they might revert 10-20 changes in one go and state something along the lines of"WP:V, WP:OR, WP:POV" in the summary box but not say what which bit was reverted for which reason.

Any advice? They have already refused to talk so I'd like to get some intervention.

perfectblue 16:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The user and page would be useful so people can have a look at the situation themselves. Trebor 16:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to avoid a No Personal Attacks situation by not making any accusations against a specific user. Let's just summarize to "somebody keeps reverting my edits, does it in such a way as I can't tell which reason was made for the reversion of what, and they refuse to tag individual sections that they are unhappy with instead reverting the entire edit session good and bad"

perfectblue 17:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The policy you want is Wikipedia:Ownership.Circeus 17:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, is there anything else, like maybe something that says TAG TAG TAG rather than revert revert revert.

perfectblue 17:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to read Wikipedia:Three-revert rule and report him to admins. Blueboar 20:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to avoid a No Personal Attacks situation by not making any accusations against a specific user'.Statements that you believe a particular edit or user may have violated a Wikipedia rule is not a personal attack.If it were, many admins would be subject to repeated blocks for the dozens of "personal attacks" they make each day when discussing possible vandals, trolls, etc.(And no, admins are not exempt in any way from WP:NPA.) -- John Broughton |^(♫♫) 02:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Brian G. Crawford and Wikimedia Foundation bans

As an active maintainer of Wikipedia:List of banned users, I'm looking for clarification regarding the ban of Brian G. Crawford (talk · contribs · block log). He was banned upon recommendation of Foundation counsel BradPatrick, and his userpage says he's "banned by the Wikimedia Foundation". However, he's on the banned user list under the heading "Banned by the Wikipedia community". I was thinking about moving his entry to a new "Banned by the Wikimedia Foundation" section, but I wanted to make sure everyone agrees his ban should be listed as a "Foundation ban". Of course, BradPatrick, Danny and others involved in the WP:OFFICE system are analogous to Jimbo and the Board of Trustees in their authority to issue bans. I'd argue Crawford is "banned by the Foundation", but does anyone disagree? Also, does anyone know of other instances I'm unaware of when the Foundation has banned a user, aside from Anthere's cross-project ban of JarlaxleArtemis? szyslak (t, c) 22:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Given the user's behavior, there would have been a formally called "community ban" soon enough. —Centrx→talk • 22:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Technically, I believe the reclassification of this user's ban that you suggest might be correct. However, I don't believe the Village Pump is a good place for this discussion, and for that matter I'm doubtful that including information about a person's medical condition on the banned users list is really appropriate either, especially given that the person's username is apparently his real name. Newyorkbrad 22:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed. szyslak (t, c) 22:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

XfDs by WikiProject

I was recently thinking about the idea of WikiProjects when I came to the realization that they should be used for much more than they are already being used for. Right now, they are a loose organization that has little power in regulating the pages under their jurisdiction. I think a problem now, though, with XfDs though, is that when something is proposed for deletion, it is just commented on by people who have little or no affiliation or knowledge of the topic which it covers. I think it would be a great idea instead of having XfDs open to the public, have them referred to a WikiProject or a few WikiProjects for review and subsequent deletion, if seen fit. The only prerequisite for voting on one of these new XfDs would be that you would have to be a member of one of the reviewing WikiProjects (not necessarily, but possibly, for a certain amount of time).

I think this is a pretty fair suggestion, given the nature of Wikipedia. Many users have sectioned themselves off into certain niches of the "society" and it should only follow that pages are maintained in this manner. Comments will be gratefully accepted! → JARED ^(t)  22:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No, for all the reasons that objected to this when it came up on Wikipedia talk:Articles for Deletion#Proposal_for_de-centralization_of_debates. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If an article is covered by a Wiki Project, I see no objection to notifying the project in question via its talk page.This should serve the same purpose without balkanizing the debates.Robert A.West (Talk) 22:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I support notification, but giving them any authority would be silly. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Night Gyr that notification is a good idea, but not actually handing over the XfD (or AfD) process to wikiprojects.A number of reasons for this have already been supplied in the above mentioned discussion regarding the decentralization of XfDs.Most important are the facts that:

1. XfDs and AfDs are determined by Wikipedia policies and guidelines rather than any specialized knowledge about the topic.You don't need to be a physicist to determine whether a physics-related article meets our policy guidelines.

2. Many articles fall within the scope of multiple Wikiprojects meaning that if XfDs and AfDs were decentralized we'd have countless problems dealing with jurisdiction.For example, solar power falls under the scope of Wikiprojects on Energy, the Environment and International Development.

3. It's efficient to have all XfDs and AfDs located in one central location.Its easier for editors discussing the deletions, its easier for the admins who close them.It makes it easier to follow all AfDs and XfDs.Also, many editors (myself included) spend a lot of time working in the AfDs and XfDs rather than editing articles.I like to think of us as adminitrative workers (though not necessarily admins).Its important to those of us who regularly 'vote' in these debates to have them all available in one location.--The Way 23:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

To the above, I would add that not everyone with knowledge of a topic belongs to the relevant WikiProject.I have expertise and life experience that would be appropriate to many WikiProjects: I belong to none.Robert A.West (Talk) 00:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Despite assuming good faith for the majority of WikiProjects, an important point is bias. If only those involved in a WikiProject voted on an AfD, the borderline articles would be more likely to be kept. Sometimes those outside a particular area can be more objective. Though expertise is also good - you don't have to be a molecular biologist or surface chemistry expert to understand and have some insight into whether Transfersome is notable, but it helps. Carcharoth 00:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• cough* Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting *cough* -- Visviva 05:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

need clarification on image use with celebrity-not clear on policy reading

I have permission to use a photo by the photographer. It was taken in a certain context with another internationally well known (though not celebrity ) person. This person however has expertise and is well respected in his field which is part of the article I am working on.(He is mentioned and quoted in it). I originally sought permission from him and he directed me to the photographer (who is also a member of the organization and is more remotely connected to the topic.)This person did give permission to use any material of his and his organization.

so I have permission from both the photographer and the other person at a specific event recognizing the celebrity. can this photo be used without further permission. I have read the image use policy but am still not clear.

Tintina 00:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

We can't use images that only have permission for wikipedia, we need the image to be freely licensed so anyone else can use it too. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes thank you, the photographer (owner of the photo) is aware of that. I sent him wikipedia policy. FYI The photo is displayed on the relative organizations website. What I want to clarify is if the celebrity in the photo in any way has to give permission for it's use.

Tintina 01:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Confused about image use policy

According to the image use policy, as image contributors, users are supposed to "always specify on the description page where the image came from." I recently tagged Image:Punjabi gurmukhi shahmukhi.png (an image tagged as ineligible for copyright) for speedy deletion, however, because a source is not specified. I was soon, however, reverted by an anononymous user. When I restored the deletion tag and engaged in conversation with said user, an administrator removed it. Finally, when I restored the tag again and contacted said administrator, it was restored by another experienced Wikipedian.

I am confused. For the record, I am not opposed to the image. My only issue with it is that the source is not specified. Is there a discrepancy between the image use policy and {{PD-ineligible}}? Or is there a misunderstanding on my part about either or both? Please, I would really like to know so I can get all of this off of my back. I would really appreciate comments. (Note: I will immediately notify the three users of this post.) --Iamunknown 00:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no source. The uploader typed it on his computer. If you wanted to specify that, you could I guess. --tjstrf talk 02:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. A user, as an uploader of an image, is required to specify that. We don't actually know that the user did was type the text onto his/her computer. --Iamunknown 02:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually we do know it unless he's been lying about his other uploads. Further when the entire point of the copyright status is that it's an utterly trivial work it really doesn't matter. --tjstrf talk 02:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Then this should be reflected somewhere in the image use policy. As the image stands, it is at least in indirect violation of it. --Iamunknown 02:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is explicitly stated anywhere, but as the only reason Wikipedia requires sources for all images is so the copyright status can be verified, if an image is clearly ineligible for copyright because of its triviality, then it seems to me there is no need to note the source of the image. —Bkell (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This is probably the only case when a source is not required, though. In every other case a source is necessary for the verification of the copyright status, even if that copyright status is "public domain," because unless the image is so trivial as to be uncopyrightable, it is not obvious from the image alone that it is in the public domain. —Bkell (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, other cases in which I don't worry about the lack of an explicit source are things like company logos, movie posters, and album and book covers. With these types of images, it's usually pretty obvious who the copyright holder is. It's possible, though, that technically Wikipedia still requires a source for these things. —Bkell (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

tjstrf and Bkell have expressed my understanding of this issue as I also think of it. Nothing more to see here, let's move on. feydey 10:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR

I've recently rewritten the three-revert rule. You can see discussion here and the rewrite here. Comments are invited. --bainer (talk) 07:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Username blocks need to be re-evaluated

I feel that username blocks are spiraling out of control.New users are being blocked for poorly defined "username policy violations", a move that will hurt the future of the project.From recent block logs, here are some examples:

Revertinging (talk • contribs)
Wippippippipp (talk • contribs)
Godpreist54 (talk • contribs)
Thabo Mkbeki (talk • contribs)
Kiddybandit (talk • contribs)
Cheap couilles (talk • contribs)
Hruodlandus Brittannici limitis praefectus (talk • contribs)
WikiWarrior1 (talk • contribs)
Loser12345 (talk • contribs)
Sexybot12 (talk • contribs)
Joeyjimbob (talk • contribs)
Wowwoweeewow (talk • contribs)
WikipediaFun (talk • contribs)
Blabber mouth katie (talk • contribs)
Youratowel (talk • contribs)
Wheeeee! (talk • contribs)
Wknight91 (talk • contribs)

For the record, I did not "cherry pick" from X-weeks of block logs on purpose.I chose a half day period so I could draw attention to how widespread the problem is.Each of these had "username" listed as the block rationale.

I viewed a roughly 11 hour period to gather the names above, and does not represent a thorough examination.There are probably more questionable username blocks in that time period.There are hundreds each week, each one potentially a future valuable editor who decides to just walk away from the project.Perhaps some of them are legit (Is couilles something obscene in another language, for instance?) but I argue that most of them do not appear to properly violate WP:USERNAME.I'm not certain that the problem is to blame on anyone specifically, but the policy regarding username blocks appears to be flawed.

As I mentioned in my RfA many months ago, Wikipedia faces a growing crisis.We are constantly raising new barriers against contributors when we should be looking to cultivate new editors.If the policy of username blocking is not adjusted, the long term health of the project is at additional risk.

I'm not looking to specifically criticize the above username blocks, else I'd post this on AN or AN/I.Instead, I'd like to discuss the policy that tacitly allows this to happen.Does the community agree that protecting our eyes from the wicked text "Sexybot12" or "Godpreist54" is worth the trade off in curious new users who decide to go elsewhere because it's "just not worth it"?Let's focus on the long term health implications of this policy and determine a method for fixing this problem.Thoughts?- CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This discussion would be better suited for the WP:U talk page. For the two examples you call specific attention to: "bot" is restricted to actual Wikipedia bots so "wicked text" has nothing to do with it & "Godpreist54" was blocked based upon discussion at Wikipedia:Username so it did have community consensus. "Wknight91" is also marked as a sockpuppet and is an obvious conflict with Wknight94. "Youratowel" (and other like usernames with "you" & "your") can defineitly cause troubles in heated discussions where the person being replied to may take it as personally directed. If someone wants to belittle themselves in their username, I don't have a problem with that, but anything that belittles others should not be allowed. -- JLaTondre 18:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't buy your claim that blocking "Wippippippipp" is losing a valuable member of Wikipedia. If someone is unable to handle and/or overcome the blocking of their username, are they going to be able to function productively in Wikipedia, there conflict is a given? I also don't buy that Wikipedia's long term health is in jeopardy. We have over 3 million user accounts. There are 250+ million Americans (which most speak English, I don't know the number of English speaking people in the world which would be a better number to give here). That's an untapped resource of over 247+ million people. Also figure how many accounts that are duplicates or whatnot and losing "Wippippippipp" isn't a big deal. There are 247+ million other people to take "Wippippippipp"'s place and probably give the same contributions that "Wippippippipp" would have. --MECU≈talk 18:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mecu - if they balk at our username policy, that doesn't bode well for being able to cope with the other requirements of writing an encyclopaedia. It's stricter that most of the rest of the Internet, but this is an encyclopaedia and not a social community after all. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Chairboy here. What on earth is wrong with "Wheeeee!", "Blabber mouth katie" or "Joeyjimbob"? Do these names "belittle" anyone in any way? And if so, shouldn't these people rather grow a thicker skin than us blocking any username that, potentially, could be in some theoretical way be insulting to someone? I think it's a very wrong attitude to say that there are enough people that could easily replace all those blocked users. It's true, yes, but it still sounds incredibly arrogant to me. We shouldn't say that no real harm is done in blocking these users, we should ask ourselves, what do we gain from this? I just don't see anything that we've gained from blocking the usernames I mentioned above, and I do see up to three newbies that we (probably) successfully scared away. --Conti|✉ 19:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Mecu and Sam.Most of those ARE bad names."Revertinging" clearly sends the wrong signal (even if inadvertantly) about what the user is here to accomplish.In a less obvious way, "WikipediaFun" does as well."Hruodlandus Brittannici limitis praefectus" is overly long and our software should be changed so that so many characters cannot even be attempted, let alone accepted."Kiddybandit" suggests illegal intentions.The list goes on... For the few that maybe should be allowed, I again agree with Mecu and Sam.If they are too thinned-skinned to think of a new username, they should find a different hobby as they are not likely to be successful contributors.We need to get past the utopian idealogy that we would have an improved project if we could somehow get every single person on the planet to contribute.Some people just aren't cut out for it. Johntex\^talk 19:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh the hypocrisy.

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington blocked
Hruodlandus Brittannici limitis praefectus 

Is that 10 character difference really blockworthy? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Another irony is that -- with all the fuss about so-called "non-Latin usernames" -- "Hruodlandus Brittannici limitis praefectus" is one of the few actual Latin usernames here (in English, "Hruodland, Prefect of the Marches of Brittany"): it refers to a historical person who died in AD 778 and is remembered today as the legendary hero Roland. (His title, rather than a family name, distinguishes him from any other Hruodlandi who might have been around; titles and professions often developed into family names later, like Smith, Miller, or Butler.)
• Count your blessings that he didn't adopt the Latin name of Tolkien's "Farmer Giles of Ham": "In full his name was Ægidius Ahenobarbus Julius Agricola de Hammo, for people were richly endowed with names in those days".
• There's no rule against using the name of historical persons, as long as they're neither living nor recently deceased. WP:U does say "avoid impersonating any well-known persons or fictional characters" -- but if that doesn't get Sir Nicholas blocked for using a well-known "Harry Potter" character's name, why be more severe about the less well-known name "Hruodlandus"?
• Having a long username doesn't necessarily take up space on talk pages. I shorten my talk-page sig to "Ben" as a space-saver; Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington does likewise ("Nearly Headless Nick"); possibly this user might sign comments as "Hruodland" or "Roland". So what does it matter if the actual username is long? Who's hurt by it?
• I can think of longer real names of living people, if they're given in full (including baptismal names) -- and especially if transliterated from a language like Russian, where one original letter may be transcribed as two-to-four English letters (щ → shch). Should such people be username blocked for using their own full names?
• I agree with other comments here that such a username block's reason should be explained: pointing to WP:U says nothing about what was wrong with this name, or whether there was some way to fix it, since it didn't fit any of the prohibited types. When asked, Nick explained: "the username seems inappropriately wrong and difficult to spell" -- which seems inappropriately subjective and difficult to find in WP:U's reasons for a block-on-sight -- but Nick also unblocked this user and apologized for the inconvenience. So this is resolved, though it would have been less BITING to discuss the matter first, rather than immediately blocking. -- Ben 00:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think some of the above are harmless and others should be blocked.But what disturbs me is that the blocking admin does not specifically outline what is wrong with the name.All that is said is "Please read our username policy".If someone is being blocked for a name they; should be explicty told why it is inapproprriate.If the blocking admin has difficulty decribing exactly what the problem is they should list it at WP:RFC/NAME instead of blocking instantly.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it should be like CSD -- people can't just say "DELETED", they have to be able to point to one of the criteria. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • That sounds like a good idea.I would also like to point out that is not just the block summary being generic, but also no definative reason is given on the user talk page where there is plenty of room.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I've made a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Username#Number_the_criteria_for_quick_reference. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Would it be useful for a summary of "WP:RFCN" to be used in place of "username" where a name has been blocked as a result of WP:RFCN? At least that way a reason can be looked up. There's only so much you can say in a summary, and, wrong as it may be, I suspect most people are prone to filling in short summaries where possible - it's just human nature. Crimsone 19:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A summary of WP:RFCN wouldn't really be more helpful than WP:USERNAME.The idea of having blocking admins specifying which element of the username policy they felt was being violated is a good idea, I'd support that.One concept here and in the WP:U talk page related to this that I can't agree with is the assertion that to do anything with Wikipedia, users need thick skins.To be clear, the folks we're talking about are brand new users.Their _very first_ interaction on Wikipedia is dealing with a block.That's pretty harsh medicine.I'm also troubled with the idea that 'we have so many users, we can afford to scare folks off'.If the person isn't doing something wrong, we shouldn't be "throwing then away", which was the implication I read.If that's not an accurate read, please correct me.The root issue, of course, is that I feel there are lots of 'bad blocks' happening here.The answer isn't more policy, the answer needs to be better community involvement in validating the quality of the username blocks. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that.Most of these blocks are quite opaque to me, and presumably to the editor who was blocked as well.I am troubled by the idea, expressed here and on the policy talk page, that it's OK to block usernames created in good faith. -- Visviva 04:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That was very eloquently said I must say Chairboy, even though I may not entirely agree that that there are a particularly large number of bad blocks happening. I'm not sure how many username blocks are really that illegitimate, and of course, illegitimacy is often a matter of opinion. Clearly though, not every block will have the concensus of the community, as nobody is right 100% of the time. An admin that feels that a username "obviously" should be blocked is probably going to be right 99% of the time, but it's that 1% that may not seem quite so "obvious" to everybody else. This is also true of WP:RFCN - after all, it can only guage concensus according to who happens to visit the page. If a username is blocked per RFCN concensus, that doesn't exclude it from the possibility of that 1% error rate - though it does mean that there's less reason to consider the blocking admin as having acted inappropriately.

To have admins specify the appropriate part(s) of the username policy would of course give real and (hopefully!) understandable reason. It would also make it easier to spot when a block has been questionable. It could be trialed by creating a sub-page of WP:U similar to the speedy deletion criterion, designating each element with a code (the code idea having been suggested on the policy talk page). This would also have the benefit of keeping the policy itself intact.

I would like to revise my suggestion above though regarding summary usage. I feel that because this is a subject with the potential for strong views and feelings, the potential for "witchunting" or accusations of bad faith/inappropriate behaviour creeps into the picture as an unintended result. As such, I feel that it would be useful to identify in the summary whether the action was directly the decision of the admin on the basis of poicy or concensus driven (rfcn). To use "username {code}" for an admin decision, or "RFCN {code}" for an RFCN outcome would demonstrate what process has been undertaken, and thus where the cause of any possible failure of process (or responsibility for an inappropriate block) lies. Crimsone 04:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Visviva, please remember that although we assume good faith, that does not prove good faith on the part of the person who has chosen an innapropriate username.You don't know they acted in good faith, and you certainly don't know the blocking admin acted in bad faith.Futhermore, we remove good-faith but unhelpful things all the time.From photos to edits to, yes, usernames.The question of whether a username was created in good faith or bad faith is irrelevant to the question of whehter it is an acceptable username.So, of course it is OK to block usernames created in good faith - if they are inappropriate.If it is an unacceptable username then it must be blocked, regardless of the motives of the creator. Johntex\^talk 04:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

But do we really need to get all prissy about what usernames are "appropriate" anyway?How does it really harm anything if some usernames are a little silly?If we were to be a totally stodgy project and ban all usernames that weren't a complete bore, we'd have to get rid of such users as "Can't sleep, clown will eat me" (or something like that... whatever his username is).I don't really see how the ones that are getting banned are really any "worse".This seems like a repeat of the big userbox debacle, where people on both sides are fighting over something that's really rather peripheral.Everybody should just live and let live.Having weird usernames, or weird userboxes, or deleting both, has no particular importance one way or the other to the encyclopedia. *Dan T.* 05:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

See, the username policy is supposed to keep out offensive things, not silliness.There's no reason to block a user for choosing "Wheee!" or "Joeyjimbob".The policy itself specifically says not to block names that may have been chosen in good faith.Requiring admins to cite the specific policy that prohibits such a name will prohibit blocks for silly, but harmless things, the same way we make sure admins only speedy delete pages that fit CSD, not just what they feel like. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree the username policy is to keep out offensive things, not silliness. Joeyjimbob - too close to Jimbo.Wheee! - I would have allowed to stand.But let's not lose sight of the fact that several of the ones in the list were clearly innapropriate. Johntex\^talk 05:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Joeyjimbob is too close to "Jimbo"?That really seems like a stretch.(I'm feeling echoes of Chinese dynastic naming taboos here). -- Visviva 08:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The username blocking has gone completely overboard. Why is it our job to make sure no one on Wikipedia is ever offended, or, God-forbid, exposed to something less than completely serious? Why would we consider "Wheeeee!" to be a threat to Wikipedia? Who considers "Godpreist54" offensive to thier religious sensibilities? 90% of the blocks listed above seem completely asinine to me. Do people really believe these blocks are benefitting Wikipedia? This seems to be an example of rules overriding common sense. Kaldari 07:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This does seem pretty overboard. I almost exclusively block usernames when it seems obvious to me they are up to no good. They're easy to spot. :-) Grandmasterka 08:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I know that "Godpreist54" was an RFCN one. Some of the others are obvious. Some of them in the list though may seem not so obvious. One of the WP:U examples of names that will be blocked are those usernames that are similar to those known to have been used by vandals - who of us can remember the name of every vandal there's ever been? Different people will remember different ones. This is the exact sort of reason that the blocking summary needs a mention of the clauses of the policy a name has been blocked under. Crimsone 08:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that there should be standards for user names, particularly when it comes to names that are malicious or offensive, it appears to me that Wikipedia is taking the same path as a lot of the networks are these days and is saying "We can't do that in case in case we offend somebody". Honestly;Loser12345, joeyjimbob, Wowwoweeewow? In a normal civil community, none of these should be considered blockable based on their names and if Wikipedia were a non-US based entity I doubt that they would be blocked. Even Blabber mouth katie should be acceptable as it is/seems pretty that Katie is the user in question.

This appears to be a case of overkill

perfectblue 11:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• I reiterate, though - no unauthorized bots. And "couilles" is "testicles". DS 15:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wowwoweeewow, Sexybot12 are two that I think that I blocked. Wowwoweeewow because that there have been a recent spat of vandals going by similar names. This was highlighted during the fund raiser when we had vandals using those style names. As for Sexybot12 there was no log of which user created this account (normally there is with bots) and even so they still need to come to WP:BRFA I doubt that would ever have happened as that name of the bot defies bot policy. and when you place a block the block message says contact the blocking admin via e-mail if you have questions. This has happened to me several times the one that is sticking out in my mind is User:BillDay.com I obvious blocked as that is spam. the user contacted me and said that they wanted the username Bill Day but out filter with usernames wouldnt let them because it was too close to bill.day so I found an unused username BillDay and created it for the user, I then e-mail the user with the username and the password telling the user to change the password. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Betacommand, your message above seems to highlight some of the problems that I'm describing.For instance, you mention that Wowwoweeewow was blocked because you thought it might be a vandal.In that instance, it seems that blocking it as a suspected sockpuppet of the vandal would be far more appropriate than a one size fits all "username" block.Sexybot12 doesn't necessarily mean that it's a robot, there are plenty of users on Wikipedia that have robot-styled names.And if it WAS an unauthorized bot, then it should be blocked for being an unauthorized bot, not because of "username", again.When doing speedy deletes (of which I do many, check my deletion log), the deleting admin must assert what criteria is being used.I can't just say "speedy delete" anymore, I need to be specific.I think that blocks are a much bigger deal than deletions, so consequently blocking admins must be absolutely clear about why they're doing it.The whole Giano mess, btw, was related to an offshoot of this, specifically where I urged you to be very careful about specific policies that folks are being blocked for.As you saw there, a misinterpretation of a block rationale can be pretty emotional, so we owe it to everyone involved to be absolutely clear as to why we're doing what we're doing. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:U, usernames with "bot" are reserved for actual bots. Sexybot12 was not blocked for being an unauthorized bot. It was blocked for using a reserved term. If you want to propose a change to that policy, feel free, but implying it was an inappropriate block is wrong. While I tend to agree with you about indicating why a particular username is blocked (though the WP:U page needs to be revised to make that easier to do), trying to tie this to the Giano debacle is in poor taste. The vast majority of username blocks are clear cut. Also, a good percentage of accounts never make any edits & many of the blocked probably never know they were blocked. I think you are exaggerating the issues. -- JLaTondre 15:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

First, some context: The 17 username blocks that Chairboy found, looking through a half-day of blocks, represents less than one-half of one percent of new user accounts (well over 3,500) that are created in a typical 12 hour period.(See Special:Log/newusers.)Second, the main problem (in my opinion) isn't that admins are too quick to pull the trigger, but rather thatthe blocked new user isn't being told about Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names, which is an appropriate forum (I think) for an appeal.If there were a badusername template that linked to that RfC page, and this template was routinely put on the talk page of the blocked user, I think that any admin mistakes could be quickly fixed.I think adding a template is much less work than having to categorize blocks.Admins have enough work as is.John Broughton|Talk 14:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

How is having to categorize blocks any additional work?Admins should already know what criteria they're blocked under, and typing a few characters to indicate that is a trivial amount of work. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

When an admin sees a new username like User:FUCC-U, he/she doesn't think "aha, that's an A7 or a G12" or whatever; he/she says - "time to pull the trigger".So categories would mean, at minimum, more memorization and/or a cheatsheet.And there is more memorization and changes when categories change. And user arguing over whether the category really applied, when two categories applied and the admin only cited one. In short, this is instruction creep.Any problem with overzealous admins can be solved by making it clear to blocked users how to appeal the block, for which a forum already exists.John Broughton |♫ 03:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

We already have a cheatsheet: WP:USERNAME.Usernames that don't fit that page shouldn't be blocked on sight.If an admin can't articulate what's wrong with a name, they shouldn't block it.Your statement of block first and let review sort them out is absolutely contradictory with existing policy, that says when in doubt, don't block.If someone walks through the door, their very first experience should not be an assumption of bad faith by them in choosing a username.It's completely against our basic principles. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's quite trivial if nessecary to pull up a new browser window, point it to WP:U (or a sub-page if appropriate) and look up the code. This isn't instruction creep any more that first introduction of the CSD codes would have been - it's a very simple but effective way of explaining an action so that other people can understand what's happened, it's the creation of accountability in the unlikely case that an admin get's a little "trigger happy" (so to speak) with the effect that it should put an end to the behaviour, and finally it should put an end to bad blocks while making the whole thing that much more transparent to everybody. I fail to see why anybody would see such a trivial proposal as such a problem. Crimsone 09:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

My problem with the complaint here is that people seem to forget that when {{usernameblocked}} is put in the summary, on the next edit attempt it expands and gives all the information about our username policy, where to find it and how to go about requesting a change. No need to add instruction creep with numbers, that is the whole point of that template. The template also has been overhauled in the recent past to make it more friendly than it was. Users are not just being left out in the cold with no explanation. If you don't understand a particular block, talk to the admin who did it. They usually have a good reason. I don't see this as a rampant abuse problem or something that needs to be re-evaluated. pschemp | talk 03:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember a discussion similar to this some months back when many editors, myself included, voiced a concern that too many new usernames were being arbitrarily blocked.Almost none of the above listed usernames should have been blocked, Sexybot being an exception (since using 'bot' is banned for valid reasons).Only usernames that are blatantly offensive should get blocked on site.The current 'policy' gives admins too much power to subjectively remove names they don't like.The fact that one admin posted above that one username was blocked because it resembled usernames used by vandals previously is especially unsettling; vandals can, and do, make all sorts of names and we can't possibly block everything that resembles a name previously used by a vandal.Overall I agree with some of the other editors that this has gotten way out of hand.Usernames should be accepted in good faith until they prove themselves to be a vandal (innocent until proven guilty) or unless its cleary offensive/obscene. --The Way 03:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

How about "username created only to evade arbcom ruling" for arbitrary banning?It doesn't match the facts; apparently based upon erroneous mind reading.(SEWilco 04:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

Wikiproject or special interest group?

I'm not sure if this is the right place so if not, point me in the right direction.

I've come to the conclusion (and let talk about it in general terms for the moment), that many wiki projects actually operate as special interest groups and their goal (generally not spelt out in the project aims) is just to generate as much content about their given subject as possible - regardless of the wikipedia guidelines. Those special interest groups turn up on-mass on an AFD attempt and the articles just get longer and more full of crap (and there is no other way to put it).

Is there a way to call a failing wiki-project to task? if not, should there be? --Larry laptop 00:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In any AfD, it is possible to defeat en masse voting with decent reasoning, as well as pointing out favorable vote-gathering. The WP:COUNCIL might be able to help you, too. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This is definitely not true the vast majority of the time.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

See I don't really think that's true - many AFD slip pass the radar and if 3 people provide well-reasoned arguments that someone/something should be removed and ten people from the project turn up posting WP:ILIKEIT arguments - as best, you will get "no consensus". --Larry laptop 00:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this problem a lot when I was editing Islam articles. I proposed this to Moreschi: "I was thinking about setting up a WikiProject Anti-Votestacking, where blatent votestacking could be listed and members could vote to dilute it. Just 50 members regularly voting would demolish most cases of votestacking." Moreschi nixed it because he thought it would be too controversial, but mayeb it's something we need to revisit. Maybe as a working group of the Council? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The poor participation in AfD's might have came from the same cause that made me virtually stop participating.The change from consensus decision-making to so-called "value of arguments" made me feel violated in that I believe in democracy.So I hardly ever look at AfD's any more, except when something I care about is nominated. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

An example would help illuminate this problem.Also, after being a Wikipedian for about three years, I think I would have noticed if this was a big problem.Therefore, I can only assume this is happening within a very narrow subject area. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not convinced that this is at all a significant problem. It's certainly the case that WikiProjects aim to add material regarding their topic to Wikipedia—that's pretty much the point of having them—but I doubt that the vast majority are adding things that are generally regarded as not appropriate, much less conspiring to do so systematically. Kirill Lokshin 01:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

see that's not really what I asked - what would I do if I came across a SPECIFIC project that was failing in improving articles? --Larry laptop 01:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I wouldn't know how to answer unless there is an example we can look at.Further, projects fail all the time in fulfilling their purpose, but this is usually because its members have lost interest, or they never had enough members to handle all the requisite project tasks. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

For context, I believe he's speaking of the WP:CVG project. --tjstrf talk 01:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Em no - so no sherlock holmes award for you - I was actually thinking of a few projects, I now realise this is sure way to get myself on various hitlists. Let's drop this I'm clearly very mistaken, this is all my mistake and I've made an awful error. Nothing to see here.--Larry laptop 01:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hitlists?Oh come on.Sounds unlikely to me. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Seconded.Hitlists?There's absolutely nothing wrong with this discussion. Kirill Lokshin 01:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

oh fuck it I'm done anyway - gamesguide and cruft are here to stay what's the point in fighting it. --Larry laptop 02:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, you totally misunderstand what a game guide is. This is a game guide:

To defeat the Great Wyrm, you must wait until it rears up to breath flames and then strike at its underbelly with your weapons. You can also use ice-aligned magic spells to bypass its defenses. The Wyrm has 450 HP, 300 defense, and 360 MP. It deals 100-120 hp worth of damage with its breath attack, and 50-80 with its claws and tail.

This is not a game guide:

The Great Wyrm is a colossal fire dragon which acts as the boss of the fifth dungeon. Its thick skin defends it from most attacks. After its defeat, the dragon will tell the players the hidden location of the 6th plot token.

The first explains how to beat the game, the latter does not. The latter cannot be considered a game guide. --tjstrf talk 03:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In defense of Larry, I have also noticed that articles falling under Wikiprojects dedicated to fictional material, especially games, tend to have a hoard of editors come to the defense of anything that gets nominated for AfD.The link provided by Larry is a perfect example: that article is probably going to get kept because a lot of people whom I presume are from a Wikiproject have come to its defense despite it being rather clearly against our guidelines (the current draft of the guidelines about what constitutes a gameguide does say that lists of weapons, items, etc are not notable and should be deleted).--The Way 04:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Larry here - WikiProjects on fictional universes are more apt to defend articles than WikiProjects on aspects of the real one. I would not expect Wikipedia:WikiProject Science to defend a biography of a non-notable scientist just because it was on a scienctist and therefore related to "their" subject. But I've never seen a fiction WikiProject say "this is too much detail" or "this is effectively original research". They also fall seem to fall prey to ownership delusions sometimes. I don't know whether it's just perspective but there seem to be more than the usual number of 'the relevant WikiProject was not informed' DRVs lately, always on fictional universe walled gardens. I've never seen that happen in relation to a non-fictional WikiProject. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The good news is that articles about fictional subjects, whatever their excessive level of detail and lack of reliable sources, do serve a use, and original researchish stuff there is hardly of the type that can be so damaging in the bio of a living person or other nonfiction articles.My personal advice is just to walk away from heavily defended articles on fictional subjects - when the editors grow up (literally, in many cases), they may become excellent editors on subjects that matter much more (or, I suppose, can then be weaned from their NOR approach - "I saw that on TV, why aren't my observations acceptable content?")-- John Broughton |^(♫♫) 02:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

{{click}} on portals and alternatives

Someone has created Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Clickable images, in effort to remove {{click}}.This is with good intention, but think wider discussion of this and possible alternatives available is needed. This user is now going through all the portal pages and doing mass removal of {{click}}.It's not being discussed on Portal talk pages, nor is any alternative being implemented in place of {{click}}. One alternative is the new ImageMap extension, which can be used on portal pages for "Related portals".(see Portal:Criminal justice)It doesn't yet work in templates, so can't be built into {{click}} itself at this point. Such mass removal of the template without discussion and putting in place an alternative is not okay with me.This is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Clickable images. --Aude (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no consensus for the mass removal of this template, not on the project's talk page or anywhere else. It honestly looks like the owrk of about 5 people who hate the template, but I neither agree with them nor think their reasoning is sound. This little subproject also had a disputed tag removed by it members. Until this is agreed on or not, the removals need to stop. Removals can be seen here I have reverted them since consesnsus to do this does not exist at this time. pschemp | talk 16:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am the creator and main contributor of this subproject to fix all the problems derived from that template. First of all, I didn't know that changes like this should be discussed in the Village Pump, I'm sorry, and as the main contributor I assume the fault. I had planned to discuss here the changes needed to fix the problems that require to edit the MediaWiki:Monobook.css and MediaWiki:Common.css, like {{featured article}} or {{Spoken Wikipedia boilerplate}} (template:click was substituted in those template to found the pages using it directly, but all the problems still remain in them), and I even proposed to discuss it here when a wikipedian showed his disagreement, the wikipedian who put the disputed tag. And yes, I removed the tag yesterday but I'd like to tell why: said wikipedian showed his objections about the project in several talk pages and put the disputed tag, so no more changes were made until a consensus was reached. We answered all of his questions and in all talk pages he protested he was said that the project is OK. But after that first contributions, he didn't participate anymore in the discussion nor explained more his objections, in fact he didn't reply any of our questions and seemed no further interest in the project. So after one week (and after some personal messages to please participate again on the discussion or else to remove the tag if he didn't have more objections) I removed the tag and started again to replace the template:click. But please note that I did that not only because while the project was stalled the accessibility and usability problems created by template:click were still present in Wikipedia, but because every day new pages were starting to use the template (so more and more pages were inaccessible). The ImageMap extension is good news because this means template:click has an easy and quick replacement (well, when the bugs are worked out). I promise to modify all of the pages where template:click removed to use the new extension. Best regards, --surueña 16:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't get it. You need to not do *anything* until other people look at this and consensus is reached. pschemp | talk 19:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Psuedoscience importance

I think importance is really subjective. There are plenty of articles about the made up technologies if science fiction books and tv shows.But psuedoscience articles are labelled as important to only a small number of people, and therefore not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Even if they aren't true, psuedoscience is important for other reasons.Why do people invent this stuff. What similarities do they have to so-called "real" science?

NPOV requires a tag saying-this is not consensus among scientists.But I would like to argue for more leniency in the case of articles considered Psuedoscience. After all, every scientific theory was unproved, and therefore psuedoscience, at one time.

Just because only a few people believe in a theory doesn't neccessarily mean it's IMPORTANT to only a few people.A lot of people might be interested in what a few whackos think.

I'm sure a lot of people have opinions on importance.But that's my 2c.

I make is stupid -- Puddytang 05:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

... Was there anything this was a response to? And what was that last sentence? No, none of this really makes sense at all. --Golbez 05:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is the relevant guideline here, I think.As for Why do people invent this stuff. What similarities do they have to so-called "real" science?, that sort of information belongs in the pseudoscience article if not already there (I've not looked) - not your thoughts or opinons, though, but comments by those who have studied such matters.The question, as interesting as it may be, doesn't justify having a bunch of separate articles about impossible things that people claim to have figured out.

Also, please see WP:NOT - Wikipedia isn't designed to have articles on everything that people might find interesting.We're an encylopedia here.If a particular type of pseudoscience has gotten a lot of press (again, WP:RS), then sure, it qualifies for an article - but not Joe-my-neighbor's homebrewed perpetual motion machine or Crazy-Eddie's telling-the-future-even-better-than-before super-Ouija board. -- John Broughton |^(♫♫) 02:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Community ban

I came across this which is just one paragraph of the banning policy copied verbatim into its own page. Only one person contributed to the new page. Not sure what to do with it as it seems completely redundant; could /should it be MfD'd? Or just redirected to the banning policy? Trebor 19:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say redirect it if it's not goint to be expanded. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Was bold and did it. Anyone's free to revert if there's a reason. Trebor 22:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead problem

Please take a look at Singapore Changi Airport. I thought this Lead problem had been resolved with an RfC, but apparently not.--Filll 21:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It may be that someone did not know of the Mediation Cabal's result.I have posted the results on the Talk page, and have removed the problem in the Lead. Blueboar 01:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Mysterious entry

While perusing the List of military aircraft of the United States on English Wikipedia, I found an entry for the YF-24 that holds nothing but Arabic. What is the policy on such a page? Mikieminnow 23:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If the article existed on another language Wikipedia, it could be speedied under A2. As it's not, then the CSD page suggests tagging with Template:Notenglish. As it's only a sentence, that may not be worth it, so perhaps try looking for a translator at WP:BABEL. Trebor 00:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

tagged for Speedy Blueboar 01:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Copying articles from external wikis

What are our conventions on how to acknowledge authorship history when copying material from external, non-Wikimedia wiki sites under GFDL or similar licenses? I am thinking of a site like phantis.com, a free GFDL-licensed wiki about Greece, which some users have taken articles from. This is quite a good and trustworthy site, the copying should be legal and the articles are generally decent and should be highly welcome here. But at the same time, it's not something we should quote as a "reliable source" in terms of WP:V. Adding it as a standard "external link" also doesn't make a whole lot of sense, as it won't provide the reader with more info than they already have in the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Put it in a Source section, explicitly noting that you've used actual content (not just uncopyrightable information) and that it's licensed under the GFDL.Link to the original article, and Wikipedia:Text of the GFDL. You can create a template if this source is being used a lot. Superm401 - Talk 12:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe a template might be a good idea. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but either way we need to do the first part. Superm401 - Talk 13:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I found Category:Attribution templates, and created Template:Phantiswiki accordingly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Template:Phantiswiki can not be used for attribution/reference to a reliable source (as in WP:V, WP:RS, WP:ATT, etc);
• The copyright status of http://wiki.phantis.com is very unclear: it refers to "Free", but doesn't have a copy of the GFDL available, there are no copyright indications at the bottom of the main namespace pages (nor to GFDL, nor to copyright-specific pages) etc.
• Arguably, the Phantiswiki website is currently in copyright infringement with Wikipedia on some pages (because of no proper implementation of GFDL, and not mentioning where it got content that was obviously copied from English Wikipedia), e.g. http://wiki.phantis.com/index.php/Phantis:What_Phantis_Wiki_is_not is obviously *not* mentioning where the content of that page came from, not even in edit history http://wiki.phantis.com/index.php?title=Phantis:What_Phantis_Wiki_is_not&action=history (and the talk page is empty).
• Therefore also the risk of circularity-via-external-copy, as mentioned in the last bullet of Wikipedia:Don't use internal sources for verification#Content displayed in Main namespace is more than real, only confirming the point above that Template:Phantiswiki should never be used in a (content) verifiability logic, and that it would probably be best to do away with that template altogether (it's not as if Phantiswiki seems to give much attention to sound referencing...).
• If notwithstanding all the above, content is copied from Phantiswiki, best to follow the 1st point regarding "Record information" of the (internal) transwiki procedure, see m:Help:Transwiki#Begin transwiki: "On the [...] talk page, copy and paste the original page's history log under a new heading [...] If there are only a few authors, you can note them in your [...] edit summary instead", plus notification of the URL where you copied the material from of course in edit summary or on talk page (for which no template is needed in main namespace either). --Francis Schonken 14:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify what I said already in the first post above, I never proposed using phantiswiki as a source in the sense of WP:V. It's just that I happened to come across articles that were apparently copied from there and was wondering how best to "legalize" them in GFDL terms. They are decent little biography articles; their being unsourced in WP:V terms is an issue that must be tackled independently. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • See last bullet of my comments above. When the edit summary of the "import" step doesn't seem to mention anything, making a circumstantial report on the talk page of the article seems the most obvious way of handling it. The only other solution I see is handling it as a WP:COPYVIO (import of unauthorised material). --Francis Schonken 15:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I've contacted an admin at phantis and asked him to comment; I hope at least the problem about what license is intended on their side should be clarified soon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

New Sock Puppet Policy Proposed

To deal with the fact that none of us are answering the reports at the failed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, I have proposed a new way of dealing with users approaching admins about potential abuse of sock puppets. Please see:

• Wikipedia:Simple sock puppets
• Wikipedia:Complex sock puppets

Robdurbar 14:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Three strike system for deleting images

While deleting fair use images of living people is valid, far too many users delete without deleting references to the images themselves. This create complete and utterly horrible looking articles, and references to non-existent material. I have noticed this inaccusable act of lazyness in three users over the last month or so, without even trying to look for such descrepencies.

Take for example this electorial district article, which from November 27 to today lasted in such a delapitated state.

I propose that we have a three strike system for sysops deleting images CSD:I7. If they delete images without removing references to that images within the next two hours of the image deletion, they can be issued a warning by any registered user. This warning will be recorded on a special page.

If any user receives three or more warnings, they must stop deleting images for a period of a week, sufficient time for other users to locate all the mess they may have made. If they try to delete images during this time, they will loose admin priviliges. This process repeats itself once the ban on deleting images is over, indefinitely.--Zanimum 15:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as uploaders are not the only ones who can fix missing source info or improve a fair use rationale, deleters are not the only ones who can do peripheral cleanup by removing links.Because this is a collaborative project, no one has to do everything themselves and we can all fix problems we identify, no matter who did the initial work.Yes, it would be best if a deleter removed all the links to the image they deleted, but we're all volunteering here, and not all of us can dedicate continuous, extended periods of time (my losing lottery ticket last night ensured that—damn you, astronomical odds); sometimes all we have time to do is a few minutes of editing here and there which may not allow us to complete a task before the real world intrudes and yanks us away.Postdlf 16:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. If an admin is consistently deleting images, without clearing up links, then try leaving a message on their talk page about it, and see how they respond. While ideally, they would be able to delete all the links, it's easily arguable that deleting fair-use images that are being used wrongly is more important than removing the links. There's no need for a complex bureaucratic system of warnings and desysopping. Trebor 16:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

And if they don't, as is the case with User:Betacommand, the most recent repeat offender? It just seems disgusting that they are so lazy. And this wasn't a proposal for de-sysoping only honour system.--Zanimum 17:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with red links, especially for images on articles. It's about just as good (if not better) than a reqphoto on the talk page. Someone may see it and go "I have a free image I can upload to fill this void". Lots of them would look ugly. Perhaps a script could be written to aid the deleters, where when they click the delete it then opens up each page/article that the image is used on, searches for the image filename and highlights it and then the user just has to delete the caption text manually. Should be highly doable IMHO, but slightly beyond my skills (and capabilities, since I can't delete images to test this). --MECU≈talk 17:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

(to Zanimum) The message you've left gives the wrong impression; nobody on Wikipedia must do anything (beyond following the core policies), it's a volunteer project. You can't warn someone for doing this, either. And if you leave a message in that manner describing their behaviour as "unacceptable" (again, a fairly meaningless term - is there a list of acceptable behaviour?), you're going to get their backs up. A friendly message asking them civilly to delete links is far more likely to engender a considered response and a change in ways. Trebor 17:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's a volunteer project, so we can't force people to do particular things. But these users are all admins who have chosen to take on the task? Why shouldn't we make sure that they do the task right? If I were to block someone without leaving a reason, that would be unacceptable on the English Wikipedia, as every administrator is expected to fully follow through on this action.--Zanimum 18:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Note, yet another image deletion that I stumbled upon. I was searching this guy's name, as he was listed as contributor to an upcoming book.--Zanimum 18:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be kind of cool to make a template to go along with the existing talk page {{reqphoto}}, that sits on the side of the article where a photo would go as a placeholder and tell people "replace me!" like an expand tag. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

While I personally agree this would be a great way of gradually phasing out fair use, these contributors are trying to remove things ASAP, as "Jimbo told me to". Note that Jimmy is not the entire Wikimedia Foundation board.--Zanimum 18:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

High school articles

One argument in favor of fairly broad guidelines for including high schools is that an existing article can be built upon when something newsworthy happens at the school. For example, today there was a fatal stabbing at Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School. Luckily, there already was an adequate article on the school to which details on the stabbing could be added. --Eastmain 21:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I would answer with a question: "Are we running a newspaper of an encyclopedia?" Clearly many love to add the news as it happens, but is this a primary role for the encyclopedia? Is this stabbing more notable as it happened in a school? David D. (Talk) 21:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I might win the Nobel Peace Prize tomorrow but that doesn't justify writing an article about me now.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Besides, I wasn't gonna stab that kid until I confirmed there was a wikipedia article first, to be sure it would be properly noted.zadignose 19:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

warning about explicit content

I'd like to ask whether people are obliged to put some warning (like "contains explicit content")when they link to some external websites with the explicit content. If not, do you plan anything like that or can you somehow take care of this for benefit of the underage? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.113.69.26 (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

I know I've seen some, but it's probably not necessary. Wikipedia is not censored for the underaged. --tjstrf talk 01:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no specific policy or guideline, and editors are certainly not obliged to do so, but I myself would recommend it. Yuser31415 05:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Explicit content" is silly and vague.If it's non-obvious from the link (linking to a porn star's official site, for example), then it might be a good idea to say what the link contains.Nevada-tan's links contain some violent images, and it's better to say that rather than "explicit content" which could be anything. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Warning labels are a slippery slope. You put one on today for sex, then tomorrow and violence or bad language, and before you know it you've got warning notices on The Holocaust advising the it might contain quotes form senior NAZI or from revisionists, and one the Iraq war saying that it might contain surrendermongering.

I am not necessarily convinced by slippery slope arguments - a warning label for an external link to a porn site does not necessarily lead to a warning label for websites about evolution or gay marriage.The slippery-slope argument is the one I see most frequently used in discussions of whether to mitigate explicit content in some way.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There is more than enough software out there that parents and schools can buy that blocks access to pages containing sexual or obscene text or unsuitable image tags, if parents and teachers choose not to use them, and therefore choose to allow their children to access unsuitable wikipages, you can hardly blame wikipedia.perfectblue 09:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

An example or two might really help.In particular, are there any cases where the reader would be surprised that he/she was going to an explicit site if he/she clicked on a link?

Slippery slopes are not the only argument against them, there's also mission creep. Today you're tagging a porn site with a naked woman, tomorrow it's a bikini model site, the next day it's a child beauty pageant site.

The problem is that when you open the door to warning labels you tend to attract people whose mission in life is to add warning labels, and they tend to go to extremes. If you add a label warning of porn, pretty soon the above kind of user will start adding it to anything with remotely suggestive content, or even things without suggestive content, but which somebody could possibly be offended by.

perfectblue 07:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• WP:PEREN, WP:NDT. The short answer is 'no'. >Radiant< 15:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Enterprises

I was looking up policies regarding enterprises and came across this article/policy: Articles_about_ongoing_enterprises.Can someone tell me why it is archived? It seems reasonable.Did something take its place?Alex Jackl 06:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page of the proposed policy, it looks like it never got any traction.The basic argument against it seemed to be that everything was (more-or-less) already in other places (see, for example, the list of "See also" policies and guidelines on the proposal page).

For the section you linked to, I'd guess that Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is the most relevant of existing guidelines.-- John Broughton |^(♫♫) 02:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!It is too bad - I may take a stab at resurrecting it.Let me do some more research. Alex Jackl 18:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:DELPRO and extra "social" restrictions on non-admins

WP:ADMIN says that non-admins may behave exactly as admins, except for the extra capabilities that admins have. This is backed up on the same page by Jimbo's assertion that adminship is "not a big deal" and that he wants to "dispel the aura of "authority" around the position". Nevertheless, Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions creates new, purely social, restrictions on how and when non-admins may close deletion discussions "keep", which of course they are capable of doing. I propose changing DELPRO to dispel the aura of authority around adminship per Jimbo and bring it into line with WP:ADMIN, please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Social restrictions on non-admin behaviour. —Ashley Y 05:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are we free?

If this is the wrong place to discuss this, forgive me, but I can't seem to find a better place.

This has bugging me for some time, and I can't really seem to understand it. Why do we strive so hard to make Wikipedia so completely free? I'm not talking about free to access, but free to take and use.

Why do we encourage derivative works such as how answers.com uses us when it will always be inferior to the actual article hosted on Wikipedia? Why can't we edit Wikipedia articles for Wikipedia? It seems stupid to not allow copyrighten images that we've obtained permission to use just because we can't let anyone else use them. It doesn't matter if someone mirrors the page, prints it in a book, or puts it on a CD. In the end, the online article will always be better, more up to date, and what people will actually use.

The goal may be to spread knowledge and information, but in reality it ends up stagnating it. How does having the same (but slightly inferior) information repeated accross a thousand other websites do anyone any good? I've actually come accross the problem of doing research on a subject, only to have difficulty finding original information because now everyone is too lazy to write their own summaries of a subject, as they can just use what Wikipedia has to say. Free information is bad, as it becomes the only information. Wikipedia is like the smart kid in class that lets everyone copy off of him, and now nobody else feels like doing their own homework anymore.

except it's not original research, wikipedia is just a compilation of info from other sources. So new work can still be done. Wikipedia just shares what is known.SpookyMulder 13:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the ideal, but in my initial experience here, I've found that poorly referenced or uncited material used in some articles, often inaccurate, gets mirrored and repeated all across the web for long spans of time, so that later when the time comes to correct and improve an article, all the web hits seem to support the inaccurate original... it has "staked a claim" so to speak, and diseminated misinformation that's mirrored back in every search attempting to find more accurate data.An uncommon or improper word usage can become the most common word usage because so many people seem to turn to wikipedia as an authority on such matters.This of course, merely suggests that quality control in the early stages is more critical than some might think, and that crude research and arguments based on google hit counts are spurious.zadignose 19:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

So aside from say, a teacher printing off a Wikipedia page to help teach class, how does being so free actually benefit anyone?--SeizureDog 10:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's part of an overarching ideal of the founders, the actual benefit is probably minimal. Read Copyleft.--tjstrf talk 10:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an open content project, pure and simple.Many of us would not be here were that not the case.Why would I spend hundreds of hours of my time just to increase someone else's store of intellectual property?Even if that "someone" is a nonprofit foundation.

Re your wider point -- that free information is harmful -- I think the real problem is in accessibility rather than freeness.There are many proprietary sites that have a similar effect in specific fields; FishBase and AlgaeBase come to mind.Nobody wants to put the work into duplicating those sites' herculean efforts, not even on an open-content project such as Wikispecies.This is not really a huge problem, IMO; it's just part of the growth of human knowledge. -- Visviva 10:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree here.Having a free (even if a bit convoluted) license guarantees that the content will never die.If the Wikimedia Foundation does, someone can easily bring the project back to life.Moreover, the internet isn't even an option in some places, like Africa; making the project free lets people distribute it in whatever format they want.Several projects have made interesting uses of Wikipedia content offline.For example, there is a project to put article on iPods, and several CD projects. Also, some online forks of Wikipedia are interesting.Wikipedia can't satisfy everyone, so it's good that others can take our content for our own agenda.If you want to help Wikipedians enforce the GFDL, please see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks.On a related note to this, also see #Copyright below. Superm401 - Talk 21:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• If the source is credited, how is answers.com quoting wikipedia different from someone quoting it in any other published work? Where do you draw the line? --Infrangible 04:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Images on the main page (user experience)

The description page of images which appear on the main page should always contain a link to the English Wikipedia article the topic of the image so that when someone clicks on an image on the main page, they don't have to go back to click the link to the article about it. e.g. Image:Raccoon_(Procyon_lotor)_2.jpg does have a link, while Image:Playoffs_021_crop.jpg which currently appears on the main page has no link (currently) from the image description page to what it's about. I've been adding these links to wildlife-related images but it's quite frustrating that other sysops don't do it. It makes for a horrible user experience not having anywhere to go after blowing up an image of interest from the main page, and as the images descriptions are always locked, normal users cannot fix it. —Pengo^{talk · contribs} 09:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Frustrating? A little I suppose. But really, how hard is it to hit backspace? --tjstrf talk 12:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good thing to remind people of, but if they miss it, you can always propose an edit on the talk page of the image with {{editprotected}}. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a frustrating and confusing user experience straight off the main page, and it makes Wikipedia suck. Wikipedia might be a popular site, but disregard for user experience isn't going make anyone stick around. Making a link be policy would make Wikipedia suck less. Doing the "editprotected" thing is a good idea, except images don't appear on the main page that long, and users are already frustrated by the time a fix happens. —Pengo^{talk · contribs} 03:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually totally agree here, it is really irritating and honestly doesn't benefit anybody.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Image pages have the file links section at the bottom, no? --Infrangible 04:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Film Notability, and Notability in general

It seems we need a guideline to define notability for film articles.Currently, the guideline seems stalled out, but a few people are looking for input to get the process going again.

I have my own perspective, but limited experience in these matters.My first basic question is, "are the notability requirements on Wikipedia intentionally loose?"That is, is it preferred to have a largely open door policy that allows vast amounts of articles with little claim to notability, or is it preferred to set a high hurdle for articles to clear?

As it is, films generally get reviewed in multiple publications, which makes "multiple published works" apply to literally tens of thousands of films if we regard reviews as "non-trivial" and "reliable."The current films guideline seems to take this approach.

Other loose standards are permitted, including major studio releases of feature films, which again in itself allows tens of thousands of films, whether or not these can reasonably regarded as "notable."There is a clause allowing films released nationwide in a country (presumably this means commercial releases outside festivals), or on 200 screens worldwide (which is a hard hurdle to clear, but only denotes popularity, not notability).

I may be a lone voice in the wilderness, as many people seem to want a further loosening up of the standards before endorsing the guideline, whereas I think it needs very tough, strict standards, which I commented on here.

What's the general feeling on this?I'm I just being too much of a hard ass?Is simply having one's work flickered in front of the eyes of a few thousand people, a couple of whom hold pens in their hands, enough to ensure eternal notability?Can some kind of consensus be found?zadignose 15:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any examples of film articles that you'd like a tightened notability guideline to exclude?Postdlf 16:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if very strict criteria can be applied in films, but I am sure that Wikipedia:Notability (films) has to become reactivated. I have posted messages in various directions about it, but no one seems to be willing or able to tackle this problem. I know it would be very very hard to try to limit contributors. If notability for a film is simply that it has been screened or released in Home Video/DVD, we have a long and unsure way to go. Not very long ago, a WP Films member started adding endless lists of films from other countries. It took us quite an effort, including AfD's, to get them out of main namespace and into WP Films space. The result can be seen in the by-country lists here: WP Films/List of films without article, which I had originally started as a sub-project to deal with existing red-linked films (in filmographies and entered in various lists), some of which may be important, but not as critically important as films found in Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable films. The user has started filtering the "red" lists for notability (not sure by what exacly criteria) and an example of the results in main namespace can be seen here: List of Argentine films:1960s. I write all this to show to Village Pump that it is very hard to work without film notability guidelines. As project, we are nowhere close to defining them soon. We could surely use some expert help. Hoverfish Talk 16:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As for what should be excluded, I'm not sure.Is it fair to say "most of them?"Well, here are a few semi-randomly selected titles that we can discuss, regarding their notability:

• Vegas_In_Space
• Howling_VI:_The_Freaks
• The_Indian_Runner
• Frog_and_Wombat
• Childstar
• Def_by_Temptation

And, yeah, I know I picked on troma films by including two of theirs.

I also know that one of the listed films was directed by Sean Penn, stars some famous actors, got some positive press, may even have been good, but it slipped between the cracks.There are a lot of such movies, and we have to evaluate how notable such films really are, whether or not we WANT them to be notable.So we have a spectrum of notability to discuss.zadignose 17:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability is a low bar to ensure that there's enough material for an article.We're here specifically to catch the things that may have slipped between the cracks.If it's gotten any significant press, positive or negative, that's secondary sources.We want those tens of thousands of articles, since WP:NOT paper, we can fit as many movie articles as you can throw at it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Night Gyr is right here.WP:N in essence is really only to make sure an article meets WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT.As long as a film has enough secondary material to write an article with, why not have an article?ColourBurst 03:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:N#Rationale_for_requiring_a_level_of_notability, "In order to have a neutral article, a topic must be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources; and that those interested in the article will not be exclusively partisan or fanatic editors."This at least suggests that notability is of value in itself, ensuring at least some degree of general interest.It is also stated that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia."But if notability was really just a hurdle to ensure verifiability, then so long as a person's name, address, telephone number, and date of birth could be verified, there'd be no reasonable argument for excluding this information.Wikipedia would, indeed, become an indiscriminate collection of information if being true and verifiable were the only standards for inclusion.And to paraphrase the rationale presented above, we might want those tens of thousands of articles, since we can fit as many indiscriminate pieces of information into Wikipedia as you can throw at it."Why not" have an article about my Uncle Pete?

I maintain that Wikipedia is, and should be interested in limiting it's articles to truly notable material.And I find that the standards for film are conspicuously absent.

Compare with the recently deleted article on the song 2 Much Booty (In Da Pants), which is definitely "verifiable," has been used in the soundrack of a "major motion picture," and has appeared on multiple music charts including Billboard's Top 100, but it was deleted for being insuficiently notable... because WP:NSONGS actually sets reasonably high standards of notability.Film could do this too.I suggest that it should. zadignose 06:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a good reason we wouldn't have the sort of article you refer to, with name, phone number, address: WP:NOT#DIR.The kinds of sources you refer to fall into "trivial coverage," because they don't provide enough information for an encyclopedic article.We're WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, we are an encyclopedia.Our only limitation is the availability of nontrivial information.Also, WP:NSONGS failed to gather consensus, because there is not that much support for higher standards of popularity. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

But doesn't your designation of "trivial" information depend on some standard of "notability?"I know that it's been said that Wikipedia is NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, but it certainly resembles one.And the question should be raised, "why shouldn't it be an indiscriminate collection of information?"Without basic notability standards, the answer would have to be "it should be."Only if you really believe that non-notable articles should be excluded, for the sake of Wikipedia's overall quality, can you form any rational argument against the indiscriminate collection of information.And dare I say it?I think the main reason that a guideline like WP:NSONGS can't gather consensus is because most editors are too enamoured of their pet projects, favorite bands, and their role as indiscriminate collector of trivia to be willing to embrace a tough standard of notability.By and large, the editors want the bands, and films and songs they LIKE to be recorded here, without concern for the general quality of the encyclopedia.It's time to start making some tough judgments, or else stop the farce of claiming that we have standards.zadignose 06:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOT#PAPER, and understand that the existence of articles on topics that you don't think matter does you no harm, nor harm to the encyclopedia. Notability for wikipedia is not the same as notability anywhere else; it's not anyone's subjective standard, it's a basic line where we agree enough information is possible for an article, not that we agree the subject particularly matters on any scale. There's no harm in having articles about minor topics, if they're up to the same quality level as everything else.Only when quality is impossible should we delete.Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've read it multiple times now, and apparently don't interpret it the same way that you do.I think that the fact that it says there is no limit on articles "other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page," combined with the initial paragraph's stated interest in "building a high-quality encyclopedia," the concept of "trivial information" that we've discussed above, and the guidelines on notability, all suggest that some verifiable material can be excluded for being non-notable, even if the possibility of writing a thorough article on the subject exists.zadignose 07:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Except that a person's name, telephone number, etc won't be enough to write an article from (see WP:STUB and WP:SD for a definition of what constitutes "enough context"), and if a person tries to pad the information somehow, in almost all cases s/he will pad it from their own knowledge of the subject or from primary sources, which is a violation of WP:NOR.ColourBurst 14:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

So, is it correct to assume that according to Wikipedia policy every film that has been screened (or circulated in VHS/DVD) by a known distributor is eligible for an article? Hoverfish Talk 16:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

According to policy, yes, as long as it's verifiable. All notability standards are just guidelines. Kafziel ^Talk 16:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not fond of the designation "just" guidelines, though, as guidelines are actionable, and can have a significant influence on the shape of wikipedia.I'm not suggesting you meant it in any dismisive manner, of course, but I'd like to assert that by drafting a well thought out guideline, we can positively effect the quality of the encyclopedia's coverage of articles within the scope of films.zadignose 19:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm repeating here what I posted at the film project page, so forgive me, but I'd like to see some more opinions focused on this discussion.I've recently made significant edits to the guideline, and would like to solicit further discussion in the relevant talk page.I seem to have become the recent outspoken proponent of tougher guidelines, but I would like to seek reasonble compromise, and find some workable solutions.I think that my recent efforts at least demonstrate a sincere interest in drafting a sensible guideline that isn't "all inclusive," but might help improve the quality of our coverage of notable films.Thank you.zadignose 16:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Dozens of links to a good site

Hello all. This morning I found that external links to the USGS had been posted to the articles of every state and territory of the USA in the course of a few hours by Spydrlink (Talk|contribs). I have witnessed previous cases where an editor posted dozens of links to useful, reputable sites- and they were all deleted as spam. Is there a real consensus on that though? I wanted to ask the user about this on his talk page, but I'm not even sure how to approach it since I'm not sure if he/she actually violated any policies. His last edit was to the USGS page itself, so perhaps it's a case of WP:COI? I don't know. Comments please! --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 17:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a useful addition, and it's not as if it's a commercial site. USGS actually has a lot of interesting information. Fan-1967 17:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The manner in which it was done was kind of spammish, but I wouldn't say it's really spam. The template {{{{Geolinks-US-streetscale}} performs a similar function but adds multiple links to commercial sites like Google and Yahoo, and it's perfectly acceptable. It's even expected. Kafziel ^Talk 17:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

But should it be cluttering up the External links section if it's not referenced in the article yet? I can't say I care for it when somebody slaps a link up and doesn't add anything substantive to the article. To me it's like saying, "I'm too busy/important to actually write anything— here's a reference, go write something about it, flunky!", but maybe I'm taking too personally! Maybe a good idea would to be to have a "Potential references" section on the talk page.--Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 15:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's a gray area. But if you look at the person's edit history and see that they created an account five minutes before putting the link there, or if all their edits seem to revolve around the organization or product pointed to by the link, then its probably spam. --Infrangible 04:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

wiki import to wiki books can original artilce lacking sources be deleted?

I am interested in beginning a topic in wikipedia which has the same as an article that was successfully transwikiedto wikibooks where it was appropriately renamed (by me)to reflect its non NPOV.

Can the Wikipedia article be deleted? I can't seem to rename it because it was moved yet it holds a general title.

It is also not sourced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_training

Tintina 05:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove the irrelevant content (with a good edit summary and possibly explanation on talk) and write encyclopedic content!I don't see how moving Dog training to Positive Only Dog Training is NPOV.It's completely reasonable that this article has a general title.It should incorporate all significant training methodologies eventually. Superm401 - Talk 08:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The POV exists throughout the text, that is why I renamed to reflect the POV it expresses. I entered talk comments with this explanation. It is written as a MPOV. The sourcing is problematic for this article. In the meantime the renaming is more accurate.

I want to reintroduce the topic from a broader perspective, including some history.

Essentially my question is: as the article has been transwikied to Wikibooks what happens to editing in Wikipedia under the original title? I'm looking for the simplest, cleanest way to treat the whole topic.

I was reluctant to continue in Wikipedia as I'm not clear about the transwiki to Wikibooks. Do the edits automatically end up in wikibooks?

Thank you.Tintina 16:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As described at m:Help:Transwiki, it seems pretty clear that it's a one-time transfer.Further edits to the Wikipedia article stay in that article; they don't also transfer.-- John Broughton |^(♫♫) 02:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to lay this out more clearly article #1 titled Dog Training transW to Wikibooks and renamed (I did not transwiki-someone else did)Pos Only Dog Training (as that is what the article reflected.) Perhaps others have not worked on this over the same issue-I don't know. the original title Dog Training exists in wikipedia so cannot be transwikied again. If the wikipedia article is deleted will the title Dog Training become free to reuse?it seems there would be no point working on the wikipedia version if it cannot be transwikied into wikibooks and into theDog Portal. It means working on two different formats of the same thing. As there is not a single source in the article I would like to delete it. editors have been absent for quite some time (months). If the existing wikipedia article is edited over it is orphaned in wikipedia unable to migrate to wikibooks UNLESS there is a way to change to the title or to reclaim it after deletion.

Tintina 03:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Query,talk page entrys demonstrating a solution/extra information about an article or subject ONLY by quoting widely known and definitively proved information in a linked context,Valid or not valid? 76.0.39.38 01:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Iron Head76.0.39.38 01:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Image protocols

I wonder about the protocols regarding uploading images. In particular, I was reading a (motor vehicle) page tonight, and several images uploaded showed the user's personal vehicle in states of aftermarket upgrade. In addition, the comments attached indicate that the sole purpose of the upload was/is to use Wikipedia as a showcase - not the intention of the project, I believe. Any protocols for replacing with stock photos of the vehicle model, or would an addition be the best course? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PKBear (talk • contribs) 07:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

If the photos are good and under a free license they are preferable to the manufacturer's photographs because they are under less (or even no) copyright regulation. Whether he's showcasing his car doesn't even come into the picture. --tjstrf talk 11:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, a heavily riced Honda Civic isn't a good subject for illustrating the article Honda Civic. --Carnildo 23:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The chance that such an image will be able to pass as the standard for that model decreases with each subsequent view of that article. In other words, good Wikipedia editors would be careful to mention in the caption of the image that the car is "riced" or whatever, and if they forget, the next editor who sees it might change it, and if that editor doesn't notice anything fishy, the next editor to see it might change it, etc.− Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Some cars (and the Civic is a sad example) are notable for how frequently they are 'riced'.I don't think it's at all unreasonable to show one decent picture of a severely riced Civic to illustrate that fact.I'd draw the line at one though.One photo to illustrate the concept - that's plenty - and it's assuming there is accompanying text explaining that Civic's in general are popular amongst people who do these kinds of things.I wouldn't want to see a photo of a riced Rolls Royce on that car's article - those cares are very seldom riced so the presence of such a photo would be misleading...but the Civic...yeah, sure.All other photos should be as representative of a shiney new Civic as possible.But don't let the riced photo be in the 'infobox' at the top of the page - and make very sure that you indicate in the photo caption that this is not standard equipment for that make and model year. In my Mini article there is a photo of the car converted to look like a giant Orange(!) - it's not stock - but it's an appropriate photo to back up the explanation of how these care were very well suited to that kind of radical surgery!But the car in the info-box is pretty much stock - that's what we must strive for.There is a tendancy for car nuts to put 'vanity' photos of their cars into the articles - but actually, that's not such a terrible thing.One photo of a car in stock condition - nicely taken - in front of a suitable background - that's fine.What do our readers care who owns the car?Half a dozen photos of the same car...Hell no! SteveBaker 03:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Balance

I've run into a dispute with another user over a section that is essentially recording criticism of an experiment and a rebuttal to that criticism. The other user says that the section is unbalanced because the criticism goes into more depth than the rebuttal so they have deleted the entire of the section (both criticism and rebuttal). They've done this 4 times (though outside of the 3RR time period), and I've repeatedly asked them to either tag the section as being disputed, or to expand the rebuttal themselves, but they have continued to delete it and have stated that it should be me who expands the rebuttal because it was me who wrote the criticism section.

Are there any specific policies that I can quote to them which say that disputed sections should be tagged rather than deleted, that balance is best resolved by strengthening the weaker side of the argument rather than deleting the strong side, or that if you think that something is unbalanced, you can't demand that the original author balance it themselves but instead should do it yourself?

(The factual accuracy and verifiability are not in dispute, only the balance between criticism and rebuttal).

perfectblue 13:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV#Undue_weight? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And maybe WP:POINT - deleting valid content is disruptive.In general, Wikipedia:Resolving disputes lays out the process for content disputes, as you're probably aware; you can, if informal discussions fail, escalate this to (say) a request for third opinions.-- John Broughton |^(♫♫) 02:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you do if the persons are anon and do not discuss?Tintina 02:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You follow Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.If he/she won't discuss and it's only the two of you, then for example, you use the third opinion approach.(What you really want is a couple more editors dealing with the specifics, not just speculating, as we're doing here.)-- John Broughton |^(♫♫) 03:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Minority dispute of majority

I do not like conflict. However, I have noticed a number of disagreements here on WP where a Mediation or RfC is held, and overwhelming support for one position is expressed, but one or two people disagree. These dissenters then fight a rear guard action, reverting changes agreed to, subverting community consensus, driving away other editors, etc. I have witnessed this at black people. I have witnessed this at Singapore Changi Airport. I have recently been told by a dissenting editor that the other 25 editors that disagreed with him were "deranged". Of course, this might be correct, but how does one give much credence to one person who claims everyone else is wrong, in the face of all evidence to the contrary?--Filll 16:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You think you have it bad, you try working on a contentious article about the paranormal involving either urban myth or pseudoscience. You always get at least one really pedantic user who demands that people only use peer reviewed journals as sources, even though the odds of finding a peer review journal that deals with even the most notable urban myth etc is minimal.

perfectblue 16:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That can make it impossible. At least on the evolution and creationism articles that I work with, we have not had that problem (yet, as far as I know anyway). I am glad to cite the nonpeer-reviewed nonsense of creationists because I think it is dangerous to not know what the other side is thinking. I want the biggest pile of evidence of their position in their own words possible, because it is interesting and valuable and informative. And if one wants to argue against them, very often their own words and sources will end up hanging them. And I think the readers deserve to see the unvarnished evidence on all sides (of course the creationism situation is a bit more serious at least in the US and some Muslim countries where we might end up with making science illegal).--Filll 17:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone who disregards consensus in his/her continued editing is considered to be a disruptive editor.Per Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, a user who disregards consensus as established in RfCs and mediation can be taken to the Arbitration Committee, which has not at all been hesitant to wield its hammer.There is absolutely no need to tolerate a disruptive editor, though you do have to be a bit patient to let the process proceed.-- John Broughton |^(♫♫) 03:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Blanking User Talk Pages

I have recently become aware of a user who routinely blanks his own talk page. It doesn't appear that he is trying to hide something, such as warnings, but is rather just blanking everything left on the page without archiving it. Is there an official Wikipedia policy regarding this sort of action, and if so, is there a template regarding it? i haven't been able to find one, but I'd appreciate any insight. Chuck Norris' IQ can be expressed simply as a sideways eight. 16:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, as far as I am concerned, there's no official policy against a user blanking his own talk page. PeaceNT 16:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

So there's no reason that that is illigitimate or controversial? It just seems to me that it defeats one of the purposes of talk pages, but if theres no policy, I'll just let it stand. Chuck Norris' IQ can be expressed simply as a sideways eight. 16:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing warnings immediately is frowned upon (see {{removewarn}}). Otherwise, there is no policy that says that user pages have to be archived. Many users remove comments once they have been addressed. The talk page history is a permanent record in any event. CMummert · talk 16:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear this user is trying to remove/hide any warnings, so I guess that answers my question. Chuck Norris' IQ can be expressed simply as a sideways eight. 18:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I do the same thing on my user talk page ... leaving a few posts that contain links to tags and policy pages etc. that I find usefull.Why?1) I find it easier to see any new messages I get. 2) I find no reason to keep a long chain of outdated, now meaningless messages on my talk page once the exchange of messages is no longer relevant to anything I am doing.I know that if someone needs to retrieve a comment or an exchange (or if someone suspects that I am trying to hide something), they can always find everything I delete in the edit history anyway. So it's not "gone".No, the fact that someone blanks their user page or user talk page is not always an idication of "something to hide"... sometimes it's just the way they like to do things.Blueboar 19:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is my pet peeve about many users' talk pages.When I want to find an older topic, it is much faster to search archives (you have a handy like to the pages and you don't have to hunt as much) than to search history (which forces you to check every change).

That is why when I wanted to clear some of the clutter from my own page, I installed George Money's Auto-Archive system.It does all the work without requiring a bot.I never ask something of other users that I would not do myself.

Besides, I had some users delete conversations that weren't complete.They responded on my talk page and deleted the post from theirs.That left me with no way to reply other than to restore the post. Will (Talk - contribs) 19:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

But the point is, there is no official policy against it, at least according to what everyone has said so far, so I have no way of compelling anyone to maintain an archive of their talk page if they don't choose to. Is there any reason this statement is incorrect? Chuck Norris' IQ can be expressed simply as a sideways eight. 19:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a pretty odd case of this.An editor made comments about me on her talk page, ones that were demonstrably false (that I reverted something, when the diffs show I didn't).When I asked for clarification or pointed out that it was false, she just deleted my response but left her comments.After a couple tries, I tried deleting her false statement but she just reverted that.It seems to me that if someone is going to make comments about me, particularly false ones, I should have the right to respond to those comments.Any suggestions on how to deal with this?--Milo H Minderbinder 20:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Summon an admin via WP:ANI.They either aren't being civil or they are making a personal attack on you.I would also considering adding a NPA warning template like {{npa2}}.Be sure to subst it. Will (Talk - contribs) 21:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Because of this example, and I'm sure others, it seems like it would be a good policy decision to instate a rule requiring a user to archive their talk page if they wish to clear it for ease of use or any other reason. This isn't tecnilogically difficult, and you can even install programs that do it for you automatically. It seems like that would defeat any issues like that above, as well as people trying to hide warnings. I know that the counter arguement is that the history preserves everything anyway, but it simply isn't efficient to search through. Any thoughts? Chuck Norris' IQ can be expressed simply as a sideways eight. 23:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I wrote above.So you have me all for it. Will (Talk - contribs) 23:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My idea though is more general, because this issue isn't just limited to personal attacks. My only worry is whether or not that policy could be broadcasted effectively to new users, and other issues regarding its implimentation and enforcement. Are there any admins in on this discusstion that can give some insight on this issue? Chuck Norris' IQ can be expressed simply as a sideways eight. 23:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• WP:ARCHIVE explains the best way to achive a talk page and why. One possible solution however might involve an addition to the software (if anybody agrees I'll suggest it at bug reports. Essentially, it would mean a link that appears to the user concerned once a user talk page reaches (for example) 120 KB. Clicking the link would move the page to the next appropriate archive name (eg, Archive 3, Archive 4, etc per WP:ARCHIVE), add {{Talkarchive}} to the top and bottom of the page, update an archivebox (perhaps User talk:XYZ/Archivebox), clear the redirect on the main talk page and replace it with the transcluded archivebox. Nearly all the actions required for a full and proper archive in one click. Of course, those who (like me) have a header to their talk page would have to move it over manually, and any active conversations would need to be copied back over to the talk page manually, but it would hopefully mean a lower instance of newbies (and sometimes not-so-newbies) from simply blanking the page. It may even be possible for somebody to first write a script for it to trial it.

I think the idea is good, and might be good to implement eventually, but in the mean time, I suggest that we implement a general policy discouraging the blanking of one's own user talk page. It seems that there are three general categories of users within this topic. The first is well-intentioned newbies, who may clear their own talk page because they don't know any better, and it would be nice to stop that behavior for the purpose of keeping a record. The second is experienced Wikipedia users with a real reason to want their talkpage split into seperate archives, and it seems in general that they would know how to create a user sub-page to archive it, and if they didn't know, the information is easily obtainable. The third category is vandals, who want to clear their talkpage to hide warnings, etc. You say that you can just goo look at the history, but when you look at someone's talkpage for the first time, you don't immedietly click on the history, do you? It just seems to make sense to have it all stay in the same place, or in an archive if its genuinely necessary. Any opinions?

Chuck Norris' IQ can be expressed simply as a sideways eight. 00:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggest again that 'Featured Articles' be semi-protected

Every time we get a new featured article it gets swamped by puerile little twits at school computers who thinks they're being clever, cute or funny. It's a long-known problem and I fail to understand why something hasn't been done about it. Semi-protect the article while it's on the front page and then revert it when it rolls over to something else. Anything on the front page is basically a standing target to these people. HalfShadow 19:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea. It conforms to the old adage, "Out of sight, out of mind." Odds are that as soon as an article passes on its featured status, no one else will bother to vandalize it. It seems that the mere fact that an article has reached featured status should be reason to protect it while its there. If dedicated Wikipedians want to edit it constructively, they can wait until after it isn't featured, because odds are, they won't forget about it like the vandals will. Chuck Norris' IQ can be expressed simply as a sideways eight. 19:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Most "dedicated Wikipedians" wouldn't be directly affected by semi-protection.Only new and unregistered users would be.As has been noted on countless occasions, this would be a terrible introduction to the site.(Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.Here's today's featured article.You can't edit it.")—David Levy 20:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection is explicitly not to be applied pre-emptively or to the day's featured article for an extended period (per the terms under which it was approved by the community).—David Levy 20:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NOPRO for the current status (which is disputed) and discuss there. Trebor 20:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection for some of the commentary on the dispute. Frankly, I'm for at least sem-protection. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[oops, my comment was under the wrong discussion. deleted it] Chuck Norris' IQ can be expressed simply as a sideways eight. 23:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see what I can do to restart the process; we're probably looking at asking for at least a show of hands, if not a formal RfC.Someone might want to ping User:Robdurbar; he's also been a driving force in this.-- John Broughton |^(♫♫) 02:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

User pages used as articles

There is a trend for non-notable footballers to set up their user pages as articles. An example is User:Jonesy702. Is there any policy on this, please? BlueValour 21:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that user is that player. A look at the edit history (be sure to checkout the comments at the AFD!) shows he's got quite a bit of interest. The userpage is supposed to be about the user and/or Wikipedia. You could list this at WP:MFD per WP:USER. You say this is a trend? Can you point to some other examples? You could look at the edit histories to see if they really exist. It's possible for someone to create User:Blah even if user:Blah doesn't exist. This applies under WP:CSD. --MECU≈talk 22:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Another thought I had is he may be using this as a sandbox to get an article ready before "moving" it to article space. Looking at the end history it could be that way. You should ask the user first before MFD (though don't expect a nice reply). --MECU≈talk 22:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any question that the user page, written in the style of a normal article, is about the user himself - is there some other reason why someone would set up a page for a nineteen-year-old football player who has played for two local clubs?Plus his brother has a similar page: User:Stew jones.

And yes, judging by the user's comments regarding an AfD of an article he authored, I would expect CAPITAL LETTERS and obscenities in response to any request that he should follow WP:USER.

This looks like a classic case to report to WP:PAIN, but of course that doesn't exist anymore.I think it's too minor for WP:AN/I, so maybe an MfD would be the most direct route to dealing with these two pages.Wikipedia is not MySpace.com-- John Broughton |^(♫♫) 02:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Autobiographical content

I noted yesterday that Michael Wissot was all edited by a single purpose account that was almost certainly non-biased. I added an autobiography tag, which was then removed, and two new (I would assumed sockpuppet) SPA's arrived to make changes. The subject is probably notable, so I can't really AfD it, but I don't like the fact the the content is probably biased POV. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 22:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I would attempt to warn each user with a template listed on Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace like {{NPOV2}} or {{comment2}}.If needed, you could list the users on WP:SSP.Also note there is a template, {{Socksuspect}}, for marking accounts as possible socks. Will (Talk - contribs) 22:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article; I think it's pretty much NPOV now.Drop me a note if it starts moving in the POV direction, please.(It's on my watchlist, but so are a lot of other things.)-- John Broughton |^(♫♫) 01:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Commercial links

I have seen a gradually increasing contamination of Desert hot springs with commercial links. I had suggested nicely a few times that they put their links only on Wikitravel; I even provided a link in the Exterior links section of the WP article, but they have just been polluting. I am torn but it really is unencyclopedic as near as I can tell. At least if they would write something interesting about themselves I could sort of justify it, but this is just abuse.--Filll 03:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The article definitely reads like an advertisement.Listing a bunch of hotels that have recently been renovated does not seem like something encyclopeadic.I think you have to keep deleting this kind of junk - when challenged as to why you are doing it - there are plenty of guidelines for you to fall back on.Remember the 'three revert rule' though...don't break it.Foremost as always is to challenge the person to come up with suitable references to back up these facts.Secondly, the guidelines for external links specifically tell us not to link to commercial sites in this way.There really isn't much you can do to stop them from doing this.If the case is egregious enough, you could probably find an admin to come in and start blocking the offenders - but unless they are really quite insanely enthusiastic about fighting you on this, you can probably keep the article clean with relatively little effort.Good luck! SteveBaker 03:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

essentially contested concept -handling of BLP or LPB

I believe this is the core of maintaining a NPOV on Cesar Millan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesar_Millan

I have posted a link below, if you are reading and responding to this, you might the lower article first.

"essentially contested concept is one where there is widespread agreement on an abstract core notion itself (e.g., "fairness"), whilst there is endless argument about what might be the best instantiation, or realization of that notion.[4]

Some of the notability of this person revolves around this issue. (controversy) He is in a profession of diverse opinions. He has reached celebrity status.

Although I have internet articles that support that this is indeed the case, there is no published media that describes the issue itself. Controversy is not over a fundamental issue but how that issue should be treated or resolved. The scope of the discussion is a topic in itself and perhaps that is the best way to handle it..if I can think of a title..other than Dog Training (which has been transwikied to wikibooks, prematurely in my mind.)

Can I use internet articles that describe the controversy (essentially contested concept)as there is no other source material that does (that I know of)and I have been researching this for some time (years) prior to editing this article.

I'll provide a link to an overview which I feel reflects this accurately. http://www.puppywishes.com/1601-puppies/Cesar%20Millan%20Vs%20Jean%20Donaldson.html

I feel that any controversy around him should be explained and placed in its proper context. I attempted to do this but an anon user reverted and changed my edit.There is no current discussion other than my own comments.

I would like to proceed with cleaning up this article, but I'm not clear on how to handle it.

Thank you Tintina 05:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

there is no published media that describes the issue itself - then the controversy (issue) is NOT notable and anything you do to describe or summarize it is a violation of WP:NOR.

As to the larger issue of "cleaning up" the article, you should follow Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, which lays out the process, starting with informal discussions (talk page) and up through Arbitration Committee action.It's exceptionally rare, of course, for the latter to be needed.Please (a) follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines - for example, WP:RS with respect what sources are acceptable, and WP:NOR, and (b) abide by what the majority of other editors believe should be done (or not), because no single editor is infallible.-- John Broughton |^(♫♫) 00:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Chinese wikipedia

I don't know if I am at the right place to discuss this, so please redirect me if possible. This is with regards to the censorship of Wikipedia in China. With the alarming growth of Baidu Baike (seriously, Baidu ripped off and took unfair advantage of many Google and other internet trends and are profiting off of them as if it is their own), I am wondering if Wikipedia could take a similar stance to Google and agree to China's censorship demands on the Chinese version of Wikipedia. After all, with the entire Chinese population as an editors base within a year I can guarantee that the content on the Chinese Wikipedia will rival that of the English Wikipedia. I realize this is a great shift in Wikipedia's policies, and one that may require a lot of work, but in the end it is my belief that there is a lot more to gain. With the increasing influence of Wikipedia as a global knowledge base it is a shame to not have the vast majority of Chinese on board. By the end of this year China will have more internet users than any other country in the world, it will be a shame if the knowledge and shared experience of the vast majority of Chinese people are not able to enjoy the potential of Wiki because of a few of their government's policies. Personally I would say Wikipedia has more potential in the world's most populous nation by sacrificing the articles on Falun Gong and 1989 Tiananmen Protests than to uphold a rightful, but impractical moral standard. Colipon+(T) 05:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

NO, people complain enough about it being pro-PRC without it being censored. And this is the wrong place anyway, you need to go to meta. --tjstrf talk 05:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ethics aside, I think allowing these pages to be shown is likely to result in a ban of Wikipedia in its entirety in mainland China, which I think is a far greater loss. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, cowing to the authority of foreign totalitarian governments is a great plan. Are you aware of how much information is censored is some place on earth or other? If someone else wants to make a government-censored fork, then let them. It's not like it hurts us, we aren't making any money from them anyway. --tjstrf talk 09:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe you lost the sense and intention of my message, as I made no prescriptions as to what should be done. This is clearly something which should be considered in the making a decision about this issue. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

At the end of the day, I see no reason that China should be allowed to censor the rest of the world. If they want censorship in their own country, then that's their national right (as distasteful as I personally find it). The answer is simply to allow the Chinese to have and censor their own wikipedia. If the Chinese government then wants to block access to all other wiki's, that's their perogative. Crimsone 09:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of you realize how systematically biased the Chinese Wikipedia has become when the vast majority of Chinese are not allowed their voice on very uncontroversial topics such as... say, Shanghai or Fujianese Cuisine, or historical figures like Confucius (non-controversial articles occupy over 99% of all Wikipedia articles). Moreover, it seems the Taiwanese topics on the site will soon exceed the number of mainland topics. Supporters of Taiwan independence use the Chinese Wikipedia as a method of voicing their nationalist rhetoric, something that would be shunned entirely on the English Wikipedia.

I have read Baidu Baike. In terms of quality and organization it falls short of Wikipedia by far even though it has 300,000 more articles. At this point you must see the Chinese Wikipedia as a Chinese organization, and all the mainland Chinese Wikipedians would rather see Wikipedia available for edit on issues that are not sensitive to the government, than to see it not available at all. When you take into the consideration of the situation faced by enthusiastic Chinese Wikipedians and look at the issue from their perspective, saying that "cowing to the authority of foreign totalitarian governments is a great plan" is purely ignorant, and goes under the assumption that Wikipedia is, and should remain, an predominantly American (or Western, if you prefer) organization, which goes against its founding values. We are but addressing a need to the Chinese Wikipedian community, not bowing towards the Chinese regime.

Thank you. -Colipon+(T) 18:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

To suggest that I am ill-informed on the scope of censorship in China is somewhat incorrect. I'm quite well aware of it. Further, there is an ongoing debate with regards to Taiwan and independance deserving of an article in it's own right! Regardless of what the majority of people on the chinese mainland want, the Chinese government decides what's allowed and what's not. If the chinese people don't like what their government is saying (which would be quite understandable), it's up to the chinese people to do what they can and when they can, with the support of the various international campaign groups and, yes, even other nations (as they occasionally comment on the issue). It's no reason to censor Wikipedia. We don't do it for minors, and it shouldn't happen to satisfy the whims and desires of the chinese government either. Wikipedia is a worldwide organisation, which is why non-american countries have wikis of their own. EN Wiki IS a western wiki, in so far as the fact that it's greatest userbase lies in the western world, that it's primarily intended for native speakers of English, and it's based in the US.

The Chinese wikipedia community has a need only because of their governments whims and dictats. To satisfy that need is indeed to bow to the Chinese regime. The chinese government censors anything that reflects badly on it's own regime, anything that shows them acting in a questionable light, and anything that goes against or might create discourse on what they feel the Chinese nation should be and how people should be living. All sorts of things are sensetive to them. unfortunately, all of these things exist and are worthy of mentioning in an encyclopedic article - they are real. To censor any of it to satisfy the requirements of the Chinese regime would be against the founding principles of Wikipedia. Crimsone 18:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

To do as suggested would be a complete submission to the Chinese regime.It would be an unpardonable compromise to the integrity of Wikipedia.It would also allow the arbitrary censorship of Chinese Language articles to extend beyond Chinese borders, to span the world.I'm also quite shocked at the casual use of phrases like "ethics aside...!" It's a nice idea to have a continued free exchange of information with the people of China, but if the Chinese government will not allow such a free exchange, then we can't them dictate the terms of a restricted exchange.zadignose 18:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Chinese wikipedia should be censored. That was merely a consideration that would need to be taken into account. As you suggested, complying with this censorship would extend beyond Chinese borders and there are millions of Chinese-speaking individuals not living in China. I think it is our duty in this case to thumb our noses at this censorship by the Chinese government. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I will take this cause elsewhere. Thank you all for your responses. Colipon+(T) 05:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSD:A7 as PROD

A discussion has started up at the talk page at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion about the possibility of a test run of switching CSD A7 to Prod.Please check the talk page for further discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

anonymous users an new articles

Could someone tell me why anonymous users are not allowed to create new articles? Doesn't this strongly hinder the accessibility of the projecy? /Lokal_Profil 02:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Simple.Without that feature, anon vandals would create spam pages faster you could blink.I figure at least 99% of all new pages would be spam or otherwise unneeded pages.As is, that number is probably still 40%. Will (Talk - contribs) 02:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, for the reasoning, you will be interested in John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy, specifically John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction. It was a black eye on the foundation, and anonymous editing still can only be done on some Wikipedia's (I can do it on es:, BTW.

As for accessibility, I personally think not at all. It is incredibly easy to register a username (one doesn't even have to give an email address; it takes like 20 seconds). Anonymous users can go to WP:AFC (incidentally, there you will see that most submissions by anons aren't good ones anyway; and this page has removed a lot of the vandalous submissions - at least, that's IMO).

Hope this explains everything. Patstuart^talk|edits 02:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to keep the new user warning templates semi-protected only

I have submitted a proposal that the new user warning templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace should remain semi-protected and not become permanently fully protected at some point.For those interested, please discuss at Wikipedia talk:High-risk templates#Proposal to keep new user messages semi-protected only. Thank you, Satori Son 03:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Policy re: using "year in literature" linking.

I was planning on working through our articles on writers. I was going to use those 'year in literature links', eg 1939 in literature, but with a pipe, so that just the year appears, eg 1939.

I felt that this would be an especially useful thing to do for the year of publication of a writer's works, since clicking then brings up other works released that year. And if you use such links for dates of birth and death, clicking brings up other writers born/deceased in those years.

However, I figured I'd better check I was doing the right thing. I started out by looking at two literature featured articles; Samuel Beckett and Robert A. Heinlein. Neither of those articles seem to favour linking the years at all, let alone specifically.

I checked out the relevant bit of the style guide: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), but that doesn't seem to help on this point.

Any advice? I'm rather keen on my approach, but I'm made uncertain by looking at the Featured Articles. --bodnotbod 20:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would try to formulate it in such a way that the link does not look like a bare year link. For example, "published in 1939." that way, it at least reduce the number of users trying to edit for MoS. I would still try to reduce them as much as possible, since most often, they are not needed in context. Circeus 17:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. Because I feel it would be quite unwieldly to include "published in" every time, instead of the normal form of having the year in brackets (eg, after a book title). And a guy over at the literature portal says he too is adding 'in literature' to lots of author-related dates (birth, death, years of books). Anyone else have a view? Cos at the moment it's a split vote. --bodnotbod 23:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This sort of thing probably should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) (and, just a quick glance, may in fact be, right now).If that doesn't resolve matters, you might try third opinion and RfC (see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes).-- John Broughton |^(♫♫) 19:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Celebrity endorsements

I'm in an edit war at Shilpa Shetty, with an editor who insists on restoring a para about her being hired to do advertising for a vodka company, which he names. He thinks that it's newsworthy, and a great honor for her, that she's been selected as a "brand ambassador" for this brand of vodka. I don't think it's notable at all; celebrities have been endorsing this and that, for pay, since the 19th century and perhaps earlier. I keep removing the booze ad, or cutting it down to one sentence with no mention of the brand (but with a link to a press release that does mention it), and he keeps restoring the para on vodka, with a long quote from the press release. He says that WP doesn't have any policy that prohibits mention of celebrity endorsements. I think it's covered by our "no commercial advertising" stance. If we allow celebrity endorsements to justify in-article ads for named companies, the camel has its nose under the tent.

The problem is that I know we don't accept advertising, or allow linkspam, but I can't find a policy on mentioning celebrity endorsements in an article. Do we need to make a policy? I'd suggest something like "we don't mention celebrity endorsements unless they become controversial enough to rate extensive coverage in the regular news media".For instance, if Prince Charles were to endorse a brand of tampon and a brouhaha ensued :) Zora 06:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I submit that Zora is misrepresenting the issue, and I have summed it up at the talk page. I have made no claims about its being "newsworthy" or a "great honour", please stop projecting false assumptions on my words. Zora has been engaging in wholesale content removal of the section in question, and I even rewrote it to satisfy her expectations of "what Wikipedia should be like", but to no avail as she keep removing content. For crying out loud it is not commercial advertising, it is just a section that describes Shetty's being selected as the "face" of a vodka company in a section that describes her associations with commercial and non-profit organisations. Like I say, I have discussed the matter in full at the talk page, that represents my stance on the matter. Ekantik ^talk 07:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Brand ambassador" means she's being paid to appear in ads and it's not noteworthy in the least. I've been removing these "brand ambassador" bits from Bollywood actor/actress articles for years. Zora 08:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that she's being paid to appear in ads doesn't make something non-notable; she also presumably gets paid to appear in movies.Furthermore, the fact that you've been deleting this type of information for years does not mean that this type of info is not noteworthy.--The Way 22:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, everyone, I reviewed the article and the paragraph that mentions the brand in question. IMHO mentioning that she is a brand ambassador for several products is completely enough, because a) I think adding names and writing an entire paragraph about it is indirect advertisment and b) it's simply not noteworthy: Bollywood stars are brand ambassadors for many products, so why note them all? Mentioning that they are advertising products is completely enough. If we add this kind of information to all articles, Shahrukh Khan would have at least a dozen entries about beverages, soap, watches, cars etc. It's just too much. Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 21:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there ought to be any flat, inflexible rule one way or the other about including or deleting such mentions... it all depends on the context of a particular endorsement, and whether it's a notable fact given all the circumstances.Most common celebrity endorsements probably aren't sufficiently notable to mention, but there may be particular cases where they become notable due to some controversy surrounding them, or if the endorsement involves a record amount of money or involves a type of product or type of celebrity that hasn't previously been known for such endorsements; if it's big news for some reason, or an important stage in the history of a notable celebrity and/or product, then it may be suitable for mention -- like, if few had heard of the person or the product prior to the endorsement, but one or both became household names due to the commercials involved, then it might be notable. *Dan T.* 21:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd sorta agree with Dan but ... the problem is that advertisers are pushing as hard as they can to get their products mentioned in the regular news (free advertising!) and sometimes "notability" for an advertisement can be briefly manufactured. Also, media like newspapers have been known to slant the news to please big advertisers, and things become "news" that are mere press-release hype. That's why I'd want notability to be defined conservatively. I don't want us to push whatever company can buy the most news. Zora 22:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether we like that endorsements come only to those who pay the most, those endorsements are notable facts for the endorsers.What products that people are paid to endorse says something about what demographics they are believed to appeal to, and what those endorsers are willing to endorse.Participating in advertising campaigns also contributes to those endorsers' notability; many people might know certain celebrities only from those ads.

On the other hand, sometimes those products or services are purely local and non-notable.I regularly saw Robert Vaughn in TV ads for a local law partnership when I lived in Columbus, OH, and I recently saw him in a very similar NYC ad; nothing would be added by specifying the names of those law offices, so "local personal injury lawyers" would be sufficiently descriptive.Postdlf 22:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why listing endorsements made by a given celebrity on that celebrity's article is a problem.It doesn't constitute advertising since it's only stating facts.If it said something to the effect of "Celebrity X endorsed product Y because product Y is a great product" then that would need to go, but simply stating that "Celebrity X endorsed product Y in an advertising campaign" is fine as it's a relevant peice of information about that person's career.Of course, this should only get a passing mention; there shouldn't be a whole paragraph or section on it.A simple list of products endorsed is sufficient. --The Way 22:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, advertising campaigns themselves can be notable and deserve articles.The fact that a celebrity endorses a product is noteworthy enough for a passing mention in the article.Many celebrities make a substantial portion of their income this way.It's not advertising to state the fact that celebrity X endorses product Y as long as the language remains objective.We actually have an article on celebrity endorsement.Also, note that other celebrities do have sections on their endorsements, see Tiger Woods for an example. --The Way 22:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

With a million and half articles, of course there's lots of stuff that is bad. I'm arguing that mentioning endorsements, and in particular naming the company, is letting WP be used for advertising. I'd apply this across the board, to all the celebrity articles. The only exception should be for advertising that does become controversial or extremely notable. Zora 23:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

While not supporting a blanket deletion of endorsement mentions, I do object to the term "brand ambassador", a PR-spin term.It's one thing to say that "X was paid an estimated $10 million during 2001-2005 to appear in advertisements for product/service Y"; it's quite another thing to use a term that many readers may easily misunderstand.Let's call a spade a spade.-- John Broughton |^(♫♫) 03:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with John here, perhaps the term 'brand ambassador' isn't the most appropriate.However, simply listing products endorsed by a celebrity (and perhaps how much that celebrity was paid for the endorsement) is not advertising as it's not saying anything good (or bad) about the product itself, rather it is simply stating the fact that the celebrity is getting paid to be a part of some marketing campaign.Indeed, if anything it actually reflects poorly on the product.Not allowing this type of information in neutral language would amount to censorship and would serve to make it quite hard to have articles about advertising. --The Way 04:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been away from Wikipedia because of connection problems at home. For me this is a complete non-issue because of the ridiculous arguments presented about "advertising". For the record, the term "brand ambassador" means nothing at all and is the term used in the source articles. It only means that the celebrity in question has been employed to be the "face" of Romanov Vodka, it is nothing at all about advertisement pushing or whatever the problem is about. It's like saying that Kate Moss is the face of Rimmel or Burberry (which is why they dropped her during that cocaine fiasco). If the term "brand ambassador" is quoted in the source to denote Shilpa Shetty's position, what's the problem with quoting the source on Wikipedia. If other editors (such as Zora, etc.) have a problem with this use of language then they are better advised to take their protests to the publications which used that term. In my view this is not a problem for Wikipedia. Ekantik ^talk 16:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree with The Way's views here; a celebrity's advertising campaigns do not have to be controversial to gain a mention in Wikipedia, but it is perfectly OK to mention their campaigns/endorsements as part of their career. For example, everyone knows that Michael Jackson's hair caught fire when he was filming for a Pepsi commercial. According to the No-Adverts Group, this should be rewritten in some vague way like: "Michael Jackson's hair caught fire when he was filming a commercial for a famous soft-drinks company." As you can see, it doesn't have quite the same effect as being succint. I can only shudder to think how many pages people have slaughtered in this way. The other issue is that, without trying to blow my own trumpet, I have been responsible for around 90% of the content of the article as it was in an extremely poor state before I started working on it. Just a couple of facts and an incomplete filmography. Thus, I was the one who ran around trying to find out reliable sources about the celebrity and rewrite the article so it is far improved now, including about this Romanov Vodka issue. I find that this whole issue of repeatedly deleting content (without even bothering to discuss it adequately on the talk page) shows disrespect to the contributions of other editors to Wikipedia, not to mention that non-existent policies have been quoted to justify such removal. Ekantik ^talk 17:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ekantik, you are trying to "own" the article and it IS in an extremely poor state because you do not allow anything to be subtracted, only added. WP is not a big heap 'o stuff. It would be possible to convey that she's been paid to work for a vodka company without devoting a whole gushing para to it. I proposed a version that covered the whole thing in one sentence, with a link to the press release. You restored the para with chunks of press release quote. We wouldn't be having this problem if you were willing to let the article be edited down. Instead, you're screaming "vandalism" and refusing to allow anything to be removed or summarized. Indeed, you posted a notice on my talk page warning me that I'd be blocked if I removed anything from the article. What's that but refusing to be edited?

I would be more willing to allow mentions of celebrity endorsements if they were brief and spare. Adding press release material IS advertising. Zora 02:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

And yet it sounds just like someone else. Not to mention the crusade to remove advertising. Brand ambassador is an extremely common term in India, and it is notable when an actress is a brand ambassador.Bakaman 03:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Zora, please keep your claims of ownership to yourself. The fact that I have contributed that information for the article shows the fact that I worked hard to find and insert that information, and there is no reason why it cannot be included as per WP policies and this Village Pump discussion. Please, you were warned about content removal because you continually violate WP policy without providing an adequate rationale for your content removal, thus blanking content can be regarded as vandalism.

And please stop misrepresenting your actions. You unabashedly removed the entire content and only very recently tried to edit it "down" so that you could show something for this VP discussion. The fact is that when you're wrong, you're wrong. Accept it and move on, and please stop vandalising the page. I find it extremely amusing that you consider the article to be in a poor state considering how it looked before I started working on it. If you want to improve on it, why not add content instead of removiong content? Ekantik ^talk 16:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should remove all unsourced claims of endorsement from biographies of living people; see discussion here.Postdlf 16:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Except for the fact that it is sourced to a newspaper. I think that a newspaper report of a business event (the press conference announcing her being made the "face" of the campaign is as per WP:RS. Ekantik ^talk 16:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You need an unbiased source for both the fact itself and the importance (noteability or encyclopedic-ness) of the fact. A press release is pert of the advertizing campaign and is not a NPOV source for establishing the importance although it can usually be used to help establish the fact. But with only a press release we have no neutral wording available and get stuff like "endorsement" instead of "agreed to be paid to lie about this product" (sometimes a more accurate assessment). WAS 4.250 17:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's from a newspaper report, not a press release. I was under the impression that reports from prominent newspapers are relatively reliable? Isn't it notable when a celebrity becomes the "face" of a particular product? In my view this whole discussion is about how one editor is using WP as a crusade to remove "advertising" without any thought to what advertising actually is WP:NOT#Soap. There is nothing in WP policy about why a celebrity's endorsements cannot be mentioned, but I'm sure Zora will beg to differ. Ekantik ^talk 16:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

My ideas on WP:NOTE, AfDs, speedy deletes

I'd like to propose a radical change, which I know will be ignored/dismissed by the majority of editors, as it would involve a fundamental restructuring of Wikipedia. However, hear me out. I think WP:NOTE should be abolished. I participate regularly in AfDs and newpage patrolling, and don't agree with the policy administered there. My plan is this:

• Everything that verifiably exists in the world is notable enough to be covered, as long as it is adequately sourced.
• The only articles that should be deleted are those that are incoherent, obvious hoaxes, spam, attack pages, or completely inaccurate - i.e. those already covered under WP:SPEEDY - as well as things patently made up in school one day, including books that have not been published and bands that have released no songs. (This links back to the concept of verifiable existence.)
• Everything else, including every webcomic, every town councillor, every episode of every series, should be included. After all, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and takes great pride in having over 1.5 million articles.
• I'd like to see Wikipedia become an organised, referenced, searchable resource providing coverage of all human knowledge. (That is, all accurate and verifiable human knowledge.) The idea of 'notability', no matter how we try to formalise it, is inherently subjective. Walton monarchist89 21:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's WP:N you disagree with here; indeed, the first point is pretty similar to the notability definition at present. But your guidelines make no allowances for WP:NOT (except paper) - should we include dictionary definitions, for instance? Trebor 21:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this proposal contradicts WP:NOT, which is policy, unless "adequately sourced" is interpreted to mean essentially what WP:NOTE says now. GRBerry 21:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What about random individuals, currently considered vanity articles? I can verify my own name and existence, would I be able to keep an article about myself? —Ashley Y 21:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Whenever this concept gets brought up, in one form or another, I always come back to the second point raised at WP:N#Rationale for requiring a level of notability: "* In order to have a neutral article, a topic must be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources; and that those interested in the article will not be exclusively partisan or fanatic editors." In other words, notable subjects attract multiple editors; non-notable subjects tend to have only one. It is easy to delete an article on a non-notable subject. It is very difficult to review such an article and ensure that its content is genuinely sourced, verifiable and unbiased. The number of vanity conflict-of-interest articles under such a scheme would be so high that there is no way they could be monitored or reviewed. We do not have to worry that Bill Gates' employees will make Microsoft a fluff piece on the company, or that Roger Daltrey will fill The Who with unchallenged self-serving claims, because so many people watch and contribute to those articles. However, if the article is on Fred's Webhosting Service or Nick Norman and the N00bs, let's face it, the primary (only?) contributors will be Fred and Nick, and there are not enough reviewers to keep them honest. Fan-1967 22:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Based on your suggestion, someone could write an article on me.Unfortunately, it would be both inaccurate (the local newspaper blurb on my NMSQT performance has me down as going to the local high school, when in fact I was homeschooled) and incomplete (verifiable third-party sources on my activities end with my junior year of college, when I got an article published in a minor journal). --Carnildo 22:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Don't think you'll get much support for that, Ashley. For all reasons mentioned. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• I am an ardent supporter of WP:NOT, but at the same time I am fearful of the "Myspacing" of Wikipedia, where every grouping of talentless bands has a pseudo-advertisement on Wikipedia. --Thisisbossi 23:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Quoting the Bible

I'm having trouble finding a policy on quoting text from the Bible.In particular, I'm trying to clean up the articles about individual Psalms in the Bible.These are in category "Psalms", eg Psalm 51.Most of these articles include the full text of the Psalm in at least one version of the Bible, mostly English, with a few Hebrew ones too.Should the text of the Psalm appear as a big lump in the article -- isn't the article about the Psalm, rather than the Psalm itself.This would be the case for poetry, wouldn't it?If there's a policy I've missed, please point me to it.Once I start editing, rather than stand on toes, I would like to be able to point to a policy that says, "this is how we do it".Thanks in advance.Bernard S. Jansen 11:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a policy as such. There was a lot arguments here. But generally the consensus was that large chunks of Bible passages belong on Wikisource, not Wikipedia. However, if short quotations help to make the article readable then fine (with a very short psalm, quoting the whole thing may make sense - but not Psalm 119). But we need to watch that the translation chosen doesn't prejudice a point of view - so if the translation is contentious then that needs flagged up, or more than one alternative used. Any top-down policy will not really work here, we need a pragmatic approach to what gives us the best, neutral, and readable article in each case.--Doc^g 11:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Re. "There isn't a policy as such", true, but there is a guideline: Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources (which also applies to non-copyrighted material);

Maybe also have a glance at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV, which treated a related topic, and gives some indications w.r.t. how to organise articles on consecutive bible passages (follow community consensus), and which translations to use (don't always use the same source for translations), etc. --Francis Schonken 11:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my point is pragmatism is best, and article quality is paramount. We don't want people uploading large chunks of primary texts - or running around chucking them on articles for their own sake, on the other hand if an article is discussing a short Bible passage and would be enhanced by quoting a bit, we don't want to preclude that with a top-down policy. Work out what's best on an article - if they is a debate go with the consensus. Don't batter people with rules either way.--Doc^g 12:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree... we do not need finite rules for this.I am not sure if every psalm needs to have the entire text quoted, but some might.For example, if there is disagreement among biblical scholars as to how to translate it, I would definitely like to see side by side charts showing the different translations.Blueboar 16:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Texts should be included in two cases. 1) Where the translation is contentious and differences significant - here we need to use sufficient translations to bring out the different views fairly. 2) Where the text being discussed is short and including in would be proportionate to the article. Some psalms are little more than 3 sentences - it would be silly not to quote them - we would do it with a non-Bible short poem or song. Other passages would be so long as to swamp the article - don't include them. Where we are including and the translation isn't contentions, it may be sufficient to just to choose one mainstream translation, and indicate any significant differences in a footnote. There's no point in including several translations which all basically say the same thing. Just be sensible. We don't want people using articles as a pretext for needlessly putting whole long chapters of the Bible onto Wikipedia - that's for Wikisource. But equally, we don't want people crusading to remove bible passages that clearly make a particular article more comprehensible. If everyone is sensible, then the silliness that took this matter to arbcom in the past can be avoided. The primary question is: what makes this particular article better?--Doc^g 17:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a slight quote must be appreciated, like "Yeah though I walk through..... The Valley of Hell I shall fear no evil for thy Nikon and tripod they comfort me" ;=-- DLL ^{.. T} 20:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-standard capitalization for personal or stage names

There is an ongoing discussion, whether or not individual capitalizaion for personal names or stage names (like all-lowercase or other variations) should be carried over to Wikipedia, given that an explicit exception from Wikipedia:Proper names#Personal names does not exist, while on the other hand there is a related policy (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)) which in most cases suggest a conversion to standard English formatting.

The discussion sparked at Talk:Hide (musician), has since been carried over to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters) but also somewhat stagnated, so I decided to post here, in order to attract more input. - Cyrus XIII 21:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

See also Talk:Bell_hooks#Casing_and_her_Possessive for a lengthy discussion on author and feminist bell hooks. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There was an old discussion on the WP:JAPAN talk page about song titles and names that pointed to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)/misc9#Capitalization of roman-letter names, etc., generated in Japan which intimates that as Japanese script does not have capital letters then any use or non-use is purely stylistic. As 'hide' is an English language stage-name I would imagine that the capitalisation differs with a variety of sources, unless it has been trademarked as 'hide' -Foxhill 00:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:SMOKERS discussion.

A discussion on Laura Bush's/Barack Obama's smoking/attempts to quit smoking led me to begin an essay/potential guideline on the topic of including smoking within biographical articles.The participation of the editors here would be appreciated. Italiavivi 01:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use question

I will admit that I have a hard time wrapping my brain around the image policies.I write/de-stub a lot of articles about living composers.As everyone knows, it can be tough to find free images of living people who are not super famous and in every tabloid.If there is a publicity headshot of a composer on the website of s/his publisher, and that same publicity shot is reproduced across the net whenever you do an image search for him/her, is it within the fair use criteria to use that piture in and only in the article about the composer?Always yes, always no? Please advise! Thanks-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe.Fair use is about as grey a grey area as you can find in copyright law, which is one reason we try to stay away from it.--Carnildo 20:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think fair use has gone too far. If you can produce an image of a person, then it shouldn't qualify a picture of the person as fair use. I would not doubt that emailing the publisher for a GDFL (CC or whatever) license on a image would get promptly declined. Then why should this "fair-use" be put into effect if it's essentially illegal and not wanted, especially on an encyclopedia that advocates being "free"? Now, eliminating all "fair-use" images may be ridiculous, not being able to include a needed historical picture impossible to be reproduced, but one can still make the argument that Wikipedia is still free and has no grounds to use the picture. There's a huge problem with this in actors and sports-people.

This is an area on Wikipedia I am displeased at. Not that Wikipedia would get sued, it's just that I don't think Wikipedia has correct permission to use many of these "fair use" images. And ignoring it or not reaching a consensus makes the problem even worse.++aviper2k7++ 21:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a cumulative "no" to me.Here is a small dilemma: I am working on an article which I would sure love to improve to FA status (who wouldn't).However, no matter how well-written and comprehensive the article is, it seems nearly impossible, practically speaking, to get it to FA status if it is devoid of images, particularly an image of the subject.You may say "there's no rule saying FAs have to have images", but really, how many of them don't? I'm not really sure what to do.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Try to solicit permission for one of the few pictures that do exist.You probably won't get permission for the really nice headshots, but perhaps someone has a passable snapshot posted somewhere on the web (maybe on a photo sharing site like flickr).When you find one you like send an email to author asking them to release the picture under the GFDL or CC-by-sa.Explain it will be used in wikipedia, and that without their help wikipedia won't have an illustrated article.I have done this a few times, and I've found many photographers are excited to help out wikipedia without doing any real work.In fact, I've had a few jump at the chance to get their picture on wikipedia.--best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 08:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an incorrect interpretation of fair use.First of all, valid fair use is never illegal, and doesn't require permission.Second, fair use does not require that it be impossible for you to produce the content on your own.Fair use content is unfree (and invalid fair use claims are illegal), so fair use should be avoided, but not to the extent you advocate. Superm401 - Talk 21:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use under United States copyright law doesn't require that it be impossible for a freely licensed alternative to be created, but the Wikipedia fair-use policy, which is intentionally stricter than U.S. copyright law, does require this. —Bkell (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, however it's hard to say whether it's impossible to get a free version, or just difficult. Superm401 - Talk 06:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

but the Wikipedia fair-use policy, which is intentionally stricter than U.S. copyright law, does require this.

There is a lot of discussion going on about the status of this policy on the talk page, by the way. — Omegatron 02:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to settlement naming convention

WikiProject Current Local City Time is proposing at their talk page that articles for prominent cities be moved to include subnational units.For example, Toronto would be moved to Toronto, Ontario.This would result in a de facto change to naming conventions for settlements, which provides (at least for Canada) that:

Places which either have unique names or are unquestionably the most significant place sharing their name, such as Quebec City or Toronto, can have undisambiguated titles.

Your contribution to this discussion would be most welcome. -Joshuapaquin 05:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I was bold: I closed the poll. That was clearly the wrong place and wrong method to discuss major changes to naming conventions as many editors noted. Angus McLellan(Talk) 20:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice on username transliterations

Just a note to say that I've made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Username#Latin character transliterations to require transliterations on non-latin usernames for various reasons, spelled out in the post. Please discuss on that talk page. pschemp | talk 18:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured Articles and Good Articles

Since the relation between those two categories is more or less hierarchical, wouldn't it be an applicable idea if articles defeatured for some reason would automatically acquire the status of a Good Article? That is, though they wouldn't satisfy the higher criteria of a FA, they would certainly satisfy those of a GA. This would leave more space in the GA nominations page for other articles to be considered, while at the same time the defeatured articles wouldn't suddenly find themselves outside, or too low in, the grading structure. —The Duke of Waltham 16:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be wary of doing this: there are still some featured articles lurking about from the "brilliant prose" days, with huge citation deficiencies (see Tank, for instance). Given the GA assessment doesn't take too long to perform, then it's probably worth not making it automatic. Trebor 20:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier for the process to give defeatured articles priority in some way, though? —The Duke of Waltham 07:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Patrol the FAR pages, and when one gets de-featured, nominate it for GA, with the comment "recently lost FA status here". Patrol the GA pages, and when you see a recent FA, review it for GA status. You can't be both the nominator and reviewer, but being one will still speed the process along mightily. This is known as {{sofixit}}:

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. You can edit almost any article on Wikipedia by just following the Edit link at the top of the page. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. . AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks and comunity bans.

There's currently discussion on the relationship between use of indefinite blocks and community bans at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Indefinite_Blocks. --Barberio 21:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Public domain images

If i upload an image, if its published before 1923 or something related do i need a source present? Nareklm 03:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You should explain where the image came from, so it can be verified that it is genuinely in the public domain. See Wikipedia:Public domain for more information. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 03:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed policy on removing alleged trolling on talk pages

I would like to propose that "trolling" not be allowed as a justification for removing other people's comments from talk pages.

Different people differ about what constitutes trolling. An editor who takes action to revert "trolling" is implicitly asserting that his opinion speaks for the group. Often the original poster does not agree that his words are trolling. Often the editor who removes the "trolling" is already opposed to the original poster.

Thoughts? --Ideogram 01:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I can go along with this to some degree. Removing comments by any established wikipedian is often counterproductive. however, the bulk of trolling comments removed are comments by IPs or highly disruptive single purpose accounts, who are adding 'Fuck your mama' to userpages. That obviously should be reverted on sight. But drawing up any policy that differentiates between a wikipedian removing comments from a userpage that he doesn't agree with as 'trolling', and outright vandalism from a real troll will impossible. We all know that there's a clear difference - but the boundary will be undefinable without hideous detail. This will inevitably end up in instruction creep and ruleslawyering. Best perhaps with a simple principle "assume good faith - particularly from normally good contributors - only deem something to be trolling if no other explanation is possible"--Doc^g 02:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the term "trolling" itself should not be used. I believe comments which are clearly vandalism or spam can be identified as such without regard for whether they are "trolling".

The most effective response to a genuine troll is to ignore him. I propose that anyone who believes someone else is trolling should simply comment, "I believe this is trolling and recommend everyone ignore it." Then others could signal their agreement or disagreement by actually ignoring or responding to the comment in question. --Ideogram 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem there: Many of the real and unmistakable trolls we get here (*coughconspiracytheoristidiotscough*) do need to be removed, and there is no justification other than that they are trolling. Leaving their comments risks them actually convincing someone of their lunacy. --tjstrf talk 02:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think removing comments to "protect the naive" is productive. (1) The comments are present in the history and reverting them actually gives them more prominence. (2) I don't believe in protecting the naive; I believe everyone is free to make their own judgements. (3) Real and persistent trolls need to be identified by community action (e.g. community blocks discussed on the admininstrators' noticeboards), not vigilanteism. --Ideogram 02:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it gives a 6000 character text dump any more prominence to revert it than it did when the guy posted it with an ALL CAPS HEADING and his latest YouAreTheAntiChrist username in the first place. Leaving vitriolic rants is far more harmful than removing them. You may have more of a point on article talk pages, but even then those are often used for things like unrelated campaigning, vaguely linked attack rants on other users, etc. Case in point: Talk:William Connolley, which gets assaulted quite regularly by people who are annoyed at User:William M. Connolley, the article's subject. --tjstrf talk 09:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I am talking only of posts on talk pages. Mainspace pages exist to communicate verifiable facts; rants can always be removed on that basis. Talk pages exist for people to express their opinions and discuss them; removing someone else's post doesn't change the fact that it is their opinion. See the concrete example I post below. --Ideogram 22:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Many troll postings are extremely verbose, if we are not allowed to remove them then the talk page would soon become unreadable. Some trolling is extremely inflammatory and makes people's participation on the uncomfortable. I agree that in the most cases DFTT is the best defence. Alex Bakharev 03:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Some articles that get a lot of trolling, like Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorem, set up an "arguments" subpage of the talk page to move these comments to. Then the comments are not deleted, just moved to the "arguments" page. CMummert · talk 04:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

(to Alex) You still have not offered a definition of "trolling" other than "I know it when I see it". This definition has been abused many times by hotheaded editors who feel their personal judgement justifies removal of comments they deem trolling. Many postings are extremely verbose, but we do not remove them. What is the "magic" trolling ingredient that justifies removal? There are many tactics that make participation uncomfortable, not least having your well-intentioned comments attacked as "trolling" and being removed.

"Trolling" has no defensible definition because it requires reading someone's mind. If you accuse someone of trolling you are de facto failing to assume good faith. By removing someone's comments you are saying those comments are worthless. These judgements need to be made by the community not a biased editor already involved in arguing with the person who is being called a troll. Frankly, "trolling" has become a one-size-fits-all club that hotheads use to beat up people they disagree with.

These editors equate "trolling" with "it makes me mad". I would think any rational observer would understand how this definition leads to abuse.

The onus of defining "trolling" should not be on me; I am advocating abandonment of the term altogether. People who defend the idea of individual editors being allowed to delete comments deemed "trolling" shouild be required to offer an objective definition of trolliing so that we can be sure these vigilantes are not just squelching opinions that they don't like. --Ideogram 04:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You are identifying a real problem - people removing good-faith posts which they deem 'trolling'. However, you are hitting it with a sledge hammer. Sure, we can't define trolling in any watertight way that won't have grey areas and subjectivity. Actually, exactly the same is true of vandalism. We can't read minds. Thus, we assume good faith. However, there is always a point where it is reasonable not to do so. 'Fuck your mama' is one 'You are gay' is probably another - but at that point, and beyond it we are into grey areas, where there is potential for disagreement, and even abuse. We need common sense here. But we do need to leave the option to remove obvious trolling. And no, we can't read minds, but there comes a point where we are entitled to judge intent by action, otherwise we disappear into some post-modern sludge of non-communicatability. This is not to protect the naive (that's a silly argument), but the best way to discourage a troll is to remove his voice. Vandals and trolls need to know that their posts have almost zero impact on wikipedia - we don't want to leave a stream of abuse or some aggressive rant lying around. If the recipient really want to see it, then it is in the edit history.--Doc^g 09:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I just say in my edit summary something like "Removing text - violation of Wikipedia:Talk page and WP:TPG". I can't remember the last time that someone objected to such a removal (but, admittedly, I rarely do this for talk pages of really contentious articles). If the editor reverts, adding the improper text back, then a second revert (removing the text again) with "See your user talk page" and a note to them about using talk pages only for discussing changes to articles should be the next steps.

I too very much dislike the term "trolling", even if there is an essay that tries to define it. Why not just keep the discussion to whether the posting complies with policy, as opposed to giving the troll user a label that he/she can argue about? -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 19:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's talk about a concrete example. in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Paul August#Questions from Cyde Weys you will see mention of an edit war over whether a question constituted trolling or not. You can check the edit history for the details. This one went so far as wheel-warring. Ultimately Jimbo himself stepped in and asked everyone to calm down. How do you think this situation could have been avoided? --Ideogram 22:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The "troll" terminology frustrates me for several reasons. Firstly, it's all-too-often used as a blanket response, designed to circumvent actual discussion in favor of what is basically a personal attack. Legitimizing a form of personal attack is really bad form. Secondly, it defeats the purpose of discussion; why even have discussion if it can be silenced so quickly by troll accusations? I believe strongly that the discussion should hinge only on whether the post conforms to policy or not, as John said above.

Trolling is an unnecessary term as well. Obvious trolling is quite clearly prohibited; insults, personal attacks, etc. But those are all covered under WP:NPA. .V. -- (^Talk_Email) 06:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone interested in this issue I would ask you to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What is a troll. I have tried to edit this essay to discourage usage of the term and am being opposed by an editor who (not surprisingly) thinks I am a troll. --Ideogram 19:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Modifying when dates of birth should be listed for biographies of living people

I have opened up a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Proposal_to_alter_the_criteria_for_listing_dates_of_birth concerning altering and clarifying when dates of birth for biographies of living people should be used. New voices to the discussion would be helpful. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 16:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD: second nomination rules?

Funday PawPet Show survived Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funday pawpet show. Now there's a second AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funday PawPet Show, but shouldn't it have "(second nomination)" in the URL? --EarthFurst 07:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's only a disambig concern as far as I know, for cases when an article retains its original title in between noms. The nominator notes the previous debate. In this case, the altered title allows for a unique identifier for both debates. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User Talk Page

What is policy regarding deletion of comments in a persons userpage talk space. I was under the impression that you should only ever archive old comments, and deletion was, if not disallowed, heavily frowned on. An anonymous user User talk:203.87.64.214, repeatidly deletes all the comments on his page. Including comments made by me in a current dispute. Several editors have told him that you shouldn't delete comments on a talk page (though only one was regarding his own talk page) and I believe the intention is to make it appear on first glances that he's just a newbie even though by his edit history he's been here since February. Or make it appear that he's never been involved in a conflict of interests. Jacobshaven3 11:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that deletion is frowned upon, but on a user page is not quite a blocking-level offense. You can, of course, revert his deletions.--Anthony.bradbury 12:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it is acceptable to retrospectively, from the talk page history, construct a chronological listing of the posts made to a talk page, then post that to an archive subpage. Even if that is later blanked, the actual chronology will be more easily visible in the page history of that archive subpage, rather than someone having to wade through lots of blankings and disconnects between comments. You would still record each blanking of the talk page with a little note, like "this section blanked on 2 January 2007 at 02:45 UTC by...". Then the pattern of behaviour is far more obvious, and people can judge - oh, that blanking was of a vandal's comments, and this blanking was of an over-zealous admin, and this appear to be a bad-faith blanking of a reasonable comment that seems to have been ignored, and so on. Not a scarlet letter, but more making it easier to actually see what has been happening in cases like this. Of course, you'd have to trust the person reconstructing this 'single-view' history of the talk page. Carcharoth 12:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If a user wishes to blank his or her talk page, that is his or her choice. There are lots of legitimate reasons to blank. For example, I regularly blank old discussions so that I don't have to scroll down the page to locate new messages. If you need to see a deleted post, you can always go to the edit history. it isn't like the messages are completely gone. That said, it is considered a no-no to blank various warning templates. Admins frown on doing that. Blueboar 15:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no clear policy on that. The policy on vandalism is poorly written and implies that you can do whatever you want with your talk page, but does not say that clearly. Because of that, some admins give warnings and blocks for removing comments from your talk page, and other admins tell you that you can do whatever you want. The policy that is applied, or misapplied, depending on your interpretation is in Wikipedia:Vandalism

Removing the comments of other users from talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion. Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon.

Generally people read the first sentence, stop, and interpret that as an okay to blank your talk page. Others read the whole paragraph, and read it differently. It would be nice if someone would rewrite this clearly.

How about:

Your user and talk pages are a community resource. HOwever, removing comments from your talk page is always fine. Removing warnings from your own talk page indicates that you have read the warnings, and is allowed. Removing comments from other users talk pages is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is considered legitimate. It is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. On a user's own talk page archival of comments is at the user's discretion.

OR

Your user and talk pages are a community resource. Removing comments or warnings from your your own talk page is considered to be vandalism, as a record of warnings can be used by administrators in making decisions, or in showing that Wikipedia has done due diligence in trying to prevent certain activities. Removing comments from other talk pages is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is considered legitimate. It is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there.

Atom 02:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

First, I have seen users that delete messages ASAP after reading them. This is a real pet peeve for me as I need the older posts to track what I have already told so and so. I tend to repeat myself too often without the older record. Searching history is a real pain in neck. You have to check each edit one by one. I never bother except in unusual cases.

Second, if nothing else, I think it should be a crime to remove warnings from any talk page unless you are an admin and that user is permanently blocked with no hope of becoming unblocked. Otherwise, I have no way to bump the warning up without laboriously searching history. If vandals can delete warnings, it would be a dream for them and a nightmare for everyone else. Once you institute a rule, you can't selectively apply it. You either apply it to everyone -- or you drop it. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Article size

I understand that there is a policy on WP to keep article sizes under 40kb. I request that this limit be increased in special cases like articles about countries. I say this because, articles about countries need to cover a wide gamut of issues (geography,history, politics, ethnicities, cuisine, architecture etc etc etc). Long list actually. And each of these subtopics is worth its own dedicated fork.

So following 'summary style' becomes very difficult especially when new content and information keeps getting added. It is also leading to futile edit wars with reams and reams of futile discussion on talk pages. India for example, is facing this issue at the moment with a relatively new user, reverting content at sight and then hiding behind spurious 'article size' compulsions when others demand an explanation for his reverts.

So my suggestion is that article size be wedded to say, the number of forks that an article has. I would rather an article run into hundreds of kilobytes than the discussion page.

If this is not possible, I feel we should simply lock an article forever once it reaches its size limit or gets featured status. That way, new editors to wp will be spared the pain of adding content in good faith to an article only for it to get blanked out because the article has gone 1 KB over the limit. Sarvagnya 17:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is a policy... just an ideal. Obviously, some topics will take more space to properly discuss than other. However, we do want to keep articles to a resonable size if we can. If the article is getting overly long, information should be split off into logical sub-pages and simply summarized in the main article (with a clear and obvious link to the sub-page). But the key word in that is logical... the split has to make sense. It is not an invitation to POV fork or hide information you don't like. Blueboar 19:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no fixed size limit; but obscure or specialized information should go to subarticles, not just be reverted. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As Blueboar says, this is not a policy. Country pages typically have separate articles for those topics you mentioned. For example,

India, Geography of India, History of India, Politics of India, Economy of India, Culture of India

Within the main article (in the case of my example, India), the important issues should be covered (in India's geography section, there should be mention of major features such as the Himalayas), but then less obvious details (such as the Vindhya range) should be left to the separate articles. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

problems with WP:COI

I believe there are many problems with the current COI page, the most salient one being ambiguity (the page states both that editors with a COI should and should not edit), and a second being that the description as consensus seems rather debatable (I and may other editors have allowed, even encouraged, editors affiliated with their corporations, to engage in constructive editing.) Can we begin a discussion on this at the COI page? I have attempted to begin one, but three editors have refused to engage in substantive discussion (their essential point being that the consensus is settled and the matter's final.)

I encourage editors with opinions on the matter to begin a discussion on the WP:COI talk page. Sdedeo (tips) 05:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Categorization of pilgrimmage routes

Category:Pilgrim route was for all pilgrimmage routes, but recently someone took the Way of St. James out of this category because they claimed it only applied to pilgrimmage routes in Norway. This sounds a bit strange to me. Comments?--Filll 04:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think they meant it only applies to a specific route in Norway named the "Pilgrim's Route" although that isn't specified on the category page at Category:Pilgrim route. - Foxhill 04:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What group is responsible for these decisions?--Filll 05:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be discussed on the article talk page, as well as possibly the Category talk page. --Aervanath 04:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Food and drinks guidelines proposed

Can anyone chime in at the discussion over at User:ShakespeareFan00/Food_and_Drink_Notability_Guidelines, especially on the talk page there? Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 16:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• How is this different from WP:CORP for products? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Attmepting to be more specfic, note the thing about 'generics' for example ShakespeareFan00 16:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Excessive specificity is instruction creep, has there been any sign that such a rule is necessary? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I started writing the guidelines because I felt they might be useful, if the existing rules cover the same ground... ShakespeareFan00 18:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I think they do cover the same ground. Not to belittle your hard work, but unless you can think of a good reason that Food and Drink should have other different notability guidelines than other products, I would say you should direct your efforts elsewhere.--Aervanath 07:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

I request everyone's input regarding this idea, to create a hall of fame to celebrate the editors who've made lasting, non-revertable contribution to the Wikipedia project and deserve some permanent form of recognition, which may serve as an inspiration to the growing community of newer editors. Rama's arrow 18:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the divisiveness of an editor popularity contest would outweigh any benefit of recognition. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I can promise my feelings would be hurt if I were not inducted, or I'd just dismiss everyone who didn't appreciate my contributions as idiots (maybe both at once). If I were inducted, I'd expect everyone to take me more seriously, by giving more weight to my opinions and editorial decisions. I'll leave it to my adoring public to decide how much I am only being facetious...

But I think the worst result of this would be inevitable abuse by the obsessive agenda pushers we see on here across a variety of subjects and issues...or that people who are interested in certain controversial subjects would be seen as such even if their contributions were good faith attempts at NPOV.

I nevertheless commend Rama's arrow for having his heart in the right place; in a perfect world (i.e., a Wikipedia sans assholes), it would be a great idea. I'd encourage him (or anyone else) to personally tell contributors that he admires them and appreciates what they've accomplished. That can do more than institutional, procedural recognition. Postdlf 18:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only the divisiveness, but also the disparity between this and building an encyclopaedia. Could time spent deciding who our best editors are not be better spent working on articles? I think it's great to recognise editors' work and commend them for it, but there's no need to create a formal process; a personal message is just as effective. Trebor 18:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur with everyone: great idea in theory but probably too problematic to set up. It's not too hard to imagine the whole thing turning into one big mess with debates like "that achievement, while very nice is nowhere near as important as that other achievement". Pascal.Tesson 22:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We really don't want to further distract editors from the process of creating an encyclopaedia - particularly in a way that could lead to a maliciously competitive environment. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

We already have this mechanism, actually. If you think an editor is doing a good job, just give them a Barn Star. It's that simple.--Aervanath 07:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright status on photoshops

So, can a photoshop of a copyrighted picture really be released into public domain? It doesn't seem like that's right. Milto LOL pia 02:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No it can't be however we don't know if the person made it from scratch.Geni 03:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the image page says it is. Milto LOL pia 03:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think that image wasn't actually created from scratch? You must have some reason beyond what is written on the image page, right? CMummert · talk 03:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? The image uploader uploaded it with that description, saying he photoshopped it himself. Milto LOL pia 03:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It is posibel to draw from scratch in photoshop and it would be a fairly good way to make than glow effect athough there are others.Geni 03:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If the person doing the uploading actually created the image then they are free to release it to the public domain. I thought the original comment was implying the uploader did not create the image. CMummert · talk 03:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

you are assumeing the word photoshop is being used in a certian way. we have no reason to make that assumption at the present time. WP:AGF and all that. Geni 03:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - photoshop can be used as a drawing tool, and zooming in on this picture (in Opera) shows that it is too regular to have come from a photograph. As far as I can tell the claim of original creation is legit and there is not a copyright issue. CMummert · talk 03:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Not that I'm up on copyright law, but isn't a picture that is substantially similar to a copyrighted image, in violation? It doesn't matter how the image is created, only what it looks like. -Freekee 04:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is a particular copyrighted blue lightsaber image that this lightsaber image is supposed to be a copy of, we have no reason to think the image in question here violates copyright. The simplicity of the image makes this quite unlikely. CMummert · talk 13:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The image in question is a public domain creation of a copyrighted concept. There's no intersection between the two, especially since it is impossible to claim damages from its use (as opposed to, say, me creating an image of a Coca-Cola can, where an argument could be made that the brand was being diluted by the image). EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Citations missing

I've expressed my concerns about a recent expansion to this template on the talk page. I went over to WP:RFC, but it looks like those are for articles. I'm posting here in hopes that some others can comment on the expansion. BuddingJournalist 04:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I will comment on the template's talk page to keep the discussion together. CMummert · talk 05:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I should have been clearer in that I was hoping other editors would visit the talk page to comment, not here. BuddingJournalist 05:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sysops doing username changes?

This is something I've been wondering for a little while, which was brought to the forefront of my mind by a recent RfB, and I haven't been able to find an answer to it yet: Why are username changes a bureaucrat function, and not a sysop function? I know admins already have too much to do, but bureaucrats are sysops too, and it seems to me that if sysops are trusted with everything they are already at this point, there's no reason they shouldn't be able to do username changes as well without an additional level of access. (Admin promotions and bot flagging are different matters in my mind.) I don't believe there's any harm to doing this unless there's a good technical reason why it's bureaucrat-only. I could see it being a small help. (Admin blocks user for username, blocked user requests different name, admin handles it on the spot.) There's probably a good reason why it's a bureaucrat function, but can someone tell me what that is? Grandmasterka 08:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably to avoid people changing their own names, or changing names for any sockpuppets they might have (legal or otherwise). Also, changing usernames to usurp another username is tricky - lots needs to be thought about carefully. I'd prefer this sort of things to remain at a level above admin level. Carcharoth 08:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but we can already do things with a great potential for abuse (blocking and unblocking) and things that are tricky and hard to reverse (merging page histories is the best example I can come up with.) Plus we have renaming logs so if someone wanted to rename their sockpuppet it would become obvious I think... Grandmasterka 08:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Requesting 3rd opinion on External Links

replacementdocs has tons of game documentation for all kinds of computers and consoles from the past 30 years. So I thought it would be worth sharing that site with Wikipedia visitors by adding an External Link under various classic computer and console articles to the associated file section at replacementdocs.

My thought was that this fit in line with many of the other External Links on the pages of these articles. For example, there is a External Link to the appropriate section of AtariAge on virtually all of the Atari articles (Atari 2600, Atari 5200, Atari Jaguar, etc).

As I was posting these links, User:Luna Santin blocked my IP and reverted my edits claiming it was spam. I make the argument that there is a lot of useful information on that site, and that some people wouldn't even know that an archive like that existed if it weren't linked from these general computer/console articles.

Any other opinions on the matter? Casimps1 21:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The companies still own the copyright on the manuals, so it's probably a violation of WP:EL. Sorry, but there's no way WP can link to that kind of site. ColourBurst 01:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Casimps - you neglected to mention (as you were told on your talk page) that User:Luna Santin posted several times to User talk:66.192.94.185, the IP you were using, about the problem - and that anonymous account never responded. At minimum you should have mentioned that here, and acknowledged your mistake, or you should not have mentioned Luna Santin at all. When you omit information, actions by other editors may appear to be unjustified when in fact they are not.

As for replacementdocs.com, the matter of legality may be a bit more nuanced than ColourBurst indicates, per this FAQ item; the site asserts that it does have permission from some publishers to have their manuals downloaded. Perhaps a note to the site owners saying that it would be helpful if such manuals were specifically identified? -- John Broughton ^(♫♫) 15:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the notes from Luna, I didn't mention them because the 3 times I was "contacted" were 3 User talk messages in the time frame of 6 minutes while I was in the process of editing documents. They weren't being ignored, I simply didn't see them. Add to that I had never so much as heard of a "User talk" page or how it worked. I admit my ignorance in Wikipedia's policy and workflow in general, but I only had good intentions when I added the single targeted link to each of a dozen or so articles, so I felt it absurd to apologize for attempting to enhance an encyclopedia based on user contributions.

Regarding the links, I feel that the copyright issue is even more of a gray area than either of you mention. First of all, replacementdocs only hosts game documentation, not the games themselves. This could fall under fair-use because the manual is a relatively insubstantial part of the total product (the game itself). Of course, this hasn't been proven in court yet, but the argument could definitely be made. Additionally, copyright law dictates that instructions cannot be copyrighted. Although the manuals encompass the instructions as well as the layout thereof and artwork, this still seems to be another argument for the site's validity.

But if everyone agrees that the copyright issue still makes replacementdocs a no-deal, then I believe that probably all links to AtariAge would have to be removed as well. There are links to AtariAge from virtually every article for an Atari console. They likewise host scans of copyrighted manuals.Casimps1 13:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like something that should be taken up over at WP:COPYVIO.--Aervanath 18:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:FAR and WP:GAR are the enemies of WP:The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit

Seriously. At the time of writing two articles that are having their GA status reviewed are The Beatles and Shakespeare; two of the most searched subjects on the internet! Two subjects that may well be the avenue by which a surfer will come into contact with this site... Well done, folks!! Anyone searching for these subjects will find that Wikipedia aren't sure that the article is actually any good. For those that look a little deeper, it appears that the efforts of new editors are detrimental to the standards that Wikipedia promotes. This may have the effect that new editors are discouraged, that the perception of Wikipedia is tarnished, and that the efforts of regular contributors are hindered by those editors who feel that style is everything and that content and context is irrelevant.

I agree that standards are good, and that the vast majority of articles are (or would be) improved by the strict application of same. It is just that a few are not, or perhaps more correctly are beyond the practice of academic due process. I like to call these articles "flagships", those topics that are likely to attract readers, excite interest in interacting within Wikipedia, encourage editing (no matter how clumsy) and generally bring people into the concept.

These few (very few!) should be exempt from the the usual visible checks and measures. Do not place templates on the talk page, recording the decline from FA class to GA to B grade, make WP:Peer review a condition before putting the article to review (to enable flaws to be addressed). Make it understood that a page that attracts possibly scores of edits, some from new editors or IP addresses, in a day is unlikely to ever be devoid of mistakes in both content or style.

It is in the nature of the beast, the popular article, the majority of it will be mostly right most of the time. An energetic article will constantly be updated, reviewed, corrected, tagged, cited, vandalised, reverted, rewritten, polished, split, added to, subtracted from and generally interacted with. Sometimes on a daily basis. To take an arbitary example of an article and say, "this is not to the standard by which it was once judged, and should have its status revoked" is stupid, pointless and insulting. It is made by editors who are (despite their commendable enthusiasm and diligence) stupid, rather pointless and liable to insult those contributors to major topics with their nitpicking and arrogant, superior attitudes. Perhaps my original premise was wrong; it is the editors who inhabit the FAR and GAR that are the enemy of the ethos of Wikipedia, in attempting to raise the standard they disavow the achievements and struggles of those who have spent time and effort in creating and expanding Wikipedia articles.

I suggest that the 20 (or perhaps 50) articles that aggregate the most edits (including vandalism, which suggest topicality and/or general familiarity if nothing else) over a year should be declared Flagship Articles, and not be subject to the petty referrals and overzealous Wiki policy police edits some other articles are subject. They should have an extra layer of protection from the misguided fools who prefer to concentrate on the placement of blank spaces before or after specific type of text, who will reduce a 10,000 character article into a question of consistency in the spelling of a couple of words. As in law, sometimes the argument that there is a case to answer needs to be made before the case is allowed to proceed.

If the flagship articles are not protected from the WikiZealots, then every FA or GA article will be arcane excercises in subjects that few will be engaged by and the very concept of The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit will be in trouble. LessHeard vanU 00:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If anyone complains about the language I have used; this is the point I am making! You are avoiding the debate by concentrating about the style. Prove me wrong; show me that by removing marks of approval for an article is a good way of motivating editors and encouraging newcomers to contribute. Then make the argument that those articles which attract readers and ultimately new editors should be subject to that same process. Ignore the style and concentrate on the context! LessHeard vanU 01:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with every single point that LessHeard vanU has made, at this precise moment in time, I feel like making no further contributions. Vera, Chuck & Dave GM 03:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU's comments are to be applauded. So many editors (WikiZealots) look at a page, leave a comment about what is wrong (usually something they could have easily corrected in the time it took to write their comment) and then move on. Their grievances take up more time than vandals, whose destructive edits can be reverted. Style is to be commended, but actual content is something that these editors do not take part in. andreasegde 04:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally, when I personally suggest on a talk page that something is wrong instead of fixing it myself, it's because I'm seeking the opinion (or lack of it) of other editors working on a page before changing it. On a high traffic page this is a significant step in avoiding horribe edit wars and the likes where the current "residents" at an article may be defensive of the status quo. By discussing the problem, people can see why a change is needed and a consensus can be reached.

The article review and grading process is the only form of "quality control" that wikipedia has. It's also the only outward looking indication of the quality of an article, or for that matter, an inward looking indication to editors of what kind of work an article needs. The peer review process is merely a way of getting input from uninvolved and usually experienced editors as to what an articles faults are. The GAR and FAR are much the same, but also look at whether an article continues to meet the criteria for those levels of grading. Quite imply, if the criteria for FA or GA aren't met, then the article isn't FA or GA, and needs work to bring it back to that standard. The reviews offer advice on how to go about doing just that. Crimsone 09:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't take this badly, Crimsone, but you have just explained something to us that we already know. Changing something that is blatantly wrong, like spelling mistakes, hyphens, gaps in the text etc., are not for discussion. Just repair them. Editors spend a lot of time going back and forth on talk pages about the most minimal of stylistic things, when they could be putting in content. andreasegde 10:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally cannot see why the most-viewed articles should be devoid of quality control, and be awarded GA or FA status "for life". These are the test cf credibility through whitch most people will judge the seriousness of Wikipedia; they should all strive for excellency, even more than average. Not to have a mechanism ensuring that is not really the best way to go in my opinion.

However, there seems to be growing consensus about one thing: Prose quality. It seems to me that prose is definitely the very last of our problems. We want good, informative, reliable content, in huge quantities. The "professional standards" that are required to pass criterion 1a of FAC are just way too subjective, and, for reason's sake, we are not professionnals! I feel like many people who put a lot of energy in an article in order to get it to FAC are a bit disheartened when they meet the copyediting gang there, whose word is law. Maybe we could have another classification, like PP for Professional Prose, that would be distinct from FAC?--SidiLemine 11:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of the people commenting are professionals, actually. Featured articles are supposed to represent our best work, and prose is a factor in determining what is "best". Yes, prose is often the thing most overlooked, or left until everything else has been added, and that is why it is often raised at FAC. That's not to say that articles with worse prose are no good; it's just a reflection that FAs are meant to be the best of the best. Trebor 12:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU, could you please assume good faith? To call editors who are attempting to improve the encyclopaedia "stupid" and "rather pointless", and accuse them of having "nitpicking and arrogant, superior attitudes" is hardly being civil. Most articles which go through FAR and GAR are improved by the process, even if they are eventually demoted. Isn't that the most important thing, that the quality has been improved? Classifying articles into quality groups is useful and encouraging to editors who work hard on articles, but it is hardly the most important aspect of Wikipedia. And yes, when new editors come to FAs, most changes they make are not an improvement. While we shouldn't bite, we shouldn't allow them to degrade the quality either. Trebor 12:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Trebor (and others), the assumption of good faith is a possible archilles heel of Wikipedia. It limits discussion to a level of politeness where other people may not realise the passion that prompted a comment. I deliberately went against that in my comments, but only to demonstrate the strength of my feelings in the matter. I apologise to any person who feels personally targetted by my words. I do not apologise for using them to provoke a reaction.

In truth I think that those people who take the time and effort to review articles in both FAR and GAR are doing the best job that they are able, and their efforts should be applauded. I still maintain that the discipline rightfully demonstrated at those places sometimes works to the detriment of Wikipedia, in that articles may be too easily referred there; there could have been some notes on a talkpage, and that content and context are ignored for pretty minor infringements of style. I have seen articles passed with a cavaet, which is something I would encourage. Pass it (provisionally?) for content with comments about how it could be bettered in presentation.

The idea behind flagship article is that FA and GA status can be made irrelevant within days of passing. Major interest articles attract a great many edits, some malicious, some inept, some good but not to Wiki standards, and some fantastic. Those editors who adopt an article can be hard pressed just removing vandalism and poor contributions, rewriting and requesting citations, and may sometimes be overwhelmed. A flagship article is one where this is recognised, and the processes used for quality control are only applied after a good deal of consideration. It does not stop an article being reviewed, or make it easier to pass a nomination, it just perhaps does not allow a reflex fail/referall over matters that may make up a tiny fraction of the content.

In short, I believe that WP:TETACE has precedence over WP:FAR and WP:GAR and those who do (great) work over there should bear it in mind. Perhaps there is also an argument that a very small number of articles which attract a great many searches and edits should have an extra layer of protection of over zealous application of Wiki standards.LessHeard vanU 12:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith doesn't limit conversation to politeness; WP:CIVIL does that. Good faith is acknowledging that even if you disagree with their actions, they are trying to improve the encyclopaedia. Insulting people, and generalising about their attitudes and motivation, doesn't make you point stronger; it's just more likely to get people's backs up. I'm still not sure what you want to change (or what WP:TETACE is); are you saying we should relax the quality requirements for articles that are more popular? Trebor 13:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

While WP:Civil certainly does moderate the language, assuming Good Faith possibly disallows a caustic appraisal of anothers efforts. This exchange, however, does illustrate my point that the discussion of the technicalities of the presentation can obscure the point that is being debated. Anyway, I apologised for the terms and tone used and explained that I was only shouting to elicit a greater response. FYI WP:TETACE is a conceit, just me not wishing to type out "The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit" every time. ;)

I would refer you to my last two paragraphs in my previous comment; not easier to pass but an acknowledgement that those processes may not always be appropriate for a very few articles in Wikipedia, and that another level of referral/review may be necessary before going to FAR/GAR. LessHeard vanU 13:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I totally didn't get the WP:TETACE bit. I'm not sure how another level of review would help really, apart from introducing more bureaucracy. Yes, the level of editing should be considered when making the review, but I don't think a whole new process is required. It would also bring new problems, when you try to consider which articles can be considered "flagship". Trebor 13:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

*Dan T.* below makes a very good criteria for Flagship status; the entry-point page which might be determined simply by hits. Mine was edits (which may more reflect zeal amongst fewer). If hits and edits can be counted try listing the top 100 of each, take all those which are in both listings and have the top 20 (or other arbitary quantity) made into Flagships. Amending policy for those so qualified would be the difficult task.

None of the above assumes you agree, of course; it is just how I see how it may be arrived at. LessHeard vanU 14:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you wanted to do it on page views, here is the list of the top 100 (a both amusing and depressing read). I still don't think there's a need to amend policy, just to bear it in mind when reviewing articles. Trebor 16:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least the lads are in there! This would be the passive list, I suppose. It may well be that the sex related articles, and the political ones perhaps, are semi protected anyway as they are obvious targets for vandalism. I wonder how many have even tried for GA/FA? Perhaps mixing that list with the most active in respect of edits may be interesting? As WP does not censor content, there is no reason why sex related articles cannot be classed as Flagship's . As I commented, maybe only a couple dozen articles might qualify under the discussed criteria. LessHeard vanU 17:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC) (I'm now going to the Sealand article to see why it is so popular!)

There isn't any WP:TETACE page when I just checked now. Some might argue that the most popular pages that people arrive at by search are the ones where it's most important that high standards be maintained, since they're the face we present to the world. Others might argue that consistency is a virtue, so we should strive to, as best we can, maintain the same standards throughout the site, in articles both popular and unpopular. So there is plenty of room for good faith disagreement with your assertion that standards should be made and enforced in a more "relaxed" manner on popular entry-point pages. *Dan T.* 13:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I would refer you to my reply to Trebor above re TETACE, and also

not easier to pass but an acknowledgement that those processes may not always be appropriate for a very few articles in Wikipedia, and that another level of referral/review may be necessary before going to FAR/GAR.

i.e. "semi protection" from reflex referral. Also the (provisional) passing of an article with cavaets, allowing an article which is otherwise FA/GA to get/keep the accolade while determining what needs to be done to ensure it is retained. "Entry-point page" is as valid a description of "Flagship Article" as is one which relies on edit count. LessHeard vanU 14:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The GA review of William Shakespeare is a mistake--it is a very good article and with a little work could be a featured article. The person who nominated the article for GA review was mistaken in his/her concerns, as evidenced by the fact that no one else has supported the removal. The article is also extremely stable and well referenced. While there is still room for improvement, any one whose first exposure to Wikipedia is the Shakespeare article is not getting a bum rush. I also agree with the previous comment about how too many editors pop onto a page, leave comments about what is wrong with the article, then don't stick around and actually help improve it. Shakespeare was on the Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive a half year ago and even that wasn't enough to get other editors to pitch in and help. Anyway, this is a very good article which a core group of editors has worked on for a good while. Instead of bellyaching about how some high-profile articles should be better, how about actually helping to improve them?--Alabamaboy 15:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The above is an example of what could be avoided; if there had been an intermediate stage where it was discussed whether a Flagship article (which the above might qualify as) did indeed qualify for review, and what may needed to keep it from listing, then the above editors concerns may have been addressed and the article not sent to GAR. LessHeard vanU 16:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, the review is that intermediate stage where its status is questioned. Why should things have to go through another hoop just to see if it needs to be reviewed? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Alabamaboy is not of the opinion that it need have got to this stage (however, he may be a little peeved that no notice of the referral to GAR was given at the article talkpage; a matter of procedure for the folk at WP:GAR perhaps). In respect of the above article, the comments made at GAR make it clear that the matters raised in the referral are to do with vandal reversions and one contentious inclusion that was from a Wikipedia source. An intermediate review may have discovered this before listing. LessHeard vanU 19:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Wow. Setting a double standard like this will only deterioate the quality of the encyclopedia; this will encourage people to vandalize and do other crap to the article so it can hit the "top 100" most edited/viewed article and thus be "exempt" from having to mantain a certain standard of quality. The fact that all articles are subject to the same policies is what keeps the quality of the encyclopedia from going down. There are no exceptions. Many Featured articles promoted in 2003 and 2004 do not have any in-line citations and are generally of poor quality. It hurts Wikipedia more to say that Ridge Route is of the same quality that V for Vendetta (film) is when the former is clearly worse than the latter. Besides that, most readers do not visit the talk page, and the only indication of an FA is a little icon on the upper-right hand side of the screen. The GA logo was obliterated awhile back due to a lack of strong, formal procedure for GAs (anybody can promote GAs; FAs have to go through WP:FAC). My trust of the article comes if it has an accurate in-line citation or not, not whether it has been promoted to FA status or the rather arbitrary GA status. Hbdragon88 00:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again... At most I am suggesting that a very, very few articles should be reviewed in the knowledge that a great deal of the deficiencies found at any one time are the result of many recent edits, and that the core of editors who have adopted the article will remove or improve them shortly. The same logic would be applied to the same articles that should they pass that they are likely to be edited from that standard (and back again) within a few days. It happens. Popular articles attract the good, the bad and the ugly every single day. In these instances only long standing problems need be addressed. This is not, however, how FAR/GAR works presently.

My proposed solution would to be to quantify the very few (less than 100, more than 19 is my thinking) articles as Flagship Articles which can be dealt with in one and/or two ways; firstly, a 'preview' of whether the problems are of sufficient seriousness to put to full review (after speaking to editors involved in the article), semi protecting them from kneejerk referral. Flagship Articles which are still considered to qualify for review should be treated the same as any other. Secondly, I have also suggested that any article (not just Flagship) can be passed (possibly provisionally) with a caveat that requires identified weaknesses (not sufficient of themselves individually for failure) to be addressed. This would mean less articles fail review, but the standards are maintained.

I have not pursued my suggestions that templates detailing the failure to obtain/keep accolades for such articles should be hidden or not promoted. It would create unnecessary work. I adhere to my original comment that the fine work by those in FAR and GAR does seem to work against the ethos of The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit. Nobody has even hinted that there is a decent counter argument. LessHeard vanU 00:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• What makes you think The Beatles and Shakespeare are 2 of the "less than 100, more than 19" "flagship" articles in the Wikipedia? They're clearly important, but how about Tony Blair or Islam or United States or World War II or a hundred other similarly important ones? Wikipedia:Most_referenced_articles doesn't have Shakespeare. Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics has 150 articles and doesn't include any of those. Wikipedia:Core topics, inner levels has 45, doesn't include any of them. Wikipedia:Vital_articles includes all of those, but has 1182 articles. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 01:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this list is pretty interesting. It shows what our readers are really looking for. --Ideogram 02:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I had already peeked at the list provided by Ideogram... It doesn't really matter which subjects fell within the criteria as I am not looking to "protect" any one individual article, but how Wikipedia is perceived by readers, anonymous and new editors.

The predominance of articles of a sexual nature in the list perhaps illustrates my case quite well. How many of them are included as core topics? Of more interest is if Breasts and Sexual Positions are in the 1182 vital articles? As Wikipedia is not censored they should appear there, as they are obviously a major Entry Level Topic for a great many readers (unless number of hits does not count toward the criteria!). I would also suggest that they are also frequently the target of vandalism; some of it juvenile but also some of it malicious/POV orientated. Perhaps these would then qualify for Flagship Status, with an expectation that they should be part of a promotion drive to get them to GA status? I suspect that currently they are subject to repeated vandalism (if not semi-protected), have a small (dedicated, I also suspect) team of editors who try to maintain a minimal degree of encyclopedic standard and really could do with not having other members of the Wikicommunity reminding them of the required presentation of citations and the use of the em-dash rather than the en-dash.

If the sex orientated subjects do not appear in the Core Topics then the criteria needs looking at. That the Beatles aren't included also indicates that the Core topics criteria is not based around relevance to the Wiki reader, and I would then question the point of them (I simply don't what they are or how they made the grade; I may well be persuaded if I knew the facts). Since we are discussing the awarding and removing of grades which directly impinges of the readers experience of Wikipedia then it may even be irrelevant. The other manner of attempting to find relevance would be the quantity of edits, again over an extended period. Some articles must have cycles of edits, as the subject matter gains and loses exposure in the media, and some may have a brief spell as a hot topic before reverting to the usual number of edits. Some subjects like The Beatles and Shakespeare have either a regular level of frequency of edits or (as the Shakespeare editor commented) a regular cycle. In these cases the level of edits may not decline simply because the article reaches a Wiki defined standard, or falls from that standing. They are going to be frequentley edited consistently because that is the nature of the subject, many people think that there is information that needs including (or removing) or could be said better.

If an aggregate of most viewed and most edited articles ultimately does not include either the Beatles and Shakespeare then so be it. It simply means that there another 20 or 99 articles that might require a further level of referral and debate before taking to FAR/GAR. I think this would be of benefit to Wikipedia. LessHeard vanU 17:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the most viewed articles should be the ones that are held to the highest standards. What would tarnish the image of Wikipedia is if these frequently-viewed articles were reviewed less stringently than others. Having more people viewing an article does mean more checks and balances, but it also means more vandalism, more well-meaning but ultimately harmful edits, and more small edits adding pieces of useful information that are nonetheless not well cited or well integrated into the article. You only have to look at articles that have had their day on the front page to see that scrutiny by the masses is a double-edged sword. There is a reason why featured articles tend to arrive at that state because of the devoted hard work of a small number of contributors. "Flagship" articles need extra vigilance, not less. MLilburne 21:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it just seems silly to suggest that GAR or FAR are "petty referrals". Also, I fail to understand what sort of catastrophic repercussions you think GAR can have on new editors. Let's see: new editor looks up the Beatles entry. New editor is so fascinated that he reads the talk page, finds the article is under Good article review and thinks "that's odd, I thought the article was really good." And if we're to believe your concerns new editor now thinks "jeez, I'm not going to participate in this project because the standards of quality are way too high". Come on... If anything, ensuring quality articles is going to bring us more quality editors. Wikipedia had the early reputation of a great place to find unreferenced, poorly organized and poorly written piles of info. Thanks in part to the GA and FA processes, it's emerging as a real alternative to paper and other commercial encyclopedias. I don't see how anything is to be gained by hiding these. Pascal.Tesson 22:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that FAR and GAR should not be conflated. GA has mimiced, in weaker form, every FA process, but they have little to do with each other. I personally think GA is a rubberstamp process with serious problems in terms of throughput structure. FAR is a month-long content improvement process. It's greatly aided a number of articles. Marskell 14:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I am unable to determine users MLilburne and Pascal.Tesson stance in this matter. Both appear to be arguing for both sides of the debate at various points. I would also mention that I am not interested in the precedence of the review processes of FA or GA, both of whom provide a hugely useful function within Wikipedia (IMO).LessHeard vanU 22:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My point was, and remains, that the application of both GA and FA and their (different) processes run contrary to the ethos of The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit, in that the good faith contributions by editors are liable for removal and amendment against standards of which the new and/or careless editor is not aware. My suggestion is that Wikipedia may be better served by having a very few of the most popular and thus edited articles have a further level of debate where editors expressing a view that a review may be necessary can discuss this on the article talkpage which would include said naive editors (who may become dismayed and demoralised should they believe that their contributions were the reason for referral - at the very least they can be reassured) before beginning such processes if then deemed necessary. These articles may be termed Flagships. As an aside, I also supported the option of deeming articles a pass with a caveat regarding some easily corrected matter which would have otherwise failed.

I realise now by the opinions expressed here that my viewpoint and proposals are not going to gain sufficient backing to take any further, and that the status quo remains regarded as the best or least worst option. I would like to thank everybody who took part in this, and the civil manner in which it was conducted (as opposed to the intemperate manner in which it was introduced!) I now withdraw this policy discussion point, although I will attempt to answer any queries arising. Thank you. LessHeard vanU 22:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh, so does WP:OWN, WP:VAND, WP:NPOV, and a host of other policies that are designed to ensure a high quality encyclopedia (all those policies do limit the types of edits you make to the encyclopedia as well). Are you saying we abolish those too? Those seem to run counter to the phrase "The Encyclopedia that everyone can edit" as well. I mean, we should be welcoming (that's why we have guidelines like WP:BITE), but we can't be so welcoming that we sacrifice encyclopedia quality as a result. What we should do is encourage people to come to consensus, that's why we discuss changes to articles. ColourBurst 23:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, just to make it perfectly clear and since LessHeard seems to have some doubts: I think that the proposal was a bad idea and I think ColourBurst is right on the money: Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia that anyone who can make an article better can edit. Pascal.Tesson 00:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, this seems to me to be much ado about nothing. It is basically a proposal to exempt the most popular articles from any editing standards whatsoever for fear it might hurt the feelings of potential editors who might be challenged in their self-esteem. Perhaps vandalism shouldn’t be reverted on these “Flagship” articles, and deletion of anything from the article should be banned? In any case, as proposed, it appears that for “Flagship” articles, “most popular” is defined in terms of general internet searches instead of the articles that are actually most checked out on Wikipedia itself.

Anybody can edit Wikipedia. That doesn’t mean everyone should — or should even want to. As one of Wikipedia’s Five Pillars states, “Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit…. Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community.”

ColourBurst and Pascal.Tesson have the right of it: Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia that anyone who wants to make an article better can edit. Wikipedia does have standards. The most fundamental of them is laid out in Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset: “The primary objective of Wikipedia is to produce a high-quality encyclopedia, and most pages are encyclopedia articles.” Wikipedia:Introduction elaborates, “Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting, and make it better. You can't break Wikipedia. Anything can be fixed or improved later. So go ahead, edit an article and help make Wikipedia the best information source on the Internet!”

WP:FAR and WP:GAR aren’t the enemies of this goal; they are recognitions of the accomplishments of many Wikipedia editors working together and who cared enough to make the grade with a given article. However, unlike printed encyclopedias, no article in Wikipedia is ever “finished.” Piecemeal editing will eventually degrade the quality over time ... unless editors remain willing to and interested in maintaining that standard.

If you really want to alleviate a lot of frustration for editors of all degrees of experience, there are two more practical things we can do. First, when you revert or change someone else’s work (as opposed to obvious vandalism), take the time to add a decent edit summary. It’s part of being civil and it’s also a good way to educate newcomers. As for GARs and FARs and peer reviews and so forth, if you can’t be bothered to make useful and constructive criticisms, don’t bother to critique the article in the first place. And if you’re so thin-skinned that you can’t handle constructive criticism, then you really shouldn’t be a Wikipedia editor in the first place. -- Askari Mark (Talk) 04:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am getting bored with pointing out that I do not a) wish to abolish FAR or GAR, b)change or dilute the work that goes on there, and/or c) make any article exempt. If you want to know what I do propose then read my comments above.

re

Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia that anyone who can make an article better can edit...

That isn't what is said on the front page.

I assume, in good faith that the comments in the preceeding comment were not specifically refering to me, since my edit comments have often been a source of wisdom and amusement... LessHeard vanU 13:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal? No way! I only chew on my old friends, not my new ones. :P Rather, I was (facetiously) addressing your "deeper issue", to wit:

Anyone searching for these subjects will find that Wikipedia aren't sure that the article is actually any good. For those that look a little deeper, it appears that the efforts of new editors are detrimental to the standards that Wikipedia promotes. This may have the effect that new editors are discouraged, that the perception of Wikipedia is tarnished, and that the efforts of regular contributors are hindered by those editors who feel that style is everything and that content and context is irrelevant.

The fact that front page doesn't say precisely "Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia that anyone who can make an article better can edit" doesn't mean that it isn't a truer rendering of Wikipedia's "pillar" statement; maybe the main page should be corrected. Wikipedia is, by design, darwinistic. For every new editor who gets discouraged about changes to their work, there's an older editor who gets discouraged of doing cleanup and vandalism reversion. In the end it balances out. It's not about our individual editing skills or specific contributions, but rather about what comes of all this collaboration over time ... and to measure that, one needs standards, not sandboxes. IMHO. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, WP:TETACE is a truer rendering, since it is literally true. Although, actually, it's more like: "Wikipedia: The Encyclopedia That Anyone Who Has Not Already Been Blocked For Being A Dick Can Edit". Thank you.--Aervanath 18:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Bless WP:GAR, bless WP:FAR, bless Wikipedia, and bless WP:IAR. Goodnight! LessHeard vanU 23:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC) (bless)

When can I call an idiot an idiot?

I understand the intent behind our policies NPA and CIVIL; we need to be able to discuss matters politely in order to work together. Unfortunately some people interpret those policies to mean that we must respect each other. Now, I am not the kind of person to give respect lightly; I believe respect has to be earned. It is also easy for me to be nice to someone who clearly respects me.

The problem is when I run into a user who is both arrogant and an idiot. There is no way to work with, or even communicate with, such a person; they are too dumb to know what they are talking about and too full of themselves to learn from their mistakes. Generally I give up all hope of interacting productively with such a person and take pleasure in pointing out their stupidity.

I can't simply pretend such people don't exist. And if I wanted to grit my teeth and play politics with them I could get paid a whole lot of money in a real job. Is there any hope for me in Wikipedia? --Ideogram 07:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but not if you tell people that they're "idiots" (no matter how much pleasure you derive from belittling others). Instead, simply inform them that you've been unable to adequately communicate with them and don't care to continue trying. —David Levy 07:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Typically how I encounter such people is in the middle of a controversial argument that has already dragged on too long. I may be overestimating my abilities, but I sometimes feel that I can help focus the debate on important things by dismissing obviously stupid arguments before other participants get distracted by them.

I suppose I could simply shrug my shoulders and let those silly enough to get dragged into such arguments suffer. But for some reason I am irrationally attracted to conflict. --Ideogram 07:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram, you are falling into their most basic trap. Have you ever thought that the .......... (insert word of choice here) might enjoy making you angry? Silly people like silly arguments. Please don't let them drag you in. Have fun. andreasegde 10:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

take pleasure in pointing out their stupidity.' - ummm, not good. Reasoning with someone who is either not very smart or is very passionate about something to the point of extreme POV is generally unproductive; it's best just to say "I find that argument unpersuasive" and see if other editors agree. If it's just you and the other editor, then Wikipedia:Third opinion is useful; if it's an editor and his/her buddy(s), then an RfC is probably needed.

You might also take such situations as a challenge to try to pull something constructive from the other person's arguments. My sense is that editors feel agrieved when some argument or point of view is totally ignored in an article, and a sentence that says "claimed" or "critics have said" can appease them, without ruining the article.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, don't get caught in the trap of arguing over wording in an article like ("A and B mean that C often occurs"). That appears to be a logical statement that could be debated and resolved on a talk page; in fact, it's a statement that should be sourced like other controversial assertions and facts, and should not be defended on talk pages as "simply logical". Just keep saying "that needs to be sourced or it needs to be removed"; at some point they'll realize that you're not going to engage in a debate over the matter, and that they either have to put up or shut up. -- John Broughton ^(♫♫) 15:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Simple, never. Calling someone an idiot isn't civil, no matter how you spin it. Don't do it; you're still free to ignore him, though. Superm401 - Talk 20:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

With one's superior skills it is often easier to shrink a fool to the size of a cockroach and make him dance in a teaspoon. A neutral description of the other's rhetorical techniques is effective. Addressing other readers of your post rather than the fool directly may be more effective. And always coat your venom with honey. --Wetman 21:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Never, never, never call someone an idiot. It's about the most jabbing insult you can make on Wikipedia, and chances are high you'll have an extremely heated edit war on your hands. Don't do it. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for your replies. You have given me much to think about. --Ideogram 22:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I find the approach recommended in Romans 12:20 quite effective (even if one is not religious); one of Napoleon's dicta also is helpful. Raymond Arritt 20:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, Ideogram, you might want to think about this: Treating someone like they are an idiot is almost as bad as just calling them an idiot. While you may not respect someone, treating other people with respect, even if you don't feel that way, is more likely to earn the respect and cooperation of your fellow Wikipedia editors, which means we are more likely to take your opinion seriously in any discussion. Treating another editor with disrespect is the fastest way I know of lose a debate.--Aervanath 18:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

When an article is finished...

Can an article ever be considered complete, and if so, would restriction in editing be considered to ensure that an article doesn't reach a peak and then decline due to sneaky vandalism/sabotage etc? Of course if someone has something to add to a "completed" article, a suitabley ranked Wikipedian could be trusted to implement the addition. I just think it would be nice, once an article is decidedly finished, to not have to spend resources keeping it in good shape and to concentrate on something else. --Seans Potato Business 04:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Such a thing has been proposed by Jimbo, but the discussion on it is still ongoing, and it's certainly not implemented. --Golbez 05:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I would support the idea that, at some point, an article could have a "DONE" stamp placed on it (with a permanent lock, which would be removed by request: for example, if new information becomes available on the subject and the article needed updating). However, that is not the policy at the moment. It is sad that excellent articles, once they achieve a level of perfection where we can say they are "done", need constant monitoring to prevent vandalism, but that is the way things work right now. Blueboar 15:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, do you know where the discussion is taking place? --Seans Potato Business 20:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Even excellent articles can still be improved, and there would need to be some mechanism that was not overly burdensome for an editor to propose further improvements to a "done" article. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Reviewed article version and Article validation feature give some overview, although there isn't a lot of ongoing discussion at the moment. It's a MediaWiki feature currently in development, and the plan last I heard was to test it out on the German Wikipedia once it was ready to go live. If you're interested in this and other "behind-the-scenes" things, a good thing to do would be to join the mailing lists, where a lot of such discussion takes place. You'll probably also find more discussion if you dredge through the archives of some of the major lists, such as foundation-l, wikipedia-l, and wikiEN-l. --Slowking Man 20:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, Wikiproject on Article Verification was working on this, but I don't know how active they are anymore. --Aervanath 19:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have written a new essay

The essay I have written is called: Wikipedia:Essays are not policy. I have written in as an attempt to explain what essays are and are not, and how to respond to those who use them and you don't agree with the essay. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this one of a large number of essays that belong in a category I'd name Category:Wikipedia essays that automutilate because of circular reasoning. I'm serious about that category, we do have a large number of verbose essays, whose only reason for verbosity is hiding self-contradiction. Then I'd treat the essays in that category in the same way as trivia sections per the description at Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections#Guidance: the not self-contradictory contentions of such essays should probably be merged with existing guidance (if that isn't already the case...), the rest should be removed.

Applying that to Wikipedia:Essays are not policy: this essay shoots at its own argument: if essays are not policy, then this essay certainly isn't and its content can be neglected, a truism, a triviality that doesn't need a separate page. FYI, relations between policies, guidelines and essays are explained at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc. - if you want to change the approach explained there, there's always Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines to explain your arguments, which would be largely preferred over authoring a self-contradictory essay. --Francis Schonken 12:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh? How is it self contradictory? This isn't a guideline, nor is it a policy. It looks like an essay, it reads like an essay (opinionated, full of reasoning, etc) and... it is an essay! It makes suggestions, and never directs the reader to actually do something. It doesn't have broad community support, but is still needed by others. The link that you direct me to says a few words on the matter, but doesn't give an opinion on what to do if someone tries to browbeat you with an essay. You say the essay can be neglected, yet I don't in particularly intend to keep it neglected. Some people might find it useful. You call it a truism, yet it's not that obvious and I've seen more than a few people try to use essays as if they were policy. You may count the essay as a triviality, however I don't see it that way. If you watch people spouting essays at the drop of a hat on AFD to win their argument, you'd see why I thought it was important. So I don't think it's self-contradictory, and as you believe it to be opinionated, then it's perfectly fine to be in an essay, as that is what they are there for. As for explaining on a talk page - they get archived and are largely off the radar. I hardly think that talking there is going to get much action, or explain what I think in quite the way I'd like to. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Francis on this one. This essay duplicates the content of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc.. By the way, that's one of the problems with the multiple essays floating all around: many of them are re-hashing things which are already part of established policies and guidelines and as such they create confusion when they're trying to eliminate it. Pascal.Tesson 16:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

While I don't agree with Francis's characterization of the essay as self-contradictory, Pascal is correct that it is redundant. I'm guessing Ta bu shi da yu feels that people aren't paying attention to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc.?--Aervanath 19:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, I thought the essay was well written and useful - when someone quotes an essay at you as justification for doing or not doing something, you can just respond WP:EANP. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 04:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In that case, why not just make WP:EANP a re-direct to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc.? --Aervanath 06:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I was going to do this, until I realised that half my points weren't reflected in the policies and guidelines page. Nor should they be. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Aervanath is correct. People aren't reading Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc., though that wasn't my sole motivation for writing it. What can I say? I'm a complex person. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

explaining copyrights and WP:CV

What is the best article to link on when trying to explain about WP:CV to new editors? Soemthing nice, simple and concise (or at least, something they'll read so I don't have to summarize it all on their talk page). RJFJR 23:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think WP:Copyrights is your best bet.--Aervanath 19:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Partially owned images on user pages

I am a contributor to and an editor of The Technique. In developing its wiki entry, I uploaded Image:The Technique 12-01-2006.jpg, and placed that image in a "gallery" on my userpage. Given that I therefore own partial copyright of the picture, do I have rights to use it on my userpage? Does it make any difference that the "use" in question is a thumbnail? See additional discussion on my talk page: User talk:Disavian#Fair use images aren't allowed in user pages. Thank you. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to understand that anything you contribute to Wikipedia should be under the GFDL. Your user page is GFDL. If you won't give permission for others to use the image freely, then don't add it to your user page, as your user page may well be moved to another Wiki, or other source. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a weird one. Frankly, assuming you're one of the owners, it isn't a fair use at all-- it's the copyright holder using the image as he sees fit. We're picky about fair use, because we a) care at least somewhat about what happens downstream of our creations, and b) we don't want to get sued (for a use to be fair it has to be for a "fair use" purpose, and decoration of one's web page isn't ordinarily one). You're licensing it to yourself for your use here, so that solves problem b) and problem a) is weird, because user pages aren't part of the encyclopedia. So the policy issue is one of first impression.

When I say we care at least somewhat about what happens downstream, I mean that we do allow some content that isn't free, permanently. We like to have as much free as possible, because creating an unrestricted free source of information is one of our policy goals. We do allow restricted content-- e.g. fair use-- when necessary, because we sometimes need it to make this particular wiki useful, even if downstream users who have a different purpose might have to cull out some fair use images if their usage of the image wouldn't be "fair." There's currently a vigorous and occasionally bitter debate about whether we should go ahead and delete fair use content that could be replaced, or if we should wait until the replacement has been made or found before replacing it.

Personally, I'm in the "leave fair use content on the wiki until free replacements can be found" camp, because I see creation of Wikipedia as a useful entity as our primary goal, and the other issue as an important secondary goal. (I realize that not everyone holds that opinion, but that's where I stand.)

Your use may raise policy problems above and beyond the copyright law. Your use of the image on the newspaper's entry is fine-- perfect example of fair use. You as the owner of the image would be exempt from fair use requirements, so you can decorate whatever you want with the image. However, Wikipedia is hosting the image, and it's odd that only one Wikipedia editor is authorized to use it the way you're using it.

Are you sure you're the owner, though? Isn't the Technique itself the owner of its content and representations thereof? I don't think the managing editor of the Post owns the front page. If you're not the owner of the content, I don't think it matters that you actually made the image, any more than taking a screenshot from Heroes (TV series) conveys rights over the image to the photographer. I think we need to be sure of the answer to that before we even address the hard question. DCB4W 02:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm with you in the "wait until a replacement can be found" camp. Legally, the Editor in Chief holds the full copyright to the issue (and therefore, any derivatives). Therefore, I was planning to ask her to release rights to that image the next time I saw her. I consider my copyright over the picture to be somewhat limited, given that I'm only a contributing editor. Let me ask the hard questions, now that you know who technically owns the copyright:

• If I was the Editor in Chief, would I be able to use the image on my userpage?
• If I authored one of the articles on that image, would I be able to use the image on my userpage?

Given that information, we might be able to conclude on the final question:

• If I helped create that image, even though I do not hold the primary copyright, would I be able to use the image on my userpage?

Hope that helps. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI: My concern is how does Disavian prove he is a copyright owner? Without, isn't the entire discussion mute? Will (Talk - contribs) 06:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I was under the impression that the permissions account only handles GFDL releases, and I don't think that they'd want to release under GFDL. One could prove that one was the EiC for a newspaper by using the editor email account from their newspaper. ColourBurst 01:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

My concerns about this are that we Wikipedia users do not own their user space, it is a community resource. Use of copyrighted images on those pages would only be within fair use, even though it is not technically part of the encylopedia. The problem is there is not really any legitimate usage that would qualify as free use on user pages. (criticism of the artwork, artist style used in the image, review, parody) You, the copyright owner, could give rights for use of the image on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia requires you give unlimited usage rights (well on encyclopedic pages, but I am not sure about user pages). Use on your own user page is no different that use on any one elses user page, as it is a community resource, and not yours.

What do you mean when you ask "If I helped create that image, even though I do not hold the primary copyright"? If you created the image, then you are copyrighted at the time of creation (without formal filing). When you say "helped" does that mean you are co-copyright owner? Or does it mean you held the lights while someone else took the picture? Probably in either case, it can't be used on your user page, as it is copyrighted. And the copyright owner (whomever that is) has not given unlimited use rights to Wikipedia. If it is your creation, you could consider licensing the images under creative commons version 2. Atom 02:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The image has been removed, by the way. I think I've seen some pretty convincing arguments that I can't do it. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean you gave up trying to relicense the image? Everyone else, I think we need to continue this until the end so we know what to do with future images in this situations. When I saw that image, I was in a bind. I don't like binds. Clear? If there are some lawyers with experience in copyrights and related law in Wikipedia, we need to get them involved in this conversation. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing the thumbnail is easier than proving I have legal rights to the image, and I doubt that it will be licensed under a more free license as it would include the masthead, which AFAIK/have been told recently, is something newspapers (even smaller ones such as The Technique) are hesitant to share. However, I would still like to know the answer to the dilemma I proposed, you are correct. Rephrasing the underlying question: "If a user owns a copyright to an image, and the image is used under a fair use license on WP, does that user have rights to use it on their userpage?" And while we're on the subject, can they use it on their talk page? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the rule is that fair use images can't be used outside the main namespace at all. Durin told me this we can't even allow fair use images on the talk pages of articles and any templates out there -- even ones that will never be used outside articles. So I would expect User talk pages to be a no-no. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Q: "If a user owns a copyright to an image, and the image is used under a fair use license on WP, does that user have rights to use it on their userpage?"

A: No. a) Wikipedia does not allow Fair use outside of main namespace. b) Fair use is for criticism, review, or parody(short version) and using on your user page is probably not any of these. Atom 20:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Disavian, if you were able to get the Editor in Chief, or whoever owns the copyright (I think it would normally be the Publisher, not the Editor in Chief, although your Editor in Chief may be both) to agree to release the image under the GFDL, then there would be no problem with using it anywhere on Wikipedia.--Aervanath 21:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Image is out of copyright; work is in copyright

I have an image I'd like to scan and include in an article. The image appeared in Harper's Weekly in 1900, but the book where I found it reprinted was published in 1977. The image, being over 100 years old, should be out of copyright, but the book is clearly still in copyright. If I scan the picture from the book, which copyright status is applicable, that of the image, or that of the book? Acdixon 00:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

what country are you in?Geni 02:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Does what country Acdixon is in matter? This is the English language Wikipedia, which is physically located on American soil. Shouldn't only American copyright law be applicable? (Not to sound like an American imperialist or anything. :-) --Aervanath 05:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

generaly it is best to follow your local law as well as US law if the two differ.Geni 12:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The image's original 1900 publication date will control. Once it's been published, the clock starts irrevocably ticking, and the book's author couldn't gain any new rights over the photo or extend its copyright duration by republishing it. The book's 1977 publication date will only be relevant to what was first published in that book. Postdlf 05:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK (etc), the clock resets if the republishing contains any "creative element" but not if it is a static reproduction. So if the book changed the picture in some way a scan of the picture from the book would still be copyrighted by the publisher. SchmuckyTheCat 10:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

A scan of the picture from the 1977 edition would be copyrighted; a scan from the 1900 edition would not. IANAL. --Golbez 11:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is from Wikipedia:Public_domain#Derived_works_and_restorations_of_works_in_the_public_domain: "A work that is merely a "slavish copy", or even a restoration of an original public domain work is not subject to copyright protection." In this case, Acdixon, it sounds like your image is a "slavish copy", and therefore still in the public domain, regardless of the 1977 date, since I presume they haven't altered the image in any way. Just be careful to ONLY scan the picture from Harper's, and not include anything that the 1977 book may have added, i.e. captions, surrounding text, etc. --Aervanath 12:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, in my entry, there was a silent "if the 1977 edition changed it". --Golbez 12:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if the 1977 printing of the photograph differed in some manner from the 1900 printing, and that difference was sufficiently creative to constitute a derivative copyright, then the copyright in that difference would date to 1977. For example, let's assume that the 1977 printing colorized the 1900 photograph, and that the coloration was independently copyrighted. The original black and white 1900 photograph would be public domain, but the color 1977 version would not be. One could then of course still scan the 1977 printing and remove the change by desaturating it. Postdlf 01:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all for this great advice! It was extremely helpful. Acdixon 15:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Hi, just a little question: can we use the English Wikipedia as a source for articles in other languages? I thought I had seen a page listing all the possible sources that could be used for Wikipedia, and the English Wikipedia was listed in the category wiki. Thanks in advance, Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 10:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Not really, but the English article should have a "sources" section that you can copy/paste to the other language. >Radiant< 11:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • well, you can always just translate an en-wiki article, and the result will be just as sourced or unsourced as the original, for better or worse. dab (𒁳) 17:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It really depends on the policy on the foreign-language Wikipedia. On the English Wikipedia, we don't like to use tertiary sources (see WP:SOURCE) for our articles. Since encyclopedias are tertiary sources, we do not generally use foreign-language Wikipedias as sources. Your Wikipedia may have a different policy, though. --Aervanath 08:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Opinions wanted at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

There recently has been some reverting over Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, specifically changes from the previous wording "If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid editing articles related to you..." to "...you are strongly discouraged from avoid editing articles related to you..." and similar variations on that wording (most with grammar that isn't so bad). Personally I feel the proposed wordings have been more lenient and an unnecessary weakening of the guideline (particularly in light of recent events). New opinions would be welcome. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Requiring usernames

I'm sure this has been mentioned before, but why doesn't Wikipedia require people to register? I bet 90% of the vandalism on here comes from IP users, and if they were required to register before they edit it would stop a lot of that, and make many, many peoples' work a lot easier. Why don't they do this? It would still be an encyclopedia anybody could edit. --AW 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it's been mentioned so much before it's found its way onto our list of perennial proposals. Trebor 23:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's frustrating that the people there poo-poo it by saying "oh, this a perennial proposal." There's probably a good reason why it's a perennial proposal --AW 23:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it's also a proposal that has been rejected on several occasions by the community. While consensus can change, on the proposals listed there it is pretty unlikely. Trebor 23:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That sucks. It's extremely frustrating to always be reverting vandalism by anons and warning them. It makes me want to quit sometimes, it's sisyphean. --AW 23:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

90% of the vandalisms come from IP editors, but about 90% of IP edits are valid, so... catch 22. --Golbez 23:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm not a big fan of the idea of limiting editing to registered users, I'd like to point out that the above statistics are pretty much made up and that the debate will not really make sense until we get hard facts. What's a good estimate about the percentage of IP edits that are significantly helpful, helpful, not helpful but made in good faith and clearly unhelpful? A rough estimate would be quite easy to do using a random sample of this. What's a rough estimate of the percentage of vandalism due to IPs? I'm not sure we have an easy way of knowing and I encourage everybody to view numbers being thrown around in that regard with circumspection. What percentage of good edits from anons are actually edits by users that have an account but are simply not logged in? Again, it's pretty much impossible to compile the data. And what is the percentage of anonymous editors who would not bother create an account to make a positive edit? The fact is we don't know and until we do, the debate will just be an abstract one. Pascal.Tesson 01:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yhere is Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies. Except that it's pretty inactive, though recently started; more editors are welcome to join and perhaps put it on a track that has more consensus. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 03:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I, too, was interested in the statistics a while back, so I did a short experiment. The results are here. Feel free to continue my work there if you wish. Obviously, placing an edit in one of the categories is subjective. However, I found that about half of IP edits were unhelpful and half were helpful. The majority of unhelpful edits were vandalism. The overwhelming majority of helpful edits by IPs were small and Wikignome-like. I find the oft-cited argument that IPs write the majority of our content hard to believe, especially now that IPs cannot create new articles. Thus, if we're to take a strictly utilitarian approach, requiring registration would seem to benefit Wikipedia, especially considering the heavy opportunity cost of devoting so much of our resources to reverting IP vandalism and spam, semi-protecting articles, blocking and unblocking IP addresses, dealing with open proxies, etc. Of course, there are those who believe registration is unwiki. ::shrug:: Gzkn 05:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Another thing that it is impossible to track are how many of those anonymous IP edits are just the first edits of a future registered user. If it weren't so easy to edit, how many of them would actually sign up to be editors? We don't actually know. Maybe it's none. Maybe it's quite a few. Meh. "Vandals, you can't live with 'em...pass the beer nuts."--Aervanath 09:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Goodbye.

Hi. This is probably going to be my last edit to wikipedia in a long while. Prior to now I've attempted to better the wiki in various ways, and I won't blow my own trumpet about all of them, just check my main-space contributions.

However, I'm now going to go on indefinite leave from the wiki, with no plans to return while it remains in the current state it is.

Over the past couple of months, I've experienced bullying from a couple of admins who appear genuinely well intentioned, but don't get that what they are doing is bad. They see things through the coloured lenses where disagreement is trolling, warning to remain civil is a personal attack, and everyone except them is edit warring and being disruptive. It's their way, or the highway. I came to their attention for disagreeing with their positions a few times, and thus earning accusations of ill intent and threat of blocks.

The problem, I think, is rooted in Editcountitis. Despite claims to the otherwise, Edit Count is still the primary decision maker in who gets to be an Admin. And what kind of editor has a large edit count? The kind of editor who edit wars over things to get their way. And of course, once appointed admin, they believe their behaviour has been vetted, so their way of doing things is 'the wikipedia way'.

Tag on the continuing belief of some admins that they are 'the best and brightest' of Wikipedia, and need special privileges such as private official IRC channels and a 'get out of jail free' card for personal attacks... And Wikipedia is going to end up turning into an isolationist and exclusionary club, and otherwise long term editors are going to drop out because of it.

I hope that this trend is reversed, that bullying is no longer accepted on wikipedia, that admin accept they are taking on responsibility not being awarded power. Till then, bye. The vast majority of you have all been fantastic and do a good job. But there's no longer a climate for me that I can edit without being bullied. --Barberio 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If you've been having a problem with admin misbehavior, you'd be better off going through dispute resolution than making unactionably vague statements like that. Directly addressing a problem is the only way to correct it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Despite claims to the otherwise, Edit Count is still the primary decision maker in who gets to be an Admin. Wrong. The actual, hard data shows that above an edit count of around 3,000, additional edits make absolutely no difference in whether an RfA succeeds or fails (some argue that edit counts above 5,000 actually hurt a candidate; that too is not supported by the data). At 9 edits per day, it takes about 12 months to exceed 3,000 edits, so that figure hardly requires someone to obsess about racking up edits.

And what kind of editor has a large edit count? The kind of editor who edit wars over things to get their way. Absolutely wrong. The fastest way to rack up edits to post welcome notices on new user pages - and at least one candidate who specialized in that got rejected because the community felt that this was not a demonstration of admin qualities. The second fastest way is vandal patrol using a semi-automated tool.

Edit warring is a fast way to increase one's edits. That was his point and it's true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.240.184.133 (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Technically, yes, but only because any amount of editing, by its very nature, increases one's edit count. That's... just kind of how that works. Shocking, I know... EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

But posting welcome messages to rack up an edit count racks up a non-mainspace article edit counts; I always thought most people really only count edits in article space. On a side note, the "worst" way to rack up edits is to do newpage patrol; it's surprising the proportion of newly minted articles that violate speedy deletion policies. Finally, the only semi-automation tool that doesn't require an editcount is the popup feature; both AWB and VP require a few thousand mainspace edits before they let you sign up. ColourBurst 05:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And of course, once appointed admin, they believe their behaviour has been vetted . Wrong again. Editors who have been involved in edit wars in the past six months rarely even bother to run for admin, knowing that admin candidates with such experiences are virtually always rejected by the community.

Please don't let the door hit you on your way out. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 04:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well John, after the work you put in at WP:WQA that last comment is not exactly choking on its own civility... Barberio's bitter and feels that he was treated unjustly by some admins. Let's just take that information in, no need add to the fire. Pascal.Tesson 06:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, my request for adminship was rejected precisely because I have plenty of edits in article space - but not enough of my edits were in WP: space! I couldn't believe it! SteveBaker 12:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, article space edits are an indication of what your contributions are to the encyclopedia - WP: edits are an indication of how much you know about policy (but both are only really a rough guide). ColourBurst 14:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Barberio, if you choose to leave, that's your call...but I'd recommend taking the personal attacks off your user and user talk pages. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Inspiration is copyright infringement?

Hello, I was wondering if it is against any Wikipedia policy, or more importantly, if it is illegal to mention, in a References in popular culture section some artistic works inspired by another (copyrighted) artistic work. In particular, this Mediation Cabal case on East of Eden has been brewing for nearly a month with only sporadic discussion (and no closure) occurring. East of Eden has been assessed as "Top Importance" by WikiProject Novels, which means it is "a 'core' topic for literature, or is highly notable to people other than students of literature" (from Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Assessment#Importance scale)

Even more specifically, there are certain songs, inspired by this book, that were included in the References in popular culture section that User:Catbird222 removes. Eventually someone else adds them back—I was the one to first do these reverts, providing references to back up that these songs were inspired by the book. However, Catbird222 believes these songs to be copyright infringements, and even further, he claims to actually own the copyrights (see User talk:Catbird222). Regardless, I believe mentioning these songs is acceptable under fair use (both the WP policy and the legal doctrine).

Catbird222 even uses the name of admin User:BradPatrick, though Brad claims in this (archived) Administrators' noticeboard discussion that the invocation of his name is unwarranted in this situation.

The three bold links above are areas where this has been discussed quite a bit. I am refraining from reverting Catbird222's edits until this matter is settled.

− Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not illegal to mention any item whatsoever, in fact it's imperative. I command you to mention them! No but seriously, mentioning items is not in any way, shape or form copyright infringement. You are not copying an item, just because you name it. A name is not copyrightable unless of cource the name is the entirety of the work *and* is so extraordinarly unique that it represents a work of art (highly unlikely by the way). In other words, you're right, he's wrong, nah na nah na. Mentioning a song is not the *song*, its the song that is copyright, not its mention. Wjhonson 08:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wjhonson has it almost exactly. Who on earth is this *** above, he clearly has no idea of copyright law or common practice. If what he implies "was" true, then the legal profession have been missing it for yearxs!. Just silly. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, if Catbird claims to own the rights to East of Eden, then by editing that article he is definitely in violation of WP:COI. If the mediation doesn't go anywhere, just move up the Dispute Resolution ladder. If he keeps up the way he's going, he's going to end up blocked by the ArbCom eventually.--Aervanath 09:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I own the rights to the word "the". I refuse to allow anyone to mention the word "the" ever again. Its' illegal! I mean it. *Puts on spider man pajamas* Wjhonson 09:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I was invited to weigh in on this. First of all, I would really like to encourage people to steer the conversation away from sarcasm and unkindness. We don't need to mock anybody, even if we disagree strongly with them, and nastiness is just going to inflame, not resolve, any real basis for the dispute. That said, we are absolutely not in the business of determining whether or not a song based on a character in a novel infringes on the copyright of that novel. Further, even if we knew that it did, for instance after a widely-discussed successful suit, it would remain a matter of editorial judgement on our part whether or not to mention the song in the article about the novel. Don't get me wrong -- I think that these "In popular culture" sections are usually trivial, badly written and that we should be sort of vaguely embarassed by our tendency to turn our "what links here" function into bullet-formatted text in the actual article. But it's an editorial decision, not one based on copyright issues. Jkelly 17:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents: this reminds me of a similar situation where an editor tried to get all references and links to websites offerin "old time radio" recordings removed from Wikipedia, and in the process started removing links and information that were being used for the specific purposes of fulfilling WP:V. As I understand it, just because something based upon another work is alleged to violate a copyright, that does not disqualify it from inclusion in Wikipedia. It can be mentioned, and if notable enough an article can be created about it, nd if it is the subject of a copyright suit, etc., then that can also be mentioned in the appropriate place -- with proper attribution. Someone coming along and making the claim that such-and-such is a copyvio and must be removed -- when that item is simply being mentioned as factual information, in this case to illustrate cultural references to East of Eden -- is IMO in violation of WP:NPOV and probably other Wikipedia rules and unless, of course, the information being added can be proven as being false, WP:SNOW is also a factor. 23skidoo 21:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this page still useful?

I'd almost forgotten that this page existed, frankly. I've been working on tidying up the project namespace, and there's practically no help, and I only recently got linked here, to find people here busily chatting away about all kinds of trivial subjects, blithely unaware that -for instance-- Wikipedia:Consensus has been broken since almost forever, or that the whole policy/guideline/essay/howto/twiddlethumbs/other division is entirely unenlightening, and also broken besides (since pages get mis-marked all the time, and sometimes multiple times, when someone gets the urge to do another Great Re-Tagging).

So my questions are these. Is this page still useful for any real work? (Note that the real work takes digging in old pages, and using your nose to sniff out consensus from the dark little corners of the wiki.). And if so, who's up for it? :-) --Kim Bruning 08:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sshhhh you're giving away all the secrets! Beam me up the link Kim ! This is the village pump we just come here to chat, you're expecting us to... work? Ugh. Wjhonson 08:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Make a personal list of useful and not-useful Wikipedia pages somewhere (not sure if this would be suitable for Wikipedia namespace instantly), and add your comments to them, or set up a collaborative area for people to winnow out the most useful pages. I've thought of doing this for a while, so I could have a set of notes to refer to to help me decide the best place to go to for help. Sometimes the categories organising the Wikipedia namespace are helpful. See Category:Wikipedia categories, or as that doesn't exist, try Category:Wikipedia administration (CategoryTree view) and Category:Wikipedia history (CategoryTree view), plus 'what links here' for {{Wikipedia category}} (less than 100 whatlinkshere hits at the moment. Carcharoth 08:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• I pretty much fail to see the difference between this part of the pump and the 'proposals' part; both are replete with suggestions on how we should do things differently (and also, WP:PEREN issues). >Radiant< 13:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This place is for rules, that place is for other changes, I think. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

One way in which this page is useful is as a pointer towards the places where actual discussion is going on. As an admin with a fairly peripheral involvement in policy discussions, I find it useful to drop in here from time to time for updates on possible policy changes. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about creating a corporate page.

Is is ok to create a history/corporate page on our company? The name is Clutterbusters!! it is a registered trademark--and the name itself has become synonymous with the service itself (professional organizing)--thus, people may be searching the words "Clutter buster" or "clutterbuster" in an effort to locate a page on professional organizing. I would put a link to the main "professional organizing" page, but the main purpose is to let people know that the term Clutterbuster is a trademarked name. Is that allowable? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rfein1 (talk • contribs) 18:30, February 1, 2007 (UTC).

Creating articles about your own company is generally frowned upon. See WP:CORP, WP:AUTO and WP:COI. If you want to note the trademark, you could just redirect it to the main page on professional organizing, with a note on that page about the name being trademarked. The talk page for that article is also a good place to discuss this. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If your company actually meets WP:N, send me some information on it and I'll see if I can put together a small article stub on it. I see nothing wrong with most significant companies having a page. --BenBurch 22:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Google hits as an arguing tool?

Is there any official or quasi-offical policy pertaining to this? It.. kind of annoys me when people use the equivalent of Googlefight to argue what name an article should take, or if an article passes notability. Similarly people like to talk about "Alexa rank", which I'm not familiar with. It might not be such a bad thing, but people seem to like using this as their sole argument as to why an article should change, stay the same, be deleted, or whatever. Errick 22:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It is a very bad practice. Google hits may at best be used to gauge notability prima facie but never to make a comparison of two things and see which is more 'notable'. It probably can also be used in some cases to call a hoax or someone's bluff. But using it to establish notability is a strict no-no. Sarvagnya 22:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent discussion here. Essentially they're an indicator but in themselves meaningless. Alexa is an imperfect measure of the number of hits a site gets; it can indicate popularity but not notability. Trebor 22:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the statement "It is a very bad practice". Sure Google hits have to be used parsimoniously, with care and certainly never as a sole judge. But there's no reason not to use them when you take the time to explain what you think they mean and why you think that data enlightens the debate. Pascal.Tesson 23:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Alexa is more than imperfect. It's terrible. First, if a site appeals to Mac users, you don't see it there. No Alexa toolbar for the mac that I am aware of. And the Alexa toolbar is basically what is now termed "spyware" and most people who know what they are doing with online security don't install it. So sites that appeal to more savvy and experienced Internet users simply don't get counted there, either! And there are some well known strategies for pumping your Alexa numbers that some people use very effectively for their sites. --BenBurch 23:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Google hits can be useful. They can be a very rough quantitative measure, but not qualitative. Google scholars, if used correctly and only for certain things, can also be used in a similar fashion.Atom 00:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Google search: "Kevin Federline" = 1,740,000 results

Google search: "Ralph Nader" = 1,170,000 results

Interesting. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Google test. Dragons flight 04:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Google Books, Google News (archives) and Google Scholar are useful, but you have to actually analyze the contents of what it returns. JChap2007 18:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Quality

Is there a guideline on quality? If not, shouldn't there be one saying that in a nutshell, edits should focus on quality, not churn out numerous edits? Simply south 22:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to write an essay on the subject and ask for opinions. --Ideogram 22:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits should focus on improving the encyclopaedia. An edit that does that is good; an edit that doesn't is not so good. Trebor 22:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, of course, all we have to agree on is the definition of improve... LessHeard vanU 00:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely should be quality not quantity, but reverting vandalism should be both (for me, anyway). Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This topic is somewhat discussed at Wikipedia:Editcountitis, but could be elaborated on significantly. As LessHeard vanU pointed out though, how do we define what is 'quality' and what isn't? Probably the biggest annoyance for me is editors who make twenty edits to a page within five minutes, because they either seem to feel that every single change deserves its own edit, or they refuse to look at the preview before saving their pages. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I sometimes make "twenty edits to a page within five minutes" but usually only when I feel that, for one reason or another, I need to explain every single change, no matter how minor, with an edit summary. Situations when I feel this is necessary include when the page is getting hot and dangerously close to an edit war and I want people to understand what I'm doing and why without cluttering up the talk page and want people to be able to revert the controversial changes I make without reverting the uncontroversial copyediting. Also, people often ask me to copyedit articles they've worked on. I like to make lots of minor edits then so that I can explain what I'm doing with each change and they can look at the edit summaries and not make the same grammatical errors again. Basically - I do that when I want people to understand what I'm doing and why. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution

Comments are requested on whether this page is still viable. Steve block Talk 15:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what kind of comments you're looking for. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The best term to wrap up cities, towns, villages, etc.

I won't get into what's been happening with top-level U.S. state categories lately (as I don't want to treat this like a dispute), but I'd like to know what fellow Wikipedians think. Should we wrap up subcategories for cities, towns, villages, etc. into a top-level category for "settlements" or should we use something like "political subdivisions" or "administrative divisions". All of these connote certain things, but I just wanted to get others' opinions on this. Thanks! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Settlements seems to be the best word to wrap up cities, towns, villages, etc. into one category, in my opinion. Political subdivisions and administrative divisions would seem to include only those locations that are politically recognized and would include things like counties, states, provinces, etc. On the other hand, Settlements limits the subcategories to concentrations of people and excludes counties, states, provinces, etc.--Bobblehead 18:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

How about "populated areas"? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and say what I think is optimal, although I don't want to stop others' ideas from flowing. I'm thinking "community" or perhaps even "polity" (although, that's kind of a flighty word). A city and a county can both be communities. What sounds less absurd, the Louisville community, or the Louisville settlement? With counties: the Jefferson County community, or the Jefferson County settlement? I'm going by connotations here, and community has a more authentic ring to it. Even "populated area" sounds more authentic than settlement when looking at it this way. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• For information existing use of 'settlements' in WP, see Settlement (first meaning), Category:Settlements, Category:Settlements by region, Category:Settlements in the United States. This is not a discussion about what to call a particular city, town, village--they are still cities, towns, villages etc. This is a discussion regarding the collective name for human habitations, which include city, town, village, etc, but not state, county, province, etc which are land areas. Hmains 17:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Counties are effectively communities, like cities are communities. Not all space in any of these entities are full of residential space ("human habitations"), but also include commercial and industrial zoning, as well as farmland and even much unused land in many cases. "Community" would apply to everything beneath a region level. I think that normally in the Wikipedia we go with more inclusive categories. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not according to Community, which specifically excludes cities, let along anything higher from the definition of community. WP reflects the commonly understood meaning and use of the term. Also see Category:Community and Category:Communities Hmains 21:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we need to find a better word than 'settlement'. That's the bottom line. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

How about "localities"? Admittedly, that could include other local administrative units such as counties, or unpopulated areas, but it might be better than "settlements" (which does have a whiff of the frontier about it, to my ears at least). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I like "localities." It's also used by DMOZ, where categories are the be-all and end-all of the project and therefore category naming issues get a great deal more attention. -- Visviva 04:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"[T]he term 'locality' is used by the United States Board on Geographic Names to refer to the name of a place that is neither a legally incorporated or defined entity (like a township or city), nor a specific geographical feature such as a river or mountain." So there's that to contend with. Postdlf 05:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Postdlf, can you point me to where the U.S. Board on Geographic Names uses the term "locality"? I haven't been able to find it used anywhere on their site. They do use the term "locale", although I haven't come across a definition for it either. older ≠ wiser 13:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like a problem to me: I assume that the USBGN uses "locality" for that because there isn't any other, more specific name for such places. All places are localities, so if you have a place that isn't a town, city, river, mountain or whatever, you can just call it a "locality". Merriam-Webster defines "locality" as:

1. the fact or condition of having a location in space or time
2. a particular place, situation, or location

and the Compact OED gives:

1. an area or neighbourhood
2. the position or site of something

Does that satisfy our purposes? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I like 'localities' a lot. It's much more contemporary in usage than 'settlements' and it can include cities, towns, counties, neighborhoods, etc. Also, while the USBGN point is well-taken, I also accept the broader definition, and we shouldn't be US-centric anyway. As far as 'settlements' is concerned, that should apply to settlements in the vain of non-permanent locations where humans settled; in other words, it would largely have a historical bent. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Two thoughts. One, I'm not sure what the problem with "settlements" is. It does have connotations of smallness or non-modernness or colonialism, but the United Nations Human Settlements Programme [4] seems to subsume all sizes of human habitats within its scope. Second, the term "locality" does not very well cover large areas. It strikes me as decidely odd to consider places like New York City or London as a "locality". This applies to non-urban areas as well, where some levels of local government encompass large swaths of sparsely populated areas that often include widely separated and distinct communities within them. I don't think either term works well with such entities. older ≠ wiser 04:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but I think that "locality" fits New York or London somewhat better than "settlement" does. I agree that neither word is perfect, but I think "locality" has less baggage than "settlement". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm slightly inclined towards "settlements" as the more inclusive term for populated places and thus less poor-fitting for large urban areas like NYC or London. I think it fits less well for those rather arbitrarily defined geographic subdivisions that do not correspond to human population centers. OTOH, "locality", to me, fits both types of areas poorly for two reasons, 1) locality has the connotation of a human-scale point in space, larger-scale places seem rather out of place described as "localities"; 2) there is nothing inherent in the term "locality" that implies a populated place -- a locality could be a rock or a crossroads. older ≠ wiser 13:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not married to the term 'locality'. I just would like to see a term that's inclusive and doesn't carry the connotative baggage that 'settlement' does. Also, we don't have to necessarily combine populated localities (cities, villages, etc.) with geographic subdivisions (counties, metro areas, etc.) -- it's not a bad thing to have these separated. I look to the moment when Wikipedia decided on the somewhat sterile, but baggage-free category naming "People of...". I think we need to do this again with "Settlements of...", renaming to something like "Populated localities of...". Sure, there will be some huge populated localities, such as New York, but I don't think we should let a few exceptions constrain the guideline we come up with. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, both terms, settlement and locality, have aspects that make them problematic as catch-all terms. Perhaps what you're going for is "populated places" (which I think is somewhat more generic and less narrow than "populated locality"). Regarding your comment about not needing to combine populated locatities from geographic subdivisions -- the problem is that the distinction is not always very clear. In many states, Towns and Townships were created as geographic subdivisions of the County. These entities often cover large geographic areas and can encompass multiple distinct communities. However, at the other extreme, these entities can become indistinguishable from cities. There is no clear line distinguishing them. If some townships are categorized as populated places (or localities or whatever), they logically would all have to be classified as such, even though some townships cover hundreds of square miles and have an extremely low population density. older ≠ wiser 17:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Populated place" sounds workable. I don't know if it should matter whether a populated place has a particular density, as long as it's generally regarded as a populated place. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes baggage must be discarded for forward movement to happen. A quick google search of 'human settlement' seems to show that this 'is' a collective term for 'cities, towns, and the like'. Please check and also remember English dictionaries are not 'prescriptive', they are 'descriptive' and sometimes take time to catch up to actual usage. Thanks Hmains 02:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Check the archives for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities, as I think this topic has been discussed and decided there. (SEWilco 04:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

I don't believe that wikiprojects have the authority to make decisions for the entirety of Wikipedia. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) has been discussing names of populated locations. (SEWilco 05:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC))

I place a much higher weight on connotation, obviously, and I think others are seeing this argument too. I would hope that nobody would marry themselves to a specific term, as changing over to a new one can be simply accomplished by a bot. Just because a word is defined a certain way doesn't make it the best word for our use. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

For references, the United Nations Stastical Division uses "locality", which they define here and [5]. More details can be found in the actual Methodology documentation. --Polaron | Talk 06:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Canadian practice has generally been to use "communities" as the general parent, and then to group specific types of communities in the appropriate subcategories ("cities", "towns", "townships", "villages", etc.) A "community" that isn't incorporated as a municipality in and of itself, but is instead nested within a larger "community", would be either left directly in "communities", or subcategorized as "communities in (appropriate census division)". Again, not that the US has to use the same categorization scheme, but I offer it as food for thought nonetheless. Bearcat 22:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• It seems that 'settlements' is even used in an established WP naming convention: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements). No alternative really needed Hmains 18:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • We already know you are interesting in cutting off the discussion. Perhaps one day you will try to see the other side of the argument. You have not been at all helpful in explaining why 'settlement' is a better choice, except to suggest it's somehow a tradition in the Wikipedia. Not good enough. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there is enough disagreement on the subject where it would be beneficial at some point in the near future to submit the entire range of "Settlements" categories for renaming consideration. I will offer "Populated places" as a suggestion, but the CfR participants will certainly be free (as always) to come up with their own ideas. Thanks everyone for your contribution to this discussion! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I feel the term "communities" fits best. A "locality" is a place and need not even be populated. "Settlement" has a connotation of newness, possible impermanency, and typically refers to very tiny communities (smaller than a village or hamlet). Askari Mark (Talk) 23:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Pre-emptive semi-protection

I am aware that pre-emptive protection or semi-protection is currently against Wikipedia policy. I would like to propose that, with apprpriate safeguards, this policy be changed under certain circumstances.

The article Auschwitz concentration camp is a major article, although not a featured one, and deals with a subject having, for many people, a very highly emotional content. It also, for some reason, is a major target for vandalism. I have seen it hit, on occasion, four or five times a day, nearly always by non-account-holders, and at least one hit per day is expected. The edits are, of course, mindless and/or childish and/or obscene and/or offensive, and must cause very significant distress to editors whose families were caught up in the Holocaust.

Devolve the decision to a bureaucrat, or a steward, or Jimbo himself if you like, but I would like there to be a procedure in place whereby pages of this type, vandalised in a way which causes emotional distress to other editors, can be permanently semi-protected. --Anthony.bradbury 17:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think this is reasonable. Of course, "appropriate safeguards" and "certain circumstances" are the keywords here and both would have to be explicited more formally before I wholly support such a change. Articles which, by nature, are the subject of extremely offensive vandalism (Nigger is another example that comes to mind) would benefit from such a measure. Vandalism is of course quickly reverted but every now and then some user will see the Auschwitz page replaced by "Jews burn" and the damage done is probably much greater than when a user wants to read on George Bush and sees it replaced by "I hope this guy dies". Pascal.Tesson 17:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - that is exactly my point. I did not take the liberty of stipulating which safeguards or circumstances were appropriate; it seemed to me that, if the principle were approved, then these factors may emerge in the discussion. If you look back in the article's edit history you will find edits which are much more upsetting than the example which User:Pascal.Tesson quotes.--Anthony.bradbury 17:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think that the current request for protection process is insufficient? --Aervanath 18:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Because the current policies of protection and semi-protection do not encourage semi-protection as a preemptive tool against occasional vandalism. The argument being made here is that while the semi-protection policy makes perfect sense in most cases, vandalism on certain pages tends to be so very deeply offensive that permanent semi-protection should be considered as an option. Pascal.Tesson 00:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

While I'm sympathetic to your plight, but pages on sensitive subjects aren't the only ones that seem to be vandal magnets. Aircraft gets as much vandalism as you quote for Auschwitz concentration camp. (In fact, I'm surprised you aren't getting hit worse.) I'm not sure how a general rule can be devised that will govern when to use or not use permanent semi-protection if the goal is simply to reduce vandalism. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the problem that Anthony.bradbury and Pascal.Tesson are trying to remedy here is not that pages like Auschwitz concentration camp and Nigger are "vandal magnets", necessarily, but when they are vandalized, the vandalism that they receive is extremely offensive. Whereas a page like President of the United States is frequently vandalized, the graffiti there is more likely to be something like "BUSH IS DUM" or something that people are not emotionally sensitive to. Or, similarly, the horde of "reality is a commodity" vandals incited by the Colbert Report yesterday. While that kind of vandalism is annoying, it doesn't provoke a strong emotional reaction, beyond the "damn it, now I've got to revert it again" sort. Whereas with pages like Auschwitz concentration camp and Nigger, the vandals there are more likely to insert racially charged and highly offensive language into the article. Therefore, Anthony.bradbury and Pascal.Tesson feel that those pages should be "pre-emptively" protected or semi-protected, to prevent this sort of attack, even when the pages are not necessarily vandalized often.

Does that sound like a fair re-statement of what you guys are trying to say? (I'm sorry to be so wordy, but at first I had the same mis-understanding that Askari Mark had. I just want to make sure I'm clear on what you guys are saying before I continue in the discussion.)--Aervanath 02:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly my point. I would suggest that readers or editors who have lost family members in the Holocaust could become deeply upset on finding some of the vandalism edits (check thje page history) whch frequently appear there. I have requested, and obtained, temporary semi-protection, but the problem is ongoing and long-standing.--Anthony.bradbury 12:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup. I do not doubt that Aircraft can be the target of much vandalism. However let's compare the last two examples of vandalism on that article (here and here) to the last two on the Auschwitz article (here and here). I believe we can all agree that the latter are extremely offensive and potentially much more damaging to Wikipedia's reputation because they will tend to stick into people's minds. I don't think it's unreasonable to guard against deeply offensive vandalism. Pascal.Tesson 15:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I believe that the term "pre-emptive" is possibly misleading in this case. Pre-emptive means protecting a page before it has been vandalized at all. I do not support that. I think that protection should always be after-the-fact. However, I agree that in this case it doesn't need to be frequent vandalism. What I would support is having a standard for permanent semi-protection on pages with a history of highly-offensive or racially-charged vandalism. Therefore, I propose that the following language (or something similar) be added to WP:SEMI:

When an article has a history of semi-frequent highly-offensive or racially-charged vandilism, it is considered appropriate to indefinitely semi-protect that page.

Comments?--Aervanath 16:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I would accept this absolutely.--Anthony.bradbury 23:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is exactly what Anthony and I have been proposing. And it is pre-emptive in the sense that it's not aimed at protecting the page from on-going vandalism. "Pre-emptive" does not mean before a page has been vandalized at all as you seem to think. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find any non-stub article on Wikipedia that has never been vandalized. Pre-emptive means that the protection acts on perceived future incidents rather than current incidents. Pascal.Tesson 00:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point. I was thinking of "pre-emptive" in a more general sense, like the military would say "pre-emptive strike" to mean attacking first before the enemy has a chance to attack. Anyway, we'll leave that proposal up here for a few days, see if there are any more comments. If there aren't, then into policy it goes.--Aervanath 02:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand more clearly now. I think one of the conditions you should use is that the vandalism is more or less constant. On Aircraft, it comes in waves (and usually when the kids get their school lunch break it seems). That sets a useful boundary condition that may make it more acceptable to consensus. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So it is time to move this discussion to the talk page of the protection policy, to work on getting consensus there, and then change the policy? -- John Broughton (☎☎) 04:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Not quite yet, John, since I don't quite understand Askari's last comment. Askari, when you say "one of the conditions you should use is that the vandalism is more or less constant", do you mean that this should be a requirement for protection under our new rule? Because that is not what we are trying to accomplish with this rule change. What we are trying to say is that some articles don't necessarily get vandalized a lot, or constantly. But the vandalism that happens at these articles is so offensive that it warrants indefinite semi-protection. If we make "constant vandalism" a requirement, then some of the articles we are trying to protect won't get protected. Do you see the difference? Or have I mis-understood your point?--Aervanath 06:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Like others, I'm sympathetic to what you're trying to do here, but I don't think pre-emptive fences around articles are the answer. Please trust the Wikipedia soft security method -- just try to make sure the most sensitive articles are on the watchlists of enough sensible people to ensure that any vandalism is reverted within minutes (as it looks like it usually is). Believe me, I know that reverting vandalism is frustrating, repetitive, and occasionally disturbing -- I have over three thousand articles on my watchlist, and make vandalism reverts daily -- but I really believe that it works better to leave most articles open and clean up afterwards. (For a somewhat-related topic, see Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection.)

I think of it as living next door to a public park: beautiful view, lovely birdsong, happy kids... and inevitable daily piles of dog feces, as my canine-loving and manners-impaired neighbors enjoy the park as well. Do I wish that they'd clean up after themselves (not vandalize)? Of course. Do we post signs asking them to do so (leave messages and warnings on talk pages)? Of course. Do I try to ban them and their dogs from the park (protect articles)? Of course not, unless they're doing something worthy of calling in the cops (need banning). Of course, in Wikipedia, you can clean up the crap with a single click, and it doesn't even stink!

I know it seems like there ought to be a way to reach the end of vandalism, to stop it once and for all, and not ever have to revert again. I found, though, that I was much happier once I accepted that it's not possible -- you can't protect every article, and you can't teach the vandals as every day you're dealing with new ones. Reverting is just the (relatively low) price of having an open system that works so well. — Catherine\^talk 19:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Proper procedure to follow if you cannot reach consensus due to non-participation?

Several times now I've posted a proposed change on a talk page, only to have it completely ignored. I would appreciate some input on what the proper behavior in this instance is. Normally I would just be bold and assume no objections, but on a policy or guideline page, this can cause some heat, since it's obvious that I haven't "built consensus". Unfortunately, this seems to be a Catch-22, since no one else seemed to want to participate in the discussion to help build the consensus in the first place. Thanks in advance for your comments. --Aervanath 07:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the policies and guidelines, I guess the best thing to do in this case would just be to go ahead and edit. Then, if someone reverts, we can start a discussion and come to a consensus. So, yeah...never mind. :)--Aervanath 08:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Move up one chair. Wjhonson 08:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

We have something for that: Bold-revert-discuss. Page does need tidying. (Like many pages do) --Kim Bruning 08:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a great essay. I love it. I will take it home and make it my pet. Woof. (I'm not a cat person, sorry.) :-D (Actually, I really mean that. That's a very helpful essay. Thank you.)--Aervanath 08:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, if the problem is lack of attention, not mentioning the name of the page is a great way to keep it from getting more attention. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just asking in a general sense, not talking about a specific article. If it comes up again, I know what to do now.--Aervanath 03:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Notable roles

The subject of the "notable roles" of actor/actress articles is cropping up in several areas of Wikipedia, and it revolves around the question of "which roles of the actor in question are actually notable enough for inclusion in their infoboxes?" Some argue that this is strictly POV while others (including myself) argue that a role's notability can be gauged with reference to reliable sources such as the number of awards won by the actor for a particular role, repeated references as "hits" in media sources, and similar methods to gain a reliable indicator of notability. If the "POV-argumentators" continue to insist (unreasonably IMO) that 'notable roles' are strictly a matter of personal opinion (POV) then this may require the removal of "notable roles" from the Actor Infobox Template. Opinions are requested, please. To gain further insight into the polemics of this issue, please take the time to quickly read through Talk:Shilpa_Shetty#Notable_roles and WT:INCINE#Notable_roles. Ekantik ^talk 05:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've said it before and I"ll say it again. 'Notable' is POV. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

All respects but, this doesn't help to resolve the problem. Ekantik ^talk 23:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Notable roles may not win awards, the film/play may not have been good other than the subjects contribution or it was simply up against a superior/more popular choice (Paul Newman in "The Verdict"?), or it may have come too early in the career of the subject to garner industry notice at the time; in retrospect a role may be realised as being notable. Perhaps an authority like Halliwell should be referenced, their synopsis generally go for quality over an artists career. LessHeard vanU 01:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point, thank you, that was one of my suggestions too vis-a-vis consulting some kind of authority (or reliable source) to determine a particular actor's notable roles. Ekantik ^talk 05:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Another thought - figuring out which roles are significant for the career is easier in retrospect. Google testing will tend to produce the most recent roles, regardless of career significance. Look for sources that look back at a career, rather than focus on current projects, and see which they highlight as most important or spend time dwelling on. GRBerry 03:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

When is religion important...

Hello...

Where can I find policy on when it is important to list religious affiliation or lack thereof in a biographical article?

For instance...if an article is about a celebrity and their religion or lack there of is not part of their public persona, do we list their religion or just not put it in? KsprayDad 18:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember a discussion about this recently; but I don't know if there's a policy or anything. I would say that, if there are sources that discuss their religion or lack thereof then it probably is part of their public persona and worth mentioning in the article. On the other hand, if there are not reliable sources that mention it, then we should not mention it anyway. My 2 cents. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This issue isn't significantly different from political partisanship. Knowing which party Clint Eastwood or Ronald Reagan belong/ed to is significant because they are/were very active in politics. If the celebrity's work in their field is affected by their religion, it needs to be mentioned. If the celebrity's participation in religion is itself notable, it needs to be mentioned (the test I have in mind is the primary notabiltiy criteria, but evaluating only sources primarily about their participation in religion). If it is very difficult to verify religious affiliation, it almost definitely should not be mentioned. In between, it is an editorial judgement call, with an eye on WP:BLP. GRBerry 03:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

People need instructions for accessing images from Commons

I wanted to use some images from Commons on my user page. However, I couldn't figure it out. Then I added the image to the page thinking it wouldn't work. But it did. Could a note be added somewhere that tells users they can treat images on Commons as though they were local? Putting Commons in front of the "Image:" just turns the image into a link. You can't turn it around. Will (Talk - contribs) 02:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Commons explains how to insert images from Commons. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Then given my experience, perhaps those instructions need to be more visible. Perhaps if each media or image page at Commons included a brief comment telling how to access the file, that would help. Will (Talk - contribs) 08:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Just read the help pages. Help:Images and other uploaded files already explains this. Uncle G 01:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-admins protection power

feel free to take a look at Wikipedia:Non-admin protection_powers

...huh? EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh, that wouldn't work though, you can't cascade protect a non protected page. You can lock users out of their js files, I believe, so it would work if you semi-protected the page, then cascade protected. Due to a bug, that fully protects pages transcluded there. A vandal recently tried to do something like that. Prodego ^talk 04:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Coughs up some beans. Yes, though, this is technically impossible as if a sysop full protects a .js page, it locks the user out of it. Also, the semi-protection issue is apparently being fixed so that semi-protected pages cannot be cascading. Cowman109^Talk 05:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Stewards can assign individual permissions (without using hacks), though we already have WP:RFPP, so I don't see how this is really necessary. trial adminship looks more realistic to me. -- Selmo ^(talk) 05:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Stewards can not assign individual permissions. Prodego ^talk 05:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. I forgot that. -- Selmo ^(talk) 05:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

They do assign several single permissions though, such as oversight(actually 2 permissions) and checkuser, so that is what you were probably thinking of. One line of code would create a new 'protect' permission stewards could assign though, so it wouldn't be a huge deal to add something like this. Prodego ^talk 05:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This makes no sense to me. The whole point of the adminship process being difficult is so that the community can judge whether the editor is trustworthy or not. It creates far too much hassle to give protection powers to pretty much everyone, and then revoke them when the tools are abused. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 05:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. There is a reason why the populace at large don't have access to page protection. Chris cheese whine 05:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I mean it wouldn't be hard on a technical level. I agree that this is not a great idea, especially since protection should be the second most rarely used admin ability, right after range blocking. Prodego ^talk 05:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. We should want to keep page protection to a minimum - not encourage it. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 06:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I'm going to tag that as {{rejected}}. I would have said WP:SNOW, but on re-reading it, I think the proverbial snowball actually stands a far better chance of success than this. Chris cheese whine 07:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: This also works (may be part of the 'bug') if no protection is applied to the page other than move protection + cascade. — xaosflux ^Talk 07:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Television Characters

Is there any policy regarding the treatment of current television characters to whom things are still happening? Sort of like the guidelines for "biographies of living persons." Cranston Lamont 18:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. The treatment how? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

For instance, information about these characters is often added piecemeal on a week-by-week basis as it happens. There's a big tendancy to put on new stuff using the present tense, which gets awkward as time goes by. Should new additions to these character's stories always be added in past tense, and should that be an official policy in some way? Remembering that there are hundreds of articles like this out there. Cranston Lamont 20:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

For that specific question; check out WP:TENSE. Suprisingly, the advice there is to use the present tense. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah . . . I see where works of fiction are unique in that they are a static world that people should feel themselves immersed in. But I think serial stories like television series are fundamentally different; they have a growing time dimension that novels, etc. lack. In my humble opinion, new material about TV shows should be added in the past tense so that the narrative will continue to make sense after months or years. Cranston Lamont 00:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is my take on this... as soon as an episode ends the events in that eppisode become something that happend in the past... so ANY reference to a character should be posted in Past tense. Blueboar 16:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've yet to see a literary style guide that does not recommend use of the so-called "literary present" tense. With writing about fiction, there are two distinct timelines: one for publication history of the fiction and one for the internal chronology within the fiction; we shouldn't conflate the two, even though they often correlate. The consensus developed among Wikipedia editors — at WP:WAF and WP:FICT, among other places — is that articles about work and elements of fiction should strive to treat fiction as a cultural artifact, and not attempt to stray too much "in-universe". Part of this entails recognition that fiction tells a story, no matter what happens in subsequent works. In describing this story, it is implicitly assumed that the point of reference within the fictional chronology moves along with the story. By doing this, it's also easier to handle cases where the fictional universe is rewritten over time through prequels, retcons, and the like. We can — and should — depict how the creators decided to change things over time, but the rewriting doesn't change what original version depicts. — TKD::Talk 15:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Dominator UAV

Hello, would people with experience in naming conventions for articles please chime in at the Discussion page here: Talk:Dominator UAV. I am flexible on the article name, but I want to ensure people using search engines like "Google" and "Wikipedia" will find it quickly and easily. Thank you Headphonos 16:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I will reiterate that WP:Air is where the aircraft article naming policy is set. Ergo, you should be discussing this there. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What about the future?

What are we going to do in the future about references to websites? Currently there are many websites used as a reference to information in an article. In fifty years most of those websites will be gone (and the information will be left without a reference). Bubba73 (talk), 02:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

All information gone? Says who?++aviper2k7++ 02:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

All information won't be gone, but the reference to that information will be gone, assuming Wikipedia is still around. Then it won't be Wikipedia:Verifiability, for Wikipedia:Citing sources. Bubba73 (talk), 02:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would the references be gone? Most new sources archive their articles.++aviper2k7++ 02:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

the website you click on for the reference will no longer be there. The source of the information will not be there. Bubba73 (talk), 02:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, then as time progresses I'm assuming Wikipedia will evolve too and new sources will have to be found, deleted, and added. I'm not that worried about it. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 02:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget about The Wayback Machine. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

But the links that are in the WP articles will no longer work. For instance, just a few days ago I tried to follow a link to a NASA photograph. The link in the article used to work, but it didn't then. I found the photo somewhere else. Even if other sources are found, that is going to be a lot of work down the road. People die, organizations go out of existance, ISPs shut down, etc. I think we should be worried about so many web pages being used as references, and the references will no longer be easily available. Bubba73 (talk), 03:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Print sources go out of availability also. I live in a city whose public library has a large collection (it is the library of last resort for the state), but even for it the majority of its book holdings aren't available to check out, and a large fraction have to be requested from non-public access and/or offsite storage, which doesn't exactly make it easily available for verification. GRBerry 03:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't make it easy, but it still makes it possible. The true problem with print is that many of the necessary resources are not available except in university libraries. You are fortunate being in one of the few cities that does at least have a research-quality public library. DGG 03:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You'll appreciate the fact that I am at least 150km away from a university library ;). Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Eventually, I think Wikipedia is going to have to start keeping archived copies on our servers of whatever pages we referrence. JoshuaZ 03:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That is what I was going to propose. I'm thinking about the long-term good of WP. who knows if the WayBack site is going to be around in 100 years or 1,000. We are having a little of the problem already. When links go down, most editors simply delete them. Well into the future are editors going to be more diligent and find another source, for something they may be a lot less familiar than current editors? I wouldn't bank on that. Bubba73 (talk), 13:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If an on-line source disappears, then sooner or later someone will notice this disappearance and will request an updated citation. If it turns out that the only place where the piece of information was to be found was on a no-longer-available website, then I seriously have to question whether that information is still notable or reliable. Surely someone would have repeated the information elsewhere if it was still notable. Note: I am not saying that the information is not notable NOW... but notability is fluid, and in a few years it may fade.

also... did you consider that Wikipedia itself may not be around in 100 or 1000 years? Blueboar 14:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

(what about the future filler) After spending the past few hours photographing GE vacuum tubes of dubious notability with a Tiffen macro lens i'm a little tired and wondering if the maggot dripping zombie is still chasing the clown that might eat me around the imaginary fridge. Being connected to any sort of reality and encyclopedic dependibility kind of goes out the window when all the links go dead. Was anybody there? Was I the only one there watching the maggot dripping zombie chase the clown? Who cares, I like the encyclopedia and would be quite happy to sit in a corner by myself drinking a Coca-cola beverage reading Wikipedia. Even if a clown that might eat me goes by on the page every once in awhile and brings me back to the global warming reality.--John Zdralek 14:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Do we have a guideline somewhere about infobox content? There seems to be a lot of confusion about what is and isn't appropriate for an infobox (e.g. fair-use images and enormous amounts of information are not appropriate). WP:INFOBOX points to Category:Infobox templates, not to a project-space guideline. —Angr 07:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Great timing, Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes is just getting started. (and I nabbed that shortcut too) -- Ned Scott 07:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:EL in regards to discussion forum posts

It is my reading of those three policies that discussion forum posts are never to be used as sources in an article, ever. No exceptions. They shouldn't even be linked in the external links section. Am I correct? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

On what article do you wish to reference a discussion forum? Forums posts should not be used, because they are almost by definition unreliable sources, where anybody can say anything. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 21:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes they're good sources of information, like a game developer or a writer posting on an official forum about details of their next project or interpretations of their past work. It's like a personal website--personal websites of reliable figures, like known writers or the subject of the article can be used for some info, but the posts of random people are not likely to be reliable. No blanket prohibition, since there are exceptions. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I figured someone would ask for a specific article. Chairman S., I'm not the one wishing to reference forum posts; I'm the one who removed the references to forum posts from an article and am now having to defend that action. You can probably figure out which article by looking at my last, oh, 400 hundred contributions or so, but I'm going to be more generic here. It's an article about a company. When I first found the article it cited no sources except two discussion forums where people were bashing the company. I cleaned up the prose, edited for NPOV, added an infobox, removed the references to the forums, added references to the Secretary of State's office, watchlisted it, and went away. A month or so later someone edited the article to re-add the discussion forums. I removed them and left a note on the talk page about them not be WP:RS and violating the WP:EL policy. The person who added them grumbled, but didn't re-add them. A few weeks later along comes someone who works for the company and starts editing the article. They provided references to WP:RS, but the person who added the links reverted them. I edited from a comparison to re-add the sources in an NPOV manner, and discussed with the company person, who realised that they had a WP:COI and promised not to edit the article any more, but pointed out some errors on the talk page. However, the person who wants to have the discussion forum links in is now in a toot, saying that unless those links are in the article then the article is "basically an ad" for the company and that the reliable sources do nothing more than "repeat sping for the company". This person edits only that article. I've repeatedly told this person that if they can find the criticism in reliable sources it can go in the article; but they keep adding it without sources and they revert me when I add to the criticism. They say I was wrong to remove the links to the discussion forums, and that I am misinterpreting the WP:RS and WP:EL guidelines. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion you are correct to remove these links as per WP:RS#Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet. However these claims have been published in a newspaper [6] (specifically referencing a blog [7] and one other source) which really should have been what the original poster looked for. Sure it just restates elements of those forum posts verbatim but it's from a reliable source.

No public forums or other means of non-controlled, open and potentially inflammatory or libellous content should be used as a source for a person or company; it wouldn't take me 2 seconds to find a forum posting saying (for example) "microsoft sucks" and it also wouldn't take me more than 2 seconds to find a reliable published mass-media source for the same. I could if I wished even write the post myself and reference it into the article. The source has to be verifiable or more importantly responsible for their actions. Most areas of mass-media and publishing have Codes of Practice and oversight bodies, they are accountable for their actions if they mis-state facts or publish erroneous or otherwise inflammatory items. Books, journals, news media and even large websites are likely to have lawsuits thrown at them like confetti if they printed wildly unfounded statements that could be easily refuted or found to be baseless. Individual small web forums are not. If the comments on a forum are deemed notable enough for inclusion as a cited source, then surely they should be notable enough to have been reported in a WP:RS - Foxhill 22:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, both for the advice, and for finding that source! You stated more clearly than I could why forums are unreliable sources, and having a reliable source for the criticism will help the article dramatically. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

See User:Uncle G/On sources and content#Evaluating sources for some tips. Uncle G 19:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Scope

Two incidents have led me to question this recently. First was the addition of a WikiProject Afghanistan banner to Talk:Layla and Majnun and many other pages by STBot. The page is only distantly related to Afghanistan and I think at least 3 other country projects have a better claim to it. Then on Talk:Sari a user removed the Bangladesh WikiProject banner saying "Please, let's not plaster the top with national templates". On that page there are also easily three countries (Indian, Pakistan, Bangladesh) that could easily have their banner. Should one banner take precedence or in such situations where something is widely shared (such as, hats, maybe) should no national project have their banner? I don't particularly care but... it'd be nice to know what people think. gren グレン 17:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion, and only my personal opinion. If a Wikiproject is actively working on maintaining a page, having the banner there is helpful but not required. If a Wikiproject isn't actually working on something, it isn't helpful. I'm not a fan of bots adding project banners; the project team should do it when they get to an article. I'd be more of a fan of bots removing project banners when a project goes inactive. However, project banners should not be understood as national templates ... they are alerts that a group of active editors concerned about a topical area considers this one of the articles in their topical area of interest. This is why I think additions should be by hand - if they aren't interested enough to do the tagging, they aren't really interested in the article. GRBerry 18:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The banners are useful in performing the assessments utilised for Version 1.0. They can be shrunk, if that helps, see Wikipedia:Talk page templates. See also Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment and Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ. Steve block Talk 19:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A bit related, what's the best thing for disambiguation pages. I recently removed (and was reverted) a wikiproject tag on a disambiguation page. Talk:Speed (disambiguation). It doesn't really hurt, but it does sometimes seems pointless and clutters up a talk page. Garion96 (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't see why tags like that could possibly be needed on disambiguation pages. In the example you used (Talk:Speed (disambiguation)), the disambiguation page itself has nothing to do with Louisville, it simply links to an article that does - hence, there is no need for Wikiproject Louisville to ever need to work on it, making the tag just a needless source of clutter. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:COMICS has America's Best Comics (disambiguation) tagged. WP:FILM have a few, Category:Disambig-Class film articles, for example A Christmas Carol (disambiguation). Hope that shows why tags can possibly be needed. Steve block Talk 23:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Should WP:BK be made a guideline?

Sorry for the cross-posting... There is an ongoing discussion on whether or not the long-standing proposed guideline for the notability of books should be tagged as a guideline. Everyone's input would be really appreciated as past discussions have often involved a handful of editors, making it hard to judge consensus. Pascal.Tesson 16:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Seeking greater input into Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

A lot of work has been done on Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (aka "WP:CORP) lately, the most major change being the merger of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) (aka WP:ORG) into it. Prior to the merge, WP:CORP was pretty stable as a guideline; WP:ORG was only a proposed guideline. A number of editors are working to synthesize the two; however, given that this is an oft-cited guideline at AfD, it would be nice if more editors took a look at this and added their own $0.02. Hopefully, that will result in a better end-product and will be something used by many that was created by more than a few. Agent 86 22:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

How to communicate about being a vandal

I was warned that I would be blocked unless I stopped editing/vandalizing the biographical entry for Kirsten Powers. As a neophyte, it is quite possible I did not follow appropriate guidelines. However, I believe the entry has factual errors, i.e., Powers is a "prominent" commentator. Moreover, the entry is written as if it was edited by her publicist.

The editor/adminstrator, zubdub, who said I'd be blocked does not accept messages, so there was no way to contact him or her.

So, how do I edit an unsourced biography for accuracy and bias? 12:23, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latichever (talk • contribs) 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, starting a biographical article with shamelessly lied tonight violates a number of Wikipedia policies, ie it is a POV, potentially a libel, and unsourced. I would suggest you start editing on subjects you feel less strongly about. --Michael Johnson 01:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Latichever, you can read WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:BIO for some information on the guidelines when writing biographical Wikipedia articles. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 01:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: your question has already been answered after you posed it at the help desk: Wikipedia:Help desk#I have been warned about vandalism. --Plek 01:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Biography of living persons adminship

Biography of Living Persons Administrators ("BLP Admins") carry out a specialized, narrowly tailored administrative role within Wikipedia. Please see WP:BLPADMIN to offer your thoughts on this proposal. CyberAnth 03:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Question. What would be wrong with WP:FULL? I'm sure you already consider that as an option. Are their other category specific adminships? --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 04:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've marked it as rejected because consensus on the talk page seems unanimously against the proposal with the exception of CyberAnth. I don't think further piling-on is necessary. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag for the time being. Only four or five people had commented when the tag was added. Let's give it a little more time before we say it's been rejected by the community. Some good suggestions might come of it. Frise 05:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... No offense to CyberAnth but I'm not sure any good can come out of this. It's a bad idea that stands against so many things that the Wikipedia community has shown time and again it cares about. It's instruction creep, it's creation of a WikiPolice and it's making adminship a big deal. Pascal.Tesson 05:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and it would seem to encourage a more bureaucratic system of hierarchy, which is the last thing we want. Furthermore, I can't understand what extra powers these "biography admins" will actually have over normal editors. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 06:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I was going to go add the rejected tag again, but I can see there's been a small edit war over it already and I have no desire to become part of it. Seriously though, it's worse than 10-1 against it on the talk page I think and there's no chance in hell this will magically acquire consensus. Grandmasterka 11:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In the end it probably doesn't matter, as the developers are never going to add this functionality to the wiki - particularly with such a lack of consensus. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 12:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Userspace autobiographies

Autobiographies are often moved from the mainspace to userspace by administators, either following a speedy deletion or an AfD debate. On one hand, this helps identity the user or his work through the userspace instead of deleting a perfectly good biography page. On the other, autobiographies are about the person himself and not about his Wikipedia activity, thus go against WP:USER as being unrelated to Wikipedia. I think there should be made a clear exception of this, or otherwise such actions should be disallowed. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I often move such pages to userspace. To me, when User:Professor A writes Professor A with content like;

Professor A is a Professor of Middle Eastern History at University of Someplace. He was born in 1978 in Sometown, Someplace. He graduated with honors from Someplace High School in 1996 and got his BA degree from University of Someplace in 2000. He earned his Masters in History in 2003 and is currently working on his doctoral dissertation. His hobbies include playing World of Warcraft, reading Tolstoy, and drinking fine wine. He has been married since 2004 and has one child and another on the way.

That's a perfectly acceptable userpage that tells a lot about what areas we might expect this person to edit in and what sort of activities we might expect him to engage in. It seems like this person was trying to create a userpage and just stuck it in the wrong namespace. I don't see why you would object to the practice of userfying such content. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I can't really see why this would be a big issue, since the alternative is simply to delete the entries, which would be a bit heavyhanded if the biography was made in good faith. In the end, WP:USER is a guideline, not a hard-and-fast rule, and many prominent editors have autobiographical info about themselves on their userpages. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 22:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite. A little autobiographical sketch is perfectly reasonable for a user's userpage, and userfying an autobiography takes some of the BITE out of being told they're not (yet) notable enough for the encyclopedia. I might be inclined to take a somewhat dimmer view of extravagant autobiographical userpages for editors who haven't made any contribution in mainspace, but I'm not going to get worked up over it. The only case that would really bother me is if they're using their userpage to push a product or service—that is, if they're using a user page solely to market something, and they're not contributing to the encyclopedia at all. We can step in (and have done so before) where a user page is essentially just spam. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

As someone guilty of making such a bio article as among my first edits, I am going to jump on the bandwagon and say that such pages pose relatively little threat to Wikipedia once they get moved into namespace. In particular, they provide helpful information in identifying a user's interests, skills, and background. --Thisisbossi 02:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

They're pretty harmless and userfying a page is a great way to not bite newbies. If a user stays long enough he'll end up fixing his userpage. If the user doesn't stay, well we waste 3kb and there's really no need to worry. Pascal.Tesson 02:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

As someone who's looked at several hundred of these drive-by userfications, I disagree strenuously. The majority of the ones I've looked at, in my experience, have few, if any, edits to Wikipedia, and seem to look upon Wikipedia as free webspace. Enabling this view strikes me as a Bad Idea. --Calton | Talk 06:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Userfied information should stay on the userpage, IFF it's being used to support helpful contributions to the Wikipedia. Once the article's been userfied, it's subject to the same guidelines as any other information on a userpage, viz., WP:USER. Otherwise we're just a free web host. ... discospinster _talk 13:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Rollback

Can someone explain to me what the "rollback" feature does that means only admins should be allowed to have it? And, how, then, are users allowed to have "undo" or popups or whatever? --Random832(tc) 14:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Rollback reverts an edit and saves the revert with one click. With undo and popups you have to go through an extra step of saving the page separately to confirm that you want to do what you're doing. Also, rollback can be performed directly from a user's Contributions list, you don't have to even be looking at their edit to roll it back. —Angr 14:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The ability to do it from a user's contribution list without reviewing the edit is the biggest reason that only admins should have it. In that form, it is really only useful for cleaning up spambots, vandalbots and the equivalent. The last POV warrior I went through all the contribs of, about 2 in 10 edits were worth keeping, so rollback would have been a mistake even though most of their edits needed to be removed. For undo and popups, you have to actually load the pages (though we can't make you look at them, we want people to) and thus are fine tools for anyone. GRBerry 15:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

But why not allow it from article history? There's, for example, no possible way that "← Blanked the page" can be a legitimate edit, or, even one deserving a better explanation than the rollback summary. How about a compromise - allow to undo without an extra step to save (waste of bandwidth, you've already seen the diff), and to undo from the history for any automatic edit summary (other than creation, which can't be undone, the only edits to get automatically summarized are blanking and replacement, and for replacement you get to see the replaced content so that on the off chance it's legitimate you won't click undo) - I think anything that reduces the amount of time editors have to sit around waiting for a page to load before reverting vandalism can only be a good thing. --Random832(tc) 15:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "← Blanked the page" can and sometimes is a legitimate edit. Whenever you move a page and its associated talk page it leaves a re-direct. I will sometimes move a page and its talk page to make room for disambiguation. I then replace the redirect at the page with a disambiguation page and blank the talk page. Now that we have the automatic edit summary I figure "← Blanked the page" is as good as anything I could say, so I leave that as my edit summary. It's still a legitimate edit. Another instance involves talk pages created with just vandalism. No need to delete the talk page; so just blank it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather a talk page without useful comments be deleted than blanked. It's frustrating to see that the link to an article's talk page is blue and then find nothing there. (It's just as frustrating to see that the link to an article's talk page is blue and then find nothing there but a template from some WikiProject that's claimed the article. I really wish we had a separate namespace for metainformation like that.) —Angr 15:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd just as soon every page that's created have its talk page created automatically. If there's no talk page IP editors can't create one. Hence, their voices are effectively silenced until someone creates the talk page. If the talk page is nothing but a redirect left from a page move or vandalism then I'd rather blank it and have a place for discussion than have it deleted and only registered users able to comment. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I wish we had that feature. Can we set it so IPs can create talk pages for pages that already exist? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

They already can, unless it's changed in the last week. An example. —Cryptic 17:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, news to me. Maybe that needs to be better publicised. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the "only registered users can create new pages" only applies for the main namespace. I'm quite sure ips can create any talk page and user pages too. --`/aksha 05:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I just tried the simple experiment of logging out and then seeing if I could start a talk page. I can. —Angr 06:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation page needed?

I came across Mediterranean Sea and it looks to me like it needs a disambiguation page. Comments?--Filll 17:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I made one at Mediterranean Sea (disambiguation). It could probably use some clean-up. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to overrule you ONUnicorn but there's already a Mediterranean (disambiguation) page which is more appropriate imo. I've merged the two dab pages. Pascal.Tesson 17:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

This Essay has been around for 8 months and is frequently cited on AfD, especially the "I Like It" part. It's cited so much, in fact, that I feel most people feel it is a guideline already. I'd like the community to 1) determine whether we like this as a guideline and 2) build a consensus on exactly what it should say, because people are citing it frequently already. Personally, I like the page and believe it should be a guideline.--CastAStone|^(talk) 19:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... WP:POINT? :)

While the ILikeIt argument is certainly being cited, it is also being contested at several venues. I think a consensus, even if it isn't adopted as policy, would be useful.LessHeard vanU 22:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That's really all I'm asking for. A clear "this should be a guideline" or "these are just some ideas". Or pick and choose what is, if anything, worthy of separating into a guideline. My problem is just that it is being treated as one now when it isnt one, and to me that means its time to determine whether it should or should not be one, and to make that result clear on the page. --CastAStone|^(talk) 04:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Leave it as an essay. There is as much good as there is bad in that essay. I would hate to see it become a guideline because there are many portions of it that are arguable, and endorsing it as anything more than an essay would pretty much lend authority and credence to only one side of an argument. Agent 86 23:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That's right. The reason the essay is cited so often is that most of it is simply common sense - however, some points are still quite contentious, and thus, it should not be the be-all-and-end-all in AfD discussions. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Formatting

While this may seem to be a semantic point, I think the Wikimedia Foundation should adopt the CE/BCE format for date rather than AD/BC. My main basis is to preserve NPOV (religious overtones would seem to have no place in a date format).

I also feel that there should be a markup method for metric/Imperial conversion. Any measurement could be submitted with the tag and based on the user's preference the appropriate measurement would be given priority (with the other following it in parentheses). Again, a minor quibble, but something which would be relatively simple to institute and would/should make the content more appropriate for it's audience. 167.1.143.100 18:29, 28 January 2007

I like those ideas! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk

This is a textbook case where enforcement of a style is not only undesirable, but patetly harmful to the encyclopedia. Any attempt to enforce a specific date style would lead to the same problems attempts at enforcing a given spelling style cause.Circeus 23:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree on the first point. I can live with a fairly common practice for BC/BCE, which is to use whichever date seems more appropriate for the subject matter, and omit the label entirely for AD-only articles-- for instance, the Solomon article is measured in BCE, whereas Augustus is in BC/AD and William the Conquerer and 1066 just use the years without designation (see WP:MOSNUM). (Bizarrely, Jesus uses both labels for reasons that make no sense to me whatsoever, as is the case with all good compromises.) However, I continue to believe that BC/AD has about as much religious significance in 2007 as Thursday, the day of Thor, and that BCE is a pointless affectation. I recognize that it is a fashionable and increasingly common affectation; I just think it's silly. There's no real reason to modify the current manual of style.

With regard to the unit conversion, I don't think it makes a big difference if there is one or not in most articles. (For instance, Orson Welles was 72" tall; the article doesn't suffer for not having that translated into meters.) More information can never hurt, though, and sometimes it will be handy. DCB4W 00:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The funny thing is that Jesus was actually born before 0, so writing his year of birth as, say, 2 BC seems ridiculous—Jesus was born 2 years before Jesus? − Twas Now <small>( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That's obtuse. First of all, there is no year 0 in the Gregorian and Julian calendars. Second, the point at which BC ended and AD began was an estimation as the system was created long after Jesus lived. Finally, that Jesus was most likely born before 1 AD has no bearing on the use of the BC/AD system. Jinxmchue 14:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, by all modern scholarly estimates, Jesus was born no later than 2BC. Anyway, I made no suggestion that it would have any bearing on the use of either system. I think you missed the point of my comment, which was humour: "Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis." − Jack Handey. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, to clarify, the guideline proposal to limit BC/AD to Christianity related articles failed. The issue of "appropriate" appears to be made on an article by article basis by the involved editors. I think that is how it should be. DCB4W 00:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't fully agree with DCB4W. I think that there does need to be some kind of standard policy on this point. However, I don't agree that AD/BC is necessarily POV. --Aervanath 20:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I've totally changed my mind! I looked back at the archives of Talk:Jesus, and they've had some huge dust-ups over the AD/CE issue. It's an issue about which many people feel strongly, even though, in my opinion, it's fairly trivial. Trying to force a standardization to one system or the other is probably a can of worms which has been closed for good reason.--Aervanath 22:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I concur!!! Totally!

1. It doesn't matter as they are numerically equivalent
2. No matter what you change, somebody is going to see it as an attack
3. Nothing is clarified by the change - No new information is imparted.

Though for neutrality reasons I prefer CE, this is a sleeping dog best left to lie. --BenBurch 22:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Most people use BC/AD and might not know what BCE/CE means, so there is a good argument for using it on most articles. However, there are many articles where people's religious beliefs might be insulted if BC/AD were used; on such articles, it would be wrong not to use BCE/CE.--Runcorn 22:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Much good info here; Anno Domini --BenBurch 22:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite get the POV argument; the numbers are still Christian-centric, so does it matter what letters you use? Change it to CE/BCE, it's still a numbering system created by Christians based on Christ. So why does it matter which we use? Just go with the original author and leave it at that. --Golbez 14:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not like anybody was looking for a return to Annum Urbis (Dated from the founding of Rome) is it? (Also known expressed as AUC for (ab urbe condita.) --BenBurch 17:34, Dies Veneris xx Januarus MMDCCLX AUC (UTC)

BC/AD has been in use for almost 1500 years. The system pervades almost everything in the Western world. To suddenly change the system with no real reason beyond some wrong-headed ideas of "tolerance" and "neutrality" will cause unnecessary strife and confusion. I also find it odd that many of the people who are against BC/AD because of its supposed bias are often the same ones who argue that the English phrase "in the year of our Lord" in documents like the Constitution is devoid of any religious meaning. That I simply don't get. Jinxmchue 14:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Jinxie, in the Constitution and all similar documents it *is* devoid of all religious meaning. That is simply how documents were prepared at that time. And that is all such formal documents. I have seen this on deeds and charters from the period, for example, documents that had no intentions other than functional ones. Had the Founding Fathers intended to make a religious statement, they were about the most articulate and careful people I am aware of and could easily have made it totally clear. They would not have left us guessing about it now. --BenBurch 17:28, Dies Veneris xx Januarus MMDCCLX AUC (UTC)

Surely, just as a matter of contextual continuity, changing is at best unnecessary and at worst bad? Given that the numbers are the same (and incidentally, are used without objection in non-Christian countries) to change will do no more than cause confusion in the minds of those people who fail to appreciate the congruence. User:BenBurch, in dating his post from the date of the traditional foundation of Rome, may have a good idea (joke).--Anthony.bradbury 18:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. Nothing but confusion and ill-will will come of changing. And I am glad you appreciated the humor! --BenBurch 18:34, Dies Veneris xx Januarus MMDCCLX AUC (UTC)

lol! Okay, so in the Constitution, that phrase "*is* devoid of all religious meaning," but BC/AD are obviously religiously biased everywhere else and must be wiped out in favor of BCE/CE. I gotta tell you, Ben, that I've no doubt that the Founding Fathers used the phrase "in the year of our Lord" with far more piety than you are trying to argue. Jinxmchue 19:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I am not arguing that there was no piety in the Founding Fathers. Many of them were religious men. But I am arguing that "in The Year of Our Lord" appeared in dates on all manner of public documents no matter who authored them or for what purpose, and so making some special inference with regard to the Constitution on that basis is at best misguided. The Drafters clearly had their say about religion within the document, and then later within the Bill of Rights. The way the date was expressed just wasn't a part of it! --BenBurch 19:43, Dies Veneris xx Januarus MMDCCLX AUC (UTC)

Then I hope you would apply that same argument to the use of BC/AD. Trying to change BC/AD to BCE/CE because of some perceived religious bias is misguided. When people use BC/AD it's quite clear that they are not making some statement about Christianity. They are simply using a dating system that has been in place for centuries in the Western world. Jinxmchue 04:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

But, I just did, Jinxie! See above. While I do think CE is more neutral because there are jewish people and muslim people and many other religions that might find it offensive, and while scholars seem to prefer CE overwhelmingly in archeological papers I have read in recent years, I don't think it needs to be changed. Nor do I think that we need to make the switch in the other direction. Whatever the editors of a particular article agree on is fine by me. --BenBurch 05:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Fundamental changes in our "notability" criteria

A lot of fundamental changes regarding our "notability" criteria are being forced by some editors, and a discussion has sprung up on WP:N, WP:WEB, WP:BIO, and WP:MUSIC regarding the controversial changes. Please come by and offer your input. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's somewhat unclear looking at the talk pages for those guidelines what, exactly, you are talking about. Is there one specific discussion or diff that you can point us to to show what changes you are looking for input on? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Supposedly based on discussion at WP:N, this change was put across the three I've listed. This diff, applied on the same day to those three, is the controverisial one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense, the primary one is directly related to WP:V and WP:NOR (things must be based on reliable published sources), the others are just signs that things should meet that one. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The problem is the way they've been downgraded. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't the primary notability criteria always been:

A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other.

It seems like the diff Jeff mentioned is just pointing this out; it doesn't seem like a policy change to me. CMummert · talk 21:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's never been "primary," nor does it consider itself primary. It's simply shared. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur- this is a clarification of notability, not a change. It would only look like a change to someone who never understood notability to begin with. Friday (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, that's not quite fair. Notability has been a fairly fluid concept up until the page finally got tagged as guideline, which was a couple months ago IIRC, and was based on observation of AFD results, not on consensus on the page itself. I think there's room for people who "understand notability to begin with" to argue about precisely why pages get deleted or kept in practice, as well as precisely why the criteria on the notability subpages were included, but if the outcome is the same, the distinction is largely philosophical. TheronJ 16:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit insulting, Friday. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes; it's just the wording that has changed for clarity. The guideline's still basically the same. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think something is being forgotten here: what is inclusion? Is it having its own article or inclusion in another article? I believe the former is the standard usage, since otherwise WP:N would say that we couldn't include any fact that's not in multiple independent sources, but this doesn't "jive" with the principles behind summary style - breaking off a section when it becomes too long. For example, describing the rolling stock of a large rail system is a valid topic, and is often broken into a separate article because of length concerns. But, especially for a recent company, the only source may be company "propaganda" - no doubt true, but not independent sources. Thus we are cought in a dilemma - do we give "undue weight" to the rolling stock in the system's article, or split off an article that doesn't pass our notability criteria? --NE2 16:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an interesting philosophical question about whether it is possible to form a consensus that certain articles are notable even without two non-trivial independent published references. (The editors might, for example, decide to write an article about every New York Times bestselling book, Fortune 1000 company, or professional baseball player based solely, if necessary, on "trivial" and/or "non-independent" references, provided that those references met WP:V.)

In practice, there's not much distinction between saying (A) "we don't delete articles about Nobel prizewinners because it is almost certain that there are multiple independent published sources, even if they are hard to find for some historical winners," or (B) "we don't delete articles about Nobel prizewinners because Nobel prizewinners are notable, whether or not non-trivial published resources exist, so long as verifiable sources exist of any kind." One the one hand, given that the main notability guideline was adopted over vigorous objection because it reflected actual experiences on AFD, I am not convinced that there is a consensus about whether any individual exception falls into case (A) or case (B). On the other hand, as long as we're not deleting pages that fit one of the consensus sub-criteria, the philosophical question of why we're not deleting them isn't that interesting. TheronJ 16:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying. I'm questioning whether we should have guidelines that conflict with summary style practices. New York City Subway rolling stock is an example, though probably not the best (since there may be two independent sources on the subject, and since it doesn't actually cite sources), of an article that covers a subtopic of New York City Subway. --NE2 18:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have always thought that "inclusion" means that a topic has its own article; a notable topic may have non-notable details that don't deserve their own article but are included in the main article. For example, winners of the Scripps National Spelling Bee are not notable on their own, so they don't deserve their own articles, but they can be listed among winners of the spelling bee in its article. The issue is more complex with articles that are split off of long main articles, and I think case-by-case analysis is probably necessary. Sometimes these splits are non-notable POV forks and other times they are reasonable. CMummert · talk 19:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

So we have possible conflicts between this "case-by-case analysis" and the "one-size-fits-all" WP:N guideline. With WP:MUSIC, the obvious case that comes to mind is albums, but it might also relate to members of a band, where we have enough verifiable information for a separate article, but not enough "independent sources", and we are forced to go over the article size "limits" to satisfy WP:N. --NE2 19:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is the article size limit, and the prohibition on subpages in the main namespace, that is causing this conflict. Until these are sorted out, there isn't much we can do except use common sense. If somebody writes in an AfD discussion "this should be merged into the main article, except that then the main article would be too long", I hope that this would be taken into account by the closing admin. CMummert · talk 19:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Could we add that to WP:N? --NE2 19:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• To resolve one of the questions above, the 2nd sentence in WP:N is: "All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia." (Bold text is my emphasis). I understand this to mean that the notability criteria are for determining whether something is notable enough to warrant its own article. So, individual sections of that article still need to be well-sourced, but they don't need to meet the WP:N guideline on their own. If an article is written in summary style, with links to full articles on each of it's sections, then yes, those articles all need to meet WP:N.
• As for the "central criterion" line in WP:MUSIC, I would keep it, but add text at the end to clarify that: "the criteria below are not proof of notability in and of themselves, just make it more likely that the central criterion can be satisfied with a little research." We want to emphasize that the central criterion is the only one that actually counts. Thoughts?--Aervanath 08:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• • "If an article is written in summary style, with links to full articles on each of it's sections, then yes, those articles all need to meet WP:N." Looks to me like a reason to ignore WP:N. --NE2 12:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• I've commented on some of those discussions mentioned, and I really do no know what can be meant by a fundamental change. There have been quite a number of changes, some aimed at decreasing the number of different criteria, some at making them more complicated. Some that might be called inclusionist, some the opposite, but most differing according to the point under discussion. The actual rules will not be whatever may be written on the N policy page, but what is applied at AfD and Deletion Review, and part of the motivation is trying to decrease what some see as the inconsistency there. Personally, I think that fairness and perceived fairness is part of the reason to have well thought out rules, and that these rules need thorough revision on a continuing basis as new areas open and as problems develop.

It is possible to go entirely on a case-by-case basis,but--looking beyond WP--this requires a very complicated system of multilayered decision-making to avoid inconsistency, and may not achieve it even then. An example outside WP is the US pattern, where the law in different parts of the country is different when different courts of appeal have made different decisions and the supreme court has not yet harmonized them. What corresponds to different courts of appeal in WP is the differing body who might be at AfD on a particular time.

going strictly by fixed rules leads to obvious inequity -- as for required minimum sentences --but also to complicated evasions. By being really clever it is possible to find RS for almost anything, if you go far enough outside the confines of Google. Very few people here have the experience, facilities, or time for the sort of exhaustive search made by, say, professional patent searchers. All real systems of fixed rules have very numerous exceptions. DGG 22:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry to come late to this discussion, but I think there is something in the original point made. I've taken a look at this changeand it does appear to me to make a significant impact on articles about People. Under alternative criteria on WP:Notability (people), we have the professor test, and under the second part of the list that has been separated into secondary criteria by the change under discussion we have Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work and Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field. Now my problem is that people in these categories haven't necessarily had multiple biographies written about them. These people are notable by their work and the whole point about notability is that it is not the same as fame. Someone working in a relatively obscure field could have been completely key to that field, but the field could be one where biographies aren't common. I have written an article about Keith Muckelroy - I don't think you will ever find anyone in Maritime archaeology who disputes the key contribution he made, but there never has been a biography of him. As it happens he passes this new central criterion test, but only because he tragically died young and there were many obituaries. Even without the obituaries, his works are reviewed and are sometimes accompanied by introductions about the author, so the central facts about his life can be supported by objective sources. We can't guarantee that everyone made notable by their contribution to some field of research will die in sufficiently newsworthy and tragic circumstances to generate multiple obituaries. A person or their works may not necessarily be the primary subject of an article - an article could deal with several persons or deal with their work rather than the person - there is plenty of ground between primary subject and a passing mention. Viv Hamilton 13:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Rewritten IAR page

I thought that the current policy is a little to vague, so I've put together a proposed rewrite of the policy. Thoughts? -- Selmo ^(talk) 04:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuck, looks like rules for IAR to me. SOmeone tries to do this every so often, but we always go back to the understated principle.--Doc^g 04:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Doc. The whole point of "Ignore All Rules" is that we are here to make a good encyclopedia, and any rule that stops us from doing that should be ignored. I don't agree that it is vague at all, I think that this is a very clearly stated general principle which we can refer to when we see a situation where the rules are counter-productive. It does not need to be broken down with instructions on how to use it, since those very instructions will be ignored if necessary. I like the current version just fine.--Aervanath 09:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should list these under the "see also" section instead. Of course, that'd only encourage people who don't like IAR to add links to the Steamroller clause, Be Timid In Updating Pages, and some Bureaucracy Is Good page. >Radiant< 13:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Sometimes I wonder whether the folk that try writing rules for IAR realize the irony in what they're doing. Chris cheese whine 01:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not solely for the summarising of plot?

There's a discussion on removing the plot summary clause from WP:NOT. It presently reads:

“ Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." ”

Wider input would be helpful at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#We need to remove the part about plot summaries. Steve block Talk 19:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

So if you remove that clause then you are saying that articles containing only a plot summary should be OK? I think that's a poor thing to recommend. I mean we're going to get articles that have nothing buy a plot summary - and we might decide to let them slide on the grounds that maybe someone will come along and add more 'meat' to the article later - but to actually have policy that (in effect) encourages this style of article seems pretty poor to me. Am I misunderstanding what you are saying here? SteveBaker 20:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've changed this to say "Raw plot summaries." - it better fits the description in the rest of the entry. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? --Random832(tc) 21:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I can't see what reason you could have for wanting to remove that very sensible clause. A plot summary is not a complete article. Can you imagine being assigned to write about Beowulf for a university, and handing in nothing but a summary of the plot? No mention of context, culture, meaning, language, just "he did this, he did this, he did this, the end?" That wouldn't be good enough for publication elsewhere, so why would it be suitable for Wikipedia? zadignose 23:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Like I say, your points would be more usefully made in terms of the wider debate at helpful at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#We need to remove the part about plot summaries. I've copied your comments over. Steve block Talk 08:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• I do believe we have a long-standing precedent that articles that only contain a plot summary should be expanded to contain an actual analysis of the plot. Sometimes they are instead merged into a "list of episodes" with brief explanations, e.g. with simple series that do not really have an ongoing plot. WP:FICT and WP:WAF come to mind. >Radiant< 10:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What happens when it seems a reliable source has mistakenly taken info from WP?

Brief background: The other day I came across an interesting issue at the Sacha Baron Cohen article. It seems that an act of vandalism in April 2006 led to a claim that his mother is of Iranian descent being added to the article (the same IP overtly vandalised another article 10 mins later). There's strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that a couple of reliable sources - 'The Guardian' and Yahoo Movies Bios - picked up this factoid from WP.

Since then several editors have tried to remove the factoid from the article, but it now appears verifiable, and the editor opposed to the removal can quite correctly cite WP:RS and WP:V as supporting inclusion.

I wrote more extensively about this, including my (circumstantial) evidence for believing that WP was incorrectly used as a source, on the talk page for the article.

Does anyone have any suggestions on how to deal with this situation? As WP's visibility increases this kind of situation is likely to be an increasing danger when professionals are sloppy and use WP as an uncited source.

(I don't have any stake in whether the factoid is included or not, I just don't want to see WP's credibility undermined if it comes to light that this factoid is an incorrect rumour started by WP that has now spread quite widely).

SeanLegassick 08:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If everybody would give the exact source for all information, such circular references would be impossible. Alithien 16:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess what you have defined as a "reliable source" is no longer reliable. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I hear you. As I mention in the talk page linked above, The Guardian isn't nicknamed "The Grauniad" in the UK for nothing. But it wouldn't be the only newspaper to publish mistakes, and I really don't see it as being viable to start arguing that The Guardian shouldn't be cited as a reliable source. A cursory search reveals 1,160 mentions within WP, most of which are cites.

SeanLegassick 10:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The point of using reliable sources is that a reliable source does fact-checking, takes responsibility for mistakes, etc. If we can prove that a reliable source took something from a Wikipedia article without fact-checking it, then *we've just proven that that source isn't reliable to begin with*. After all, if they don't fact-check Wikipedia references, why do we expect them to have fact checked anything else? Ken Arromdee 11:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Understood, and I should point out that at this stage I cannot prove that The Guardian took this from Wikipedia without fact-checking, although the circumstantial evidence heavily points to it. One editor was going to pursue a response from the Guardian journalist in question, but none has been forthcoming. I suspect that if she did use WP without fact-checking she'd be reluctant to admit it.

On the broader point, there are several well-documented cases of apparently reliable sources failing in their duty.

So I guess I have two questions really:

• What are the implications for Wikipedia when an otherwise reliable source fails in its fact-checking duty and thus causes Wikipedia to, whilst following WP:V, fail to correctly portray facts?
• Do we have additional responsibility in such cases if the source of incorrect facts can be reasonably demonstrated to come from Wikipedia vandalism?

In general I agree that the onus here is on the sources themselves to be professional in verifying published information, but I thought this case was interesting in the loop of verifiability that appears to have been created.

Yeah, the problem with Wikipedia becoming more prominent is that mistakes get propagated throughout otherwise reliable sources. I think I read somewhere on the mailing list that [cricinfo.com cricinfo] was now citing information froom Wikipedia. Whereas we'd previously been citing information from them. Something about that relationship no longer works. Trebor 12:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If a reliable source states a fact, any WP article can use that fact with a reference to the source; no further proof is needed. We are not in the business of second-guessing reliable sources or trying to decide which statements in a reliable source are true and which are not. If you want to claim in an article that a reliable source is wrong, you need to find another reliable source that explicitly says so; personal suspicion is not enough. It This is a straightforward consequence of "verifiability, not truth" and WP:OR.

I am pointing this out because the interpretation I have just given is very important for the sciences. For example, there are lots of cranks who will argue that they "know" that relativity is false, and so the reliable sources on it must be wrong. Or they might "know" that the theory of evolution is false, or that they have created a perpetual-motion machine, or that a famous mathematical theorem is incorrect. The point of WP:OR is that we don't have to prove that reliable sources are correct in order to dispute the arguments of these cranks. CMummert · talk 14:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

In the sciences, maybe, but under these circumstances the applicable rule is WP:IAR. I don't think WP:V should be interpreted to require us to knowingly repeat false information... particularly in the biography of a living person. His descent is a fairly innocuous issue, but that sort of thing-- deliberately repeating information that you know or have grounds to believe is false-- is what "actual malice" means in libel law. DCB4W 14:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, I've always taken "verifiability, not truth" to be a rule regarding the inclusion of data, not regarding its inclusion.

I assume you mean 'regarding the inclusion of data, not regarding its exclusion.' here right? I think it's a very pertinent point. Also note that media sources are not peer-reviewed, another difference from the science crank cases... SeanLegassick 19:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to be able to verify information to add it to an article, but there are a host of reasons (see e.g. WP:NOT) to exclude verifiable information, and this is probably another one of them. DCB4W 14:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

CMummert, that's a strange point. We're under no obligation to include any particular bit of information even if it is published in a reliable source. Since otherwise reliable sources do sometimes get things wrong, editorial judgment is needed in individual cases such as this one anyway. According to a strict interpretation of what you posted, I can't write a science article and deliberately exclude a pertinent statement published in a peer-reviewed paper whose scholarship is clearly shoddy, or oppose its inclusion by another editor. Supporting the inclusion of information that we have a reason to believe is false, just to hold a hard line against cranks posting information we know to be false, is an awkward position. Opabinia regalis 02:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the appropriate way to phrase the sentence would be "The Guardian newspaper has reported that his mother is of Iranian descent. [footnote]". That is an honest way to attribute a claim that, while possibly inaccurate, has been published by a reliable source. What I find uncomfortable is that the claim that the Guardian is incorrect is not based on any sort of published claim to that effect. In any other situation this second-guessing of published sources would be called original research. CMummert · talk 02:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Putting a personal analysis of a sourced claim in the article is OR. Using the same analysis to defend excluding the claim from the article is not necessarily OR, and may answer better to the description "editorial judgment". Your example is "honest", but unnecessary; if there is good reason to believe a particular claim is false, it would be silly to include it just because it was published in a source that is otherwise considered reliable. Opabinia regalis 06:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you under the assumption that there is a good reason to believe a particular claim is false. In this case, I see no such reason - what I see is just some speculation that it might be false. CMummert · talk 14:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I regard the combination of the various pieces of circumstantial evidence plus a claim to the contrary from someone (consistently and plausibly) claiming to be a family member as 'good reason to believe' that this is false. Certainly not enough evidence to include a 'He is not of Iranian descent' statement (which would obviously be silly anyway) but enough not to mention it, in my opinion. SeanLegassick 15:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Our standards seem to differ. CMummert · talk 15:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at your user page, profession and areas of Wikipedia that you work in I guess it's not surprising that you see my arguments as fluffy. Sourcing pop culture articles in the media is a rather different kettle of fish to citing from peer-reviewed publications in mathematical logic. The criteria for making good editorial judgements are bound to be different. SeanLegassick 15:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Has any reliable source been presented that says his mother is not of Iranian descent, or that she is of some other descent? If there is not, but there is a reliable source that says she is, then it seems to me there is no problem with the article saying she is. What I see here is speculation that she is not of Iranian descent together with a reliable source that says she is. I'm not familiar with Cohen at all - what are the grounds for believing the Guardian article is incorrect? CMummert · talk 15:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No, there's no reliable source to say the information is incorrect, and it's even possible that it is correct - although there's someone in the talk page claiming to be his cousin refuting the information (written by an anon Israeli IP so not sufficient for WP:V but enough to cast doubt)

I've written more about the additional circumstantial evidence in the talk page for the article but summarising:

• The information was originally added to the article on 15 April 2006 by a demonstrable vandal (the same IP overtly vandalised another article 10 mins later)
• The Guardian article in question appeared sometime later (September 2006) using wording very close to the WP article wording
• No reliable source can be found for this fact before April 2006, or in fact before September 2006.
• Several sources have asserted this fact since September 2006 again using very similar wording to both the Wikipedia vandalism and subsequent article in The Guardian.

So whilst there isn't a reliable source to refute the fact (if there was there'd be no real problem and I wouldn't have brought this up here) there is considerable reason to doubt it, and as I've argued in the article's talk page that as there's no necessity to make this claim (that Baron Cohen's mother is of Iranian descent) the doubt is sufficient to exclude it.

There is at least one editor, who on the basis of WP:RS believes the fact can now be included. We could just now punt this to The Guardian and other sources and say that, as mentioned above, our goal is verifiability not truth, but as this information seems to have originated in a piece of Wikipedia vandalism, I'm uncomfortable with that, hence seeking further input here.

SeanLegassick 19:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

WOW... as someone who deals a lot with reliabilty and verification issues, this discussion opens a whole canning factory of worms. Post-facto verification! I know this is only my paranoid imagination at work... but it does give me the shivers. Blueboar 16:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

From a Reliability perspective The Grauniad is not inherently reliable unless it's made clear in the usage that the statement is based on media reporting. Newspapers make mistakes and any contentious point should be corroborated as much as possible. In this case I'd request further independent verification. I've just had a look at Yahoo and given the lack of indication about where it derives its material from then whilst I'd expect a level of reliability you can't assure that.ALR 16:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There is always a possibility of mistake or fraud. WP is not edited by machines, so it is appropriate to use our judgement if there really seems to be a problem. There can be. Say I am an editor (in the RW sense) of a peer-reviewed journal in a field I also write here on. If I what to introduce an idiosyncratic point, I can write an article & the other editors would arrange the peer review so as to accept the article in almost all cases. I could then cite it here. (I in fact know of one person who does do something very much like this--not primarily aimed at WP, but so she can cite it in other RW peer-reviewed articles).

In any serious controversy there will be RS on both sides, and most such disputes here occur in such cases. There simply is not a division in RS and nonRS. There's a gradation. A small town newspaper talking about a townsman's inventions is not the same as the NYTimes talking about these inventions, which is in turn less than say Scientific American talking about them, which in turn is not quite the same as Nature. The world of possible sources does not fall into 2 neat stacks, any more than the world in general for purposes of N. DGG 23:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the authority in the field can also make mistakes, and that commonsense sometimes justifies the removal of such information even when there is no alternative source; an example of which is documented at talk:Autogyro in the section Records and Application. This is a case where a non expert knew the published data to be wrong. LessHeard vanU 23:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Assume the presence of a belly-button, even with normally reliable sources. -- Ben 00:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It becomes harder when reliable sources disagree. Where Pete Doherty went to university was reported by the BBC and The Independent as Oxford, the biography of the band said University College London, and The Sunday Times said Queen Mary's. In these cases, I think editors have to use their best judgement to decide whether the information in the source is correct. Trebor 23:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Or alternatively present the confusion in full, and leave the judgement to the reader. A classic case is that of dates of birth. Sometimes old records are patchy, and no precise date of birth is possible. Sometimes several possibilities are reported, and the correct thing to do is give the possibilities, along with the sources. An example, though not sourced, is found at Isaac Roberts. Two possible birth dates and probably no way of confirming either way. Carcharoth 02:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Dates of birth can be a real problem, yeah, particularly as they're rarely cited. Someone came to the David Arnold article and changed the DOB, saying that they knew David and that it was incorrect. But searching online for it, you had real problems as the DOB from Wikipedia had gone everywhere (this was eventually settled by contacting David himself on his forums). Trebor 09:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:Timecode. I tried citing the forum post in the article, as otherwise someone will just change it back again (not all the wrong information that was sent out by Wikipedia will get corrected). Unfortunately it is a flash media site, and I can't work out how to link to the exact post. Don't think it is possible. Can you, um, upload a screenshot? Carcharoth 11:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, my computer has real trouble going on his website at all. The main problem was the IMDB date being wrong, but I've submitted a correction. Trebor 13:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how Wikipedia is in any way responsible for this. A newspaper, or other media outlet, has a responsibility to check their facts with a reliable source, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Whether or not journalists do their job properly is not Wikpedia's concern. A reader who spots a mistake in a newspaper (you or anyone else) could obviously write to them to point it out, but it's nothing to do with Wikipedia. Hobson 02:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC) I misunderstood the point being made. Hobson 02:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this still rumbling on? Why not contact the journalist? Mr Stephen 00:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sacha_Baron_Cohen#Request_For_Comment to get both side of the argument. regarding the sacha baron cohen case. Klymen 02:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

User blanking own talk page

Just wondering, what is the general stance on this. Is it allowed? The user in question has warnings on their talk page, nothing serious, more along the lines of untagged image notices. I still think this is an important notice and shouldn't be removed from the page...I've reverted it once to put back the relevant comments and it is just repeatedly blanked. However, I don't really know if I'm going about this the right way. Are users allowed to blank their own talk page, if the page in question includes an important notification pertinent to the user? I'm new around here and don't really know the policy on this, any help would be appreciated. --Xertz 04:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Generally, if a user has warnings on his/her talk page, then it is frowned upon to blank them, as it appears that they are trying to hide their past actions. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 04:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Warnings generally shouldn't be removed, as ChairmanS above has said. But i normally think untagged image notices don't really count. If we're talking about the same thing - then those untagged image notices are automatically placed by a bot. Warnings should be kept because...they're sort of a record of the editor's behaviour (or i suppose misbehaviour) which helps other editors. Automatically generated talk page warnings by a bot don't really reflect anything - often, it could just be because the person forgot and the bot beat them before they had a chance to fix the image. I don't really think there's any harm in removing those kind of warnings. Unless the person has been intentionally breaking image-related guidelines, in which case they'd most likely have been warned by another editor, not by an automatic bot. --`/aksha 04:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, if the warning is old, and the editor has since then corrected his behaviour, then i don't see why they *must* keep the warning on the talk page. --`/aksha 04:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to come down somewhere in the middle. Life is awkward if you are constantly clearing your page out. Supposed I start a conversation and you delete it. Now if that conversation was not over, where do I put the latest replies? Also, if the deleted text did happen to be warnings that were still relevant, we would have to search history to find them. Have you searched history looking for when vandalism was added to an article like Honda Civic? It can be a real pain. Same with what happened to all those deleted messages.

Having said all that, I do agree that old warnings should be removed. I propose that a bot look at the sig date on each one. When it sees a date that is old enough with no newer warnings, it removes the warning and adds a new message saying "Thank you for behaving." As for non-warnings, encourage users to use archiving tools. Will (Talk - contribs) 05:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In this particular case, it seems antagnostic to revert notices that are so trivial in nature. As for the general situation, I would suggest that a user can blank *any* warning that is more than 30 days old. Wjhonson 06:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not quite a month old, but it's getting there. The "warning" was from a bot, saying that the user had uploaded an untagged image. The image has since been tagged by the original uploader, so I suppose there is no justification in keeping him from blanking the talk page, as this untagged image warning is the only entry on his talk page that is of any real importance. --Xertz 15:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that a user can blank any warning they damn well please. It's proof that they've read it, and if they continue to cause problems, they can't plead ignorance of the law. --Carnildo 09:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Blanking warnings is perfectly acceptable. As Carnildo points out, it means the user has read them. Re-adding the warnings and forcing the user to keep content they do not like on their talk page crosses into harassment quickly. While blanking of relevant warnings is not polite or nice, restoring them is even less polite. We do not keep permanent archives (other than page histories) of users' past misdeeds. Kusma (討論) 09:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

As above, many warnings are basically reminders for the user, like images without copyright warnings, once the issue has been solved there's no reason to keep them. I've had a couple of image copyright tags stuck up on my user page as the result of basic forgetfully (forgot to tag an image) or as a result of bot error. These things don't tell anybody anything useful about me except that I like to have at least one picture on each page that I create.

perfectblue 09:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Then how are we supposed to find those warnings? You must love searching history. Please tell me the exact edit that Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Requesting 3rd opinion on External Links was started. Then tell me how long it took to find that. Now you have picture of what it is like searching history. What a pain. Will (Talk - contribs) 09:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• The intent of warnings is to warn and educate the user; they do not serve as a record of past misdemeanors. Thus, it is perfectly acceptable for a user to remove warnings from their talk page. >Radiant< 10:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Then there's no point in our rising hierarchy of warnings {{test1}}, {{test2}}, {{test3}}, {{test4}}, etc. If the user is entitled to remove {{test1}} every time he gets one, he'll never get a {{test2}}. He'll be educated all right -- educated in how to avoid being blocked for vandalism. —Angr 10:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely you do not block simply because a user has test1 through 4 (or whatever the bloody templates have been renamed this week) on their talk page? A look at contributions is essential, and at that point things get more obvious. Plus we do not require a full suite of warnings before a user is blocked. Ta/wangi 10:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Not true at all. If the {{test1}} was recent, and assuming the suggested edit summary was left, it will be easy to spot in the history. You can't assume the messages haven't been deleted, so you need to check anyway. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I would only discover such a talk page because the user had been vandalizing. If there's no previous indication that he's been warned about it, I give him a test1 or test2 (which have been their names for years, what do you mean by "this week"?). If he's already received a "last warning" (or several -- the vandals must often laugh out loud at how many "last warnings" they get without getting blocked), I'll block for the vandalism that brought me to the user's talk page in the first place. —Angr 10:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to {{uw-test1}} et al... /wangi 11:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Back when I did RC patrol, I would use {{test}} as a warning for newbie-test vandalism, {{test3}} for serious vandalism. Repeat vandalism after getting a warning would result in a short block. I never saw the point in the rest of the series. --Carnildo 22:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandals can't hide anything by removing warnings. Any admin who decides whether to block checks the user's contribution page, which will tell you whether the user has edited his own talk page and removed warnings. Any block is based on the user's contributions more than on how many warnings he has had. Kusma (討論) 11:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly a common practise, with test3 or bv being used, thanks/wangi 23:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they can hide information. This thread has gotten long enough to demonstrate. Please identify the edit where "warning is old, and the editor has since then corrected his behaviour" was added to the above posts. Please note that you will find only one such edit. (Behavior was misspelled.) If you can't do that, you probably can't verify something else was removed. Will (Talk - contribs) 22:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You do not need to check the page history to see whether a user has removed warnings. You see that from their contributions. As you check a user's contributions anyway when you fight vandalism or decide whether to block, you don't even need an extra click. Kusma (討論) 14:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You probably can't verify anything if you spend so much time worrying about UK vs US spellings and labelling one as misspelled! /wangi 23:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Will: It's true that it's very hard to find back a particular edit, unless you mark it in some way. You should be able to find back my edit easily, by just grepping page history on or around the time I signed for "MARK MARK MARK". You can also grep for "TEST 1". Finally, note that user talk pages have much less traffic than the village pump :-) --Kim Bruning 00:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can get tools like VandalProof to do all the work, there is no way to ensure we all agree on the edit summary. Even with tools like VandalProof, they might not be in agreement. Sure, you set some standard here. But how long does it take the authors of those tools to get up to coding that standard? Quite some time.

Besides. Some people that patrol, like myself, are stuck with computers where they can't install anything. This computer isn't mine. (That is dead for the foreseeable future.) It is as though I access Wikipedia from a public internet connection.

That leaves my browser and any JS tools I can find. However, some of the JS tools were written a while back and never updated. In one case, it took me months to figure out what some of the tabs did. No one ever responded to the queries I left on the scripts talk page.

For those that claim you don't need the level 4 warnings, I submit users like myself do. I am not an admin. Hence, I can't block anyone myself. For that, I have to report the user on WP:AIV. But that is useless -- until a level 4 warning is present has been there for sometime. Because of the political beliefs where I grew up (USA), I consider users to be innocent until proven guilty. I won't just bump the user up to level 4 without good reason. However, I don't have time to truely evaluate each case. So unless the edit that got me to add a warning to the user's page is severe, I won't bump more than one level per incident.

In short, without a track record, I am left in the dark. Again, due to time constraints, I don't check back through history very far. Just far enough to verify the user didn't remove warnings. Maybe not even that. Will (Talk - contribs) 05:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

4 level warnings are not required. Arbcom has said that repeatedly restoring warnings is harrassment. I'm sorry you don't have time to do things properly. Maybe you shouldn't do them then. pschemp | talk 05:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Restoring the warnings would be harassment only if the warnings were no longer relevant. To often, that is the case. The hardcore vandals will do what they can to avoid detection. You would leave me without the best tools I have. I doubt you care about fighting vandalism. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think it's quite feasible for RC patrollers / CVU members to agree on which edit summaries to use. It's also quite feasible for people to set up a log of warnings if they really must. It's simply that user talk pages (1) are not intended as such a log, and (2) do not actually work well as such a log, since we can't prevent users from editing or blanking them. >Radiant< 10:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Will - you have repeatedly used edits to this page, and the history of this page, as examples of how difficult it is to find and evaluate past actions on a user talk page, assuming the user can freely delete messages. Please stop using this page as an example. This is a high volume page. A user talk page is almost always a low volume page, and if it's not, it's because the user is getting a lot of warnings. Someone looking at how serious a problem a user is, in addition to looking at contributions, need not go back 50 or 100 edits, even if there were that many - the last ten or so are almost always going to indicate if the editor has been a problem, and what the level of the next warning - or block - should be.
  • The purpose of allowing users to remove warnings (and anything else they want) on their user talk pages is to help good editors clear off vandalism and mistaken warnings and cruft. Allowing this certainly makes it (at least slightly) more difficult, sometimes, to evaluate problem users. That is just the price to be paid - there is no approach to anything in the world that has all advantages and no disadvantages. The alternative, saying that users cannot remove warnings, under threat of punishment, is to say that you and other editors cannot respond to being harassed on your own talk page, in the form of bogus warnings ("uncivil", "failure to assume good faith", "personal attack", "harassment", etc.), or that you and other editors will have constantly archive junk warnings by hand to get them off your pages. Yes, it would be nice if Wikipedia had a clear policy that allowed "good" editors to remove warnings but forced "bad" ones to keep them visible or archived - but I think you'll agree that such a policy is in fact unwritable. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 14:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I copy stuff directly from 2005 Encyclopedia Brittanica?

Well? Andrewdt85

Absolutely not. It would be an instance of copyvio. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You can, however, copy directly from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica! -newkai t-c 11:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It has been released into the public domain, and can easily be downloaded in electronic form. Needless to say, much of the information contained is sorely outdated, but it's an excellent encyclopedia nevertheless. --Xertz 15:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Back when Wikipedia had substantially fewer entries, it was rather common for 1911 EB articles to be used almost verbatium. As far as I know, almost all 1911 EB article have been updated on Wikipedia since then, although they do still exist on s:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. There are a few biographical entries here on Wikipedia that about the only reasonable source is this edition of EB, but those are some very obscure articles. Even then, some substantial POV cleanup has occured. --Robert Horning 20:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Note, though, that copyright protects expression, not fact. (needless to say IANAL, but if copyright protected facts it would be absolutely impossible for Wikipedia to exist.) --Random832(tc) 12:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There is still a great deal of cleanup to do on those articles. Many of the edits are the addition of a few newer facts to the old article, rather than the necessary rewriting (That's historically been a common technique in EB as well). This may be one of the early decision made under the imperatives of getting started that have turned out to cause difficulties in the longer run. DGG 20:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Citing references

Hello, I am seeking clarification regarding whether citing references within an article is policy (or if it is fine merely to list references at the bottom of an article).-MsHyde 23:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You can reference sources at the bottom of an article. It can be more useful to the reader and future editors to have in-line citations, but it is more difficult and the reference system is unwieldy. For controversial biographical information about living person, or any controversial information, it is more important and helpful to have statements explicitly paired with citations. —Centrx→talk • 23:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. How is it determined that something is or is not controversial? (For example, may anyone request inline citations, as fact tags are used?)-MsHyde 23:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have no particular reason to believe that a fact is controversial or incorrect, and are not interested in actually reading a reference if one is provided, then there is no need to request a reference "just in case" somebody else might someday want one. The policy is that everything must be verifiable in principle, not that it must be explicitly sourced.

Adding many fact tags to many articles in a short period of time would make it hard to believe you are requesting the references in good faith rather than making a point. Along these lines, let me point out that your account was created this month but the vast majority of your edits consist of tagging articles as unreferenced, prodding articles, and voting "delete" in AFD debates. CMummert · talk 01:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I am trying to help. If I know something about the subject, or find a reference on Google when trying to decide to prod or AfD, I add it to the article. Also, I vote keep sometimes, and add references to AfD. Can you show me where in policy it says everything must be verifiable in principle, but not explicitly sourced? It seems like this is actually undefined, or a gray area. I agree that not every line should be sourced, but perhaps every paragraph, especially in a long article. But clarity about what policy actually says would be appreciated. In actual practice, it seems to me that inline sourcing is preferred over leaving sources at the bottom, with no way for anyone to tell which parts of the article match which sources or parts of sources.-MsHyde 01:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Careful with adding comments. You messed up the (UTC) in his sig. Not every paragraph has to be sourced. That's just ridiculous. Only those bits which are disputable or not common knowledge need citing. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That is what I meant about gray area. Everything is disputable; nothing is common knowledge. In a long article, I think there probably should be a reference for every paragraph, at least. But what explicitly is policy covers inline citations vs. references at the bottom?-MsHyde 05:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any policy about which type of citation to use. Personally I prefer the <ref>, since these create standard footnotes that we are familiar with in printed material. Also if someone were to page-print an article, the footnotes would appear normally, the inline cites won't. Wjhonson 09:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

MsHyde probably already has read the policies, since she is familiar with the deletion process, but I will answer her question. WP:V and WP:ATT are carefully worded so that they don't require explicit citations for every fact. If such citations were required, the policies would have been written to explicitly say as much. It is only facts that are "challenged or likely to be challenged", or biographical material, that are held to a higher standard. WP:SCG was recently written to give more specific guidance in the context of scientific articles, and it has been adopted by several WikiProjects as an accurate description of the level of citation they would like to achieve. CMummert · talk 13:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the numerical stability article again, can I kindly suggest that MsHyde read the guidelines at WP:SCG before tagging any more math or science articles? It reads in part:

The verifiability criteria require that such [uncontroversial, widely known] statements be sourced so that in principle anyone can verify them. However, in many articles it is cumbersome to provide an in-line reference for every statement. In addition, such dense referencing can obscure the logical interdependence of statements.

Thanks, Lunch 23:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

In all articles with many refs, not just sci-tech, it is usual to group the references at the end of each sentence. For controversial articles in particular, having reference numbers after individual words in the same sentence looks somewhat aggressive. if it is necessary to make it absolutely clear which references said exactly what, it is clearer to use a quote. DGG 00:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC), one per sentence.

Proposal forWikipedia:Notability (politicians)

I've created a proposal for a notability guideline for political figures, at Wikipedia:Notability (politicians). I'd welcome input at the talk page. There's already a little discussion because I've been slow about listing the proposal. Argyriou (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Cabal

Hello Wikipedia.

I am a sysop, checkuser, bot operator, bot writer, toolserver programmer and contributor on Wiktionary, another Wikimedia Foundation Project similar to Wikipedia. I am also a bot operator and bot writer here on Wikipedia.

A matter recently came to my attention on Wiktionary, which ultimately led me here. Trying to assess a particular class of vandalism on Wiktionary, I have found a direct link to "dodgy" featured articles here on Wikipedia. After asking some questions about Wikipedia and some aspects of it I obviously am unfamiliar with, I found myself at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. To my shock and dismay, I found a tight knot of dedicated Wikipedians there who vehemently promote bad article topics and immediately deride any coherent objection that does not match their point of view.

The history of featured articles is not clear. Certainly, the process used for selection is flawed. The lack of transparency, the subjective criteria of a single individual and the disregard of certain subsequent vandalism is baffling.

As I understand it, now, Wikipedia featured articles currently are skewed towards promoting non-encyclopedic topics. I now understand that a certain element has won out (to date) at Wikipedia, holding that any article that is not deleted can (and should) be a featured article. I also understand that the current Wikipedia criteria does not pose any limitations on topics that do not appear in any other general-use encyclopedias, instead allowing "specialty" encyclopedias as well.

To me, this represents a massive flaw in reasoning. When questionable, non-encyclopedic topics are featured on the main page of a website with over two million visitors per day, each of those visitors learns that Wikipedia is about writing featured articles on games, obscure trivia, movies, pop songs and TV shows. As a direct result, contributors who have encyclopedic knowledge to add to Wikipedia (and other WMF projects) are implicitly discouraged from doing so. At the same time, it encourages further "gaming of the system" with non-encyclopedic topics. Useless trivia suddenly becomes the primary focus, instead of useful facts. Ironically, "video games" (as a topic) seem to be a primary subject for "gaming the system" in this manner.

While I do have admiration for the dedication required to organize the current featured article efforts, there obviously are some changes needed. The lack of transparency in the decision-process must be addressed. The disregard for other WikiMedia projects needs to be eliminated. And the effects of featuring non-encyclopedic topics cannot be ignored.

I do not understand what it will take, to break this knot of Wikipedians out of their current mindset, which considers all other concerns as irrelevant. Particularly, the effect on other WikiMedia projects is currently ignored. Yet the overall negative effect on other projects is undeniable.

So, in summary, I have some questions:

1. Can the featured articles process be reformed to something more wiki-like, such as the voting process used elsewhere on Wikipedia? The current featured articles process gives the strong impression that such a thing is possible, yet is currently overrun by an element that irrationally promotes trivial topics, based only on the prose and how well referenced an entry is. Worse still, that tight knot of contributors expends enormous energy on protecting their fiefdom/cabal, especially in the face of reasonable objections.
2. Can the featured article criteria be changed to emphasize general-encyclopedia topics? I understand the compromise of allowing such topics to be entered, but featuring, advertising and promoting them is quite a different thing. Such promotion directly results in vandalism to other WikiMedia projects.

Thanks in advance,

--Connel MacKenzie - wikt 20:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Featured Article process doesn't discriminate against any specific topic. The problem is that those with the desire to write featured articles (such as myself) don't really have an interest in those so-called "encyclopedic" articles, the essentials, or what have you. I'm not entirely sure what you're promoting here, so I'm struggling a little bit, but are you saying that our crop of FAs are discouraging people from contributing? How so? If not, are you saying that level of importance should be a criteria? If so, importance to what? Is there some systematic bias in the FA process? Sure. But the answer is more to the point of working on those "important" articles, not what you appear to be suggesting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 1: Voting is evil. Plus, on what criteria should it than be based besides references and prose. How worthy a topic is? Some editors find the newest Pokemon way more interesting than Einstein. You can't force editors to work on 'general-encyclopedia' topics. Garion96 (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, there is no cabal. This is the discussion that sparked this, if anyone wants to have a look. Trebor 20:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that link. I don't know why I thought that wasn't relevant. It is a good example, but then, so is today's FA. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 21:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That article is getting shot down for its problems with encyclopedic quality. Wikipedia doesn't care about subject importance, we care about article quality. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe he was referring to the user above who is proposing this policy, who opposed based on the subject of the candidate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

That is a poor reason to exclude it. It should be excluded from consideration for being non-encyclopedic, and the remaining article improved (or removed.) --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 21:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Any article that is notable enough for inclsuion and includes enough information/sources can become a featured article. There is no "bias"; there are just a lot of quality articles coming out of the pop culture subjects. Nothing is stopping the other topics from becoming featured; heck, I believe it serves as a way to motivate enhanced quality for core topics, because they'll see the benchmark being set. — Deckiller 21:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, that is what needs to change. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 21:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a bias at Wikipedia, but it is not in the Featured Article process. It is simply easier and more fun to write articles on trivial subjects like videogames and pop stars because one person can master all the details and does not have to fight with a bunch of editors with different views to reach a consensus version. I am a generalist, and all the "important" articles I have worked on, programming language, relational database, operating system, china, were in terrible shape when I found them and exhausting to work on. --Ideogram 21:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but I obviously disagree. The overflow vandalism to other projects whenever a dodgy article is featured is too problematic to ignore any longer. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 21:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

May you elabote on how featured articles result in vandalism to other projects? I'm confused. — Deckiller 21:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to second this request for an example. You're saying there was a rash of star wars related vandalism on wiktionary or other wikis today? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The flurry of additions of "fictional characters" entries that do not meet wikt:WT:CFI actually started yesterday, and hasn't yet been addressed. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 22:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like "vandalism" to me; that sounds like a couple of misguided, but good faith users who don't understand the policies on that wiki. Moreover, it doesn't really show and direct relation to the FAs over here, because we've been featuring fictional topics for years. — Deckiller 22:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide an example, or point us to a page where we might see some of these? Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

True, and I don't believe users should be punished for enjoying to work and improve pop culture (a lot of it is in poor shape due to fancruft and whatnot, which is even worse than most of the core topics); if we take this subject away, people won't be interested in editing the more difficult articles. We focus on articles that have the least amount of controversy, and good things result. It will help us build to the point where everyone is experienced enough to crack the tough nuts. — Deckiller 21:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I would never suggest punishment or otherwise trying to prevent people from working on what they enjoy. But our dismal coverage of important topics makes us look bad as an encyclopedia, and I don't see any easy solution. --Ideogram 21:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If the purpose of including "fancruft" is to help people learn how to practice editing on trivial subjects, that might be relevant. But the topic here, is not directly about inclusion, rather, the focus is on the inordinate promotion of things you can't find in a traditional general-use encyclopedia. While my personal opinion is that the trivia topics should be removed, I understand that is but a pipe-dream. But the FA abuses (advertising/promoting trivia) cannot be ignored. I clearly am not exaggerating the problem; I am obviously understating it. Over two million per day are assaulted with these trivia topics. It is by far, the most prominent aspect of Wikipedia (and WikiMedia) that shapes the world's opinion of this project, and all related projects. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 21:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So do you propose a stop to promoting so-called "trivial" articles, even though the "Featured" status only has to do with article quality? I mean, do you really consider Star Wars: The Phantom Menace to be a trivial subject? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop promoting them by fixing the illogical notion that typography alone is a reason for FA status and "democratize" the voting practice of main page featured articles. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 21:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a massive misrepresentation of the featured article criteria. The requirements that an article be "well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable" amount to far more than "typography alone". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And yes, I think today's featured article is completely inappropriate for something calling itself an encyclopedia. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 21:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The FA articles on fiction aren't exactly fancruft, they take an outside universe view on the subject, just like any other encyclopedia. And Badlydrawnjeff is right, FA is about article quality, not what the article is written about. But could you explain how it is promoting trivia and advertisement? George Lucas isn't exactly paying us to have that on the front page, and Wikipedia isn't promoting his work as an advertisement for Star Wars or any of the other articles that have been up. In theory, any article that is placed on the front page could be considered advertising then. But that's not what FA is about. Wiki goes for a consensus based on what's best for the project, not a yes or no vote on what looks cool or is popular. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 22:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It goes off the subjective criteria of one individual, instead of a yes/no vote by the contributors of this project. At what point did I say George Lucas was paying for placement? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 22:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You didn't, and I never said that he was paying for it, which is the point, for us to be advertising, we would tell you to watch Star Wars, or something along those lines for what ever article is featured. As for the nomination process, it involves much more than one person's opinion. In the FA process, any editor can go through and criticize the heck out of the article to make sure it is what a Wikipedia article should be. This is the purpose of FA, to show that the article at that point in time is what we are looking for in a Wikipedia article. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 22:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• The only thing I agree with in this proposal is that there should be a balance of subjects on the main page. And there already is; Raul picks featured articles very carefully, and pop culture FAs do not outbalance others in terms of main page inclusion. — Deckiller 22:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion being made that there is a cabal on WP:FAC whose goal is to promote trivial articles on the grounds that they are well-referenced is, to put it mildly, laughable. However, I believe that more care should be taken in the choice of the Featured Article of the Day. Not enough people realize that the image of Wikipedia suffers when the article of the day is (I'm sure I'm going to get ripped for saying that) Torchic, Half-Life 2, Maraba Coffee or Stephen Colbert's performance at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. Now that doesn't mean that these are not very high quality articles but I think we might want to rethink the idea of letting fairly trivial subjects (or, as in the above examples, entirely trivial subjects, no matter how fun they might be) become the day's example of the best we can do. Pascal.Tesson 22:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In January there were eight pop/entertainment/sport articles featured on the main page. 8 out of 31, not bad at all. I think Raul makes a nice balance there. Garion96 (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

One per year might be a better balance. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 22:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the pokemon and colbert, but one of the most successful games of the last few years and a type of coffee. How are they not "encyclopaedic" (even in a fairly traditional sense)? But even so, this is all supposition; how do we know what happens to the image? Trebor 22:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide references to other general-use encyclopedias that have these articles? As to what happens to the image, that is measurable, by the Wikipedia-related news articles and the number of times comedians pick Wikipedia as an easy target. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 22:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we need to focus on the most notable featured articles for inclusion on the main page. However, we cannot just exclude pop culture, because Final Fantasy VII and the current FA are certainly notable enough, as is illustrated in their respective articles. — Deckiller 22:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Those are both excellent examples of items that do not belong on the main page. Notable, but trivia oriented. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 22:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Deckiller, the notion that pop-culture trivia is relevant to a general-use encyclopedia, is false. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 22:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not "trivia", it's a part of life, just like everything else. Something purchased by 6+ million people certainly is not trivia, nor is an item that has influenced countless forms of literature and films and brought its own influences into the light. By your logic, shouldn't books and whatnot also be "trivia"? Moreover, the consensus on Wikipedia certainly does not believe that pop culture is trivia. — Deckiller 22:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia is not always trivial. But articles that focus only on pop-culture trivia have no place in an encyclopedia. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 22:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely everything is relevant to a general-use encyclopaedia. Trebor 22:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Then why are the topics in question only covered in "specialty" niche-segment encyclopedias? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 22:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and definitely also many niche encyclopedia's in one. Garion96 (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Precicely. That's why it's called general :) — Deckiller 22:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So why are the Beatles relevant to Encyclopedia Britannica? [8]. They certainly seem to feel that pop culture should be included. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

One single band of historic importance is not all garage bands ever. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 22:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Not all garage bands are included in Wikipedia. We have notability guidelines, and I, among other admins, have deleted numerous articles that don't comply to WP:BAND. — Deckiller 22:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Just typing bands off the top of my head, it has articles on the Clash, Sex Pistols, Talking Heads, the Ramones, Devo, Springsteen. It seems like as long as you don't get recent, you can find most famous groups. Not to mention Pacman and Zelda (video games? how dare they??). The claim that encyclopedias don't cover pop culture is patently false. And once you admit that it's good to cover some pop culture, you turn the site into a popularity contest and end up arguing over which is more important instead of writing articles. While it is true that wikipedia covers more bands than EB, part of the reason is that WP has no space limitations and covers more of many topics - there are many "important" topics that WP gets that other encyclopedias either cover in less detail or miss completely. If pop culture is not encyclopedic, why does wiktionary have a bunch of entries that only appear in star wars (apparently in violation of the inclusion policies there)? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

Wikipedia differs in important ways from a traditional encyclopedia. I have much more to say on this subject but not here and now. --Ideogram 22:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, Wikipedia is anything but a normal encyclopedia. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 22:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Moreover, we have the ability to cover more topics and in a more comprehensive manner because of our larger edit base. We don't have a small group of hired editors, who have to focus on only the most important topics. — Deckiller 22:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That is a fallacy. The ability to create articles has no bearing whatsoever, on what is promoted. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 22:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes it does, because like was said earlier, we should be promoting all subjects included. Consequently, we should get more core topics featured, but that is no reason to dock pop culture FAs. — Deckiller 22:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I gather, Connel, that you are suggesting that pop-culture topics should be excluded from becoming Featured Articles. This means incorporating either a subject-matter exclusion or some form of determination of "worthiness" into the featured article criteria. Either of these is problematic. Saying "no pop-culture articles" assumes that there's a clear line between pop culture and high culture — but that line was blurry long before Roy Lichtenstein and Andy Warhol pointed the tension out. Is Jaws pop culture, or high culture, or both? It's been widely praised by notable critics, but also condemned as the first of many disposable blockbuster summer "popcorn" movies. There are many other cases that are legitimately part of both "pop" and "high" culture. We can't use Potter Stewart's pornography test ("I know it when I see it"), because every Wikipedian will have different opinions about what should or shouldn't be excluded.

That leaves us with the attempt to determine what subjects are "worthy" and what are "trivial". But how can we possibly determine what's too "trivial" to merit inclusion as a Featured Article? Some people would say that comic books as a genre are intrinisically trivial, and that the inclusion of Superman and Batman as featured articles diminishes Wikipedia. But does that mean that a comic with more literary aspirations, such as Watchmen, should be demoted? What about the Pulitzer Prize-winning Maus — should that be excluded from ever becoming a Featured Article? If not, where can we draw the line?

The impossibility of making these determinations shows the wisdom of Wikipedia's inclusionism. Right now, the only bias is towards the inclinations of contributors. If we tried to use criteria of "worth", or exclude particular subjects from consideration, we would open the door to many more troublesome biases. It's a bad idea. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Limiting the decision to a single individual is worse. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 22:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not a logical follow-on. There is currently no decision on "worthiness", due to the difficulties explained by Josiah. One individual will judge if there is community consensus to promote an article or not, based on quality. Trebor 22:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't grasp the meaning logical statements? There is no current decision on sysop "worthiness" due to even greater difficulties, yet WP:RfA is not run by a single individual. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 22:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And neither is WP:FAC. Connel, you're conflating the process of promoting articles to FA status and the process of placing them on the front page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

(after conflict, in response to mackenzie) Eh? I don't think I'm following you. But to make sure I got my point across: we have featured articles. They are judged against the featured article criteria. Any article can become featured; there is no judgement as to whether an article is significant or important enough. Being featured does not make them appear on the main page, although to appear on the main page an article must be featured. People add comments in support or opposition of an article being featured. These comments should be based on the criteria, and opposition must include actionable improvements which can be made. After a consensus has formed, one person judges that consensus and features (or not) the article. If you don't feel that this system is correct and that it leads to too many supposedly trivial articles being featured, I'd advise finding a different project. Trebor 23:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please go elsewhere yourself. As I stated at the start, I'm here only because the FA has such enormous secondary effects. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 23:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a suggestion. And I'll ask again how you know that us featuring certain articles has an effect on sister projects? The link seems very tenuous. Trebor 23:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I still haven't seen those "enormous secondary effects". Could you point to a diff or history page showing them? --Milo H Minderbinder 23:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not conflating anything. There is no separation between the two processes, and there should be. Currently, when trying to express one such comment, I was immediately attached by this cabal. If no place exists to express such comments, there should be one. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 23:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

With respect, Connel, you are conflating when you make reference to "a single individual" making decisions about what is featured. WP:FAC is open to all Wikipedians. It is true that one individual — currently Raul654 — makes the decisions about which featured articles will be included in Wikipedia:Today's featured article on the front page. (Incidentally, if you follow that link, you'll see the statement "Raul654 maintains a very small, unofficial list of featured articles that he does not intend to appear on the main page." This should slightly alleviate your concerns about unworthy topics being featured on the front page, and thus attracting unwelcome spillover to other Wikimedia projects.)

There is a distinction between which articles become featured and which featured articles are included on the front page. For the reasons I have stated, I think that subject-based or "worthiness"-based restrictions on the creation of featured articles are a bad idea; however, I can see the arguments for restricting which featured articles are placed on the front page. Wikipedians will differ on the merits of articles like Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, but the suggestion that merely because of its subject matter it should not have become a featured article is a non-starter, I'm afraid. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please omit the cabal references. I see a lot of editors in this discussion that I've never seen before. We are users discussing why we feel that your idea would not be beneficial or work out, not a mob. — Deckiller 23:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop behaving in a mob-like manner, then. I presented a thoughtful presentation of a very real problem, and have been set on, by a pack of FA contributors who wish to protect themselves and their POV. I've seen one thoughtful response so far, in opposition to my original proposal, two thoughtful responses in support, and innumerable misplaced or misguided defenses of the current practice. On one hand, I am partly responsible for "feeding the trolls" but on the other, the absurd statements defending the current practice need to be refuted immediately. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 23:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I'll remind you to assume good faith and be civil. Describing editors as mobs and trolls isn't helping your cause. I can't find any of the responses in support of your proposal; I think the majority of the community think it unworkable, and reflective of a very traditionalist view of an encyclopaedia. The current practice has been pretty successful in most people's eyes, and you've yet to substantiate any statement claiming it has caused increased vandalism to any other WM projects. Trebor 23:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You are telling me to be WP:CIVIL after essentially telling me to go to hell? WTF? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 23:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Point me to where I said anything like that; if I did, I apologise. I'd still like an answer as to how you know that the vandalism is connected to the featuring of "less serious" articles. Trebor 23:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm dying to see this "go to hell" comment as well. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the "go to hell" issue is referring to the good-faith suggestion above: "If you don't feel that this system is correct and that it leads to too many supposedly trivial articles being featured, I'd advise finding a different project". — Deckiller 00:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I feel that paraphrasing that to "go to hell" is a misinterpretation of my comments. I was saying that the overwhelming consensus that FAs can be on any topic is unlikely to be changed, and if he was so diametrically opposed to this idea then perhaps Wikipedia wasn't a good project for him. I consider that slightly more measured (and subtle) than a simple "go to hell". Trebor 00:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, unless it was a way for him to say that Wikipedia = Heaven :) — Deckiller 00:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to test the strength of your argument, then this is the place. I tried it very recently, and found my proposal wanting. While I still believe in my concept I realise that it needs better arguing or simply a stronger argument. If everyone who responds is against your point of view then it is better to accept the opposing view as currently valid and attempt either (and or) refine your argument or accept the status quo. You (and I, separately) may well be right. It is for us to find the proof that will convince, and not complain about the trial. LessHeard vanU 23:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

Maybe I should be clearer about my concern with Half-Life 2 as the article of the day. I think it's great that Wikipedia has quality articles on fairly trivial topics or on pop-culture. In fact, it's a (small) part of what makes Wikipedia so nice. But I think it's just silly to let articles on video-games, no matter how popular, be the article we show off with pride to the world. I really would have no interest in Wikipedia if it wasn't also creating fantastic articles on subjects where it is in direct competition with classical encyclopedias. Featured articles are supposed to exemplify our best work and I doubt that anyone can say without giggling that Torchic should be given the nod. It's great to impose the same stringent standards on pop-culture articles that we apply to top-priority topics but at some point we have to be honest and realize that Pokemon, Half-Life 2 articles and whatnot are ephemeral little things whose place on the front page should be secondary. Pascal.Tesson 22:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

But you do agree that they should be given the ability to become featured, right? Also, I somewhat disagree with excluding all video games; Mario, Final Fantasy, game consoles, and whatnot are not bad things to include on the main page, because they were well known and not too narrow. — Deckiller 22:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict and database lock)I'm still not sure where this worry about what we "show-off" is coming from. If we didn't include our pop culture and niche articles, it wouldn't be a reflection of where a lot of the quality of Wikipedia is; we certainly don't want to mispresent ourselves to the world. Wikipedia is one of the best places to go for information on pop culture. It isn't (yet) perhaps, the best place to go for consistently detailed overviews of core topics for traditional encyclopaedias, but then traditional encyclopaedias don't allow anyone to edit and aren't staffed by volunteers. I certainly don't think there's any need to be embarrassed by Wikipedia. Trebor 22:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. — Deckiller 22:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Pascal, I completely agree. The only ones not giggling are the same contributors gaming the FA system with items that will be long-forgotten in ten year's time. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 23:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VII certainly hasn't been forgotten (and it was released ten years ago); Star Wars hasn't been forgotten, and it's 25+ years old; and I'm fairly certain that people remember Donkey Kong (video game), Pac-Man, and Jaws (film), as the articles explain. Nevertheless, I rarely, if ever, put FAs I work on in the FA request; attaining featured status is enough for me, unless I feel that the topic is notable enough to be placed on the main page (like the New England Patriots, or Rush (band)).

I do feel that, for topics to be featured and/or placed on the main page, there should be at least a 2 year history so that there can be some historical context and reception information to make the article comprehensive. That include non-pop culture topics, as well. — Deckiller 23:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith with the contributors. Whether or not you personally find the articles interesting, a lot of work goes into every featured article so I don't think describing them as "gaming the FA system" is particularly civil. Trebor 23:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no good faith left to be assumed, when I was set-upon immediately for expressing an opinion. And I never said that improvements to those FAs were bad. But the gaming of the FA system is self-evident. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 23:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You weren't set upon; we explained why your opinion wouldn't be regarded in the closing decision because it wasn't actionable or addressing the criteria. And I don't think the gaming is self-evident, or perhaps other people would be agreeing with you. Trebor 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes; I found that comment (like the cabal comments) offensive. I improve the quality of articles that interest me. It's not because I want to game the system and try to churn out a lot of "easy" featured articles (I haven't worked on one from scratch in a while, although Woonsocket, Rhode Island is on queue and I made a visit to the library), it's because I want to enhance quality where I can enhance it best. — Deckiller 23:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit confilct] FA articles are about comprehensive citations and overall quality of prose. The subject matter is unimportant. As you say, nobody may care about Half-Life 2 in 10 years time, but the argument could be made that nobody cares about Regulamentul Organic or History of saffron right now. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Precicely. The point of an encyclopedia is to inform, and if people are interested and obsessed with everything in an encyclopedia, what would be its point? — Deckiller 23:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Point of (minor) dispute: "good citations and prose" are qualities of an FA, but not really what it's 'about'; comprehensiveness of coverage of the subject is what's critical, regardless of what the subject is. Opabinia regalis 03:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Bah, keep your sound logic to yourself. :P I was just trying to make a succinct summary with a comment about content, though I admit it was perhaps a bit too succinct... EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but can you determine what will be forgotten in 10 years time? Perhaps a learned article on particle physics (surely a 'proper' encyclopedic subject) may be rendered obsolete by some discovery or theory which negates/supercedes current thinking, yet the music of a once popular band is still being enjoyed (and discovered) by a few. Which subject then still has relevance? The front page of Wikipedia serves much the same function as a newspaper, it is an advertisment for the contents. As such the breadth of subject must try to reach as many potential editors as possible, the only criteria being the quality of the presentation. What may appear to be a frivolous subject to some may be the item that gets people hooked into Wikipedia. Surely we cannot determine the suitability of potential editors by what it is that enthuses them? LessHeard vanU 23:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, I think everyone will agree that we already have plenty of editors willing to contribute to the pop-culture articles. What we are often lacking are editors who take the time to contribute to core topics. In the same sort of spirit, Wikipedia is already widely recognized as a great source for pop-culture information but no so much as a quality provider of content on core encyclopedic topics so it would make most sense to put these on the front page. Of course, no one can say what will be relevant in ten years but let's not kid ourselves: nobody in their right mind would bet any money that Half-Life 2 will be viewed as having more value than particle physics in a few years time. (Of course, an overwhelming majority would agree that the latter already has way more value) Pascal.Tesson 23:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

While it might not necessarily show why we should omit those articles from the main page every now and then, it does show why more attention needs to be paid to core topics by those who are willing and have the ability to contribute to those topics. I don't believe that pop culture topics are a pitfall for good editors; I'm no scientist, therefore, I rarely contribute to science topics. As I take more business classes, I'm sure I'll focus more on our business coverage. — Deckiller 23:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be stemming from an underlying belief that we need to prove ourselves to be "good" at covering these core topics. But I don't think that's representative of our overall coverage; we don't want to dress ourselves up as something we're not. Trebor 00:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Having read through this thread, I'm still not seeing any specific evidence on how Wikipedia's choice of featured articles relate to higher levels of vandalism and nonsense posting on other Wikimedia projects. I'm not seeing the typical bored-schoolkid vandal noticing that the main page article is about Star Wars and thinking, 'Hm, I think I'll go screw around with the dictionary project that's linked at the very bottom of the main page!' Maybe Connel can point us to a non-WP:BEANSy summary of the results of his investigations? (Or, if it's already been posted somewhere, add a link?) I'm also wondering what FAC it is you looked at, Connel; if it's just GameFAQs, that's not much of a sample size. In the last few days I've reviewed three or four excellent historical articles; there may be a disproportionate number of pop-culture nominations, but I don't think that translates to a disproportionate number of pop-culture FAs (yes, that means I do think pop-culture noms fail at a higher-than-average rate). Have you compared the number of articles listed as FAs under "Media" to the number under "History" or "War"? Opabinia regalis 03:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

<This thread was previosuly split into a new section ("Summary of F.A.C section above"), I have merged that back in. But, I have removed a large table prepared by Connel MacKenzie (it was not appropriate, I can elaborate if need be), you can view it at the bottom of this version.--Commander Keane 05:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Until the featured article cabal is dismantled, I see no point in trying to cooperate with Wikipedia. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 03:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And until you realize that there isn't a cabal just because people disagree with you, I see no point in trying to cooperate with you. Equilibrium has been achieved! :-P EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey EV, at least he gave you a complement in the chart :) — Deckiller 05:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, beggars can't be choosers, so I'll take what little I can get... EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is the concisest response I can make: You say "Do you have any idea why the Wikipedia "Featured Articles" often feature items that one would never find in a traditional encyclopedia?" like it's a bad thing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we please delete this grotesque table? I did not take the time to explain what I meant earlier only to see it boiled down to "(3) Supportive arguments (smashed into this cabal before, eh?)" (whatever that means). Also I get this weird sense that Connel MacKenzie believes I support his idea that FAC is being ruled by some evil pop-culture-crazy cabal. Again, quoting myself: that accusation is to put it mildly, laughable. Pascal.Tesson 04:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This table does not help Connel's argument; it damanges it, for obvious reasons. Because I generally oppose the proposition, I feel that the table should stay. Also, it appears that I won the title for most tallies on the chart :). — Deckiller 05:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Damn, I thought I might get that. Seriously, Connel, that's way way over the lines of civility and into the area of personal attacks. I don't think I've made any comments that weren't addressed at the argument; if you feel got-at personally, I apologise. But believe me, there is no cabal. My contact with the editors here before this has been minimal. Trebor 08:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

All of this whining because GameFAQs was nom'd at FAC? oh dear lmao. --- RockMFR 07:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 3

I'm concerned that a single individual (no matter how good or well-meaning) is the sole determiner of what FA goes onto the front page. That bothers me a lot for reasons that I think should be fairly obvious. But to be honest, if you look at Wikipedia:Featured article statistics you'll see that over the past year we have created just 354 new featured articles. Now - think about this...we consume one feature article every day by putting it on the front page - never to appear there again. So we used up 11 more articles than we accepted this year. Since the supply of FA's that have never been on the front page is limited, there will come a day when we don't have a new FA to put onto the front page. Raul is not so much picking which FA's make it onto the front page as simply switching the order of them around so that they are more evenly distributed by subject. That being the case, it's largely irrelevent how it's done - so I shouldn't be too bothered.

But what this shortage means that in the not-too-distant future, we'll have to do one of several things:

1. Stop updating the main page FA every day.
2. Lower our standards and allow more FA's to be created.
3. Somehow push much harder to create more FAC's of sufficient standard.
4. Put articles that are merely GA's onto the front page.

I don't think (2) or (4) would ever be considered a good idea. (1) sounds an awful lot like defeat. So we're left with finding a way to have more articles submitted to FAC or improving the quality of those that are submitted so that an increased number pass. I think there are ways to do both of those things - but what concerns me most is that people who might be writing significant and interesting articles are wasting far too much of their time doing WikiPolitics and in consequence doing too little editing.

This leaves open the possibility for a fanatical group of (to pick an actual example) Pokemon fans to churn out fairly formulaic articles that are very likely to pass FAC. After all, once you've found the magic formula to get Bulbasaur through the FAC process, you can write another FA-quality article very easily by picking one of the other few hundred Pokemon characters and making a page which quotes the same Pokedex books - has the same sections in the same order with pictures gathered in the same manner from the same sources. It ought to be pretty easy to come up with a few hundred articles that are very similar indeed. If one passes, then if our FAC process is logical and unbiassed, they all pretty much have to pass because we won't be able to find anything bad enough about any of them to disqualify them.

Try doing that with articles about European monarchs, Italian sportscars or Diseases of sheep! Each article has to be fought for - you've gotta track down books, read them, fight with other editors...it's a lot of work. So I think we have to accept that unless a lot of the really good editors around here stop playing politics and go back to writing articles, we should expect to see every single one of those Pokemon characters showing up on the front page. There are enough of them that we might see nothing else for six solid months! SteveBaker 05:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Very insightful comments, and I agree; although it's great that we're featuring pop culture topics, we should tip the focus if possible. — Deckiller 05:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right that it's easier to copy another article than start from scratch; the Tropical Storms Wikiproject is very efficient in producing hurricane articles that meet the criteria. About having only one user decide what's on the main page, I think it's for practicality more than anything else. There are rarely compelling reasons for having an article on a particular day, so it'd be hard to form consensus in most cases. And having a bunch of users !voting over which article should go on which day doesn't improve the encyclopaedia at all, so it's rather a waste of time. I agree it would be nice to have more FAs on "core" topics, but we can't force volunteers to write on a particular topic, and "core" topic articles tend to be a lot harder to create. Trebor 08:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That 354 figure is interesting; is that simply the quantity that passed FA in the period or the aggregate between passes and the articles delisted? If it is the latter, then a fifth option would be to ensure that the WP:FAR is even more directed at galvanising editors into keeping articles to standard. LessHeard vanU 13:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

354 is the total count of FAs as of Jan 2007 minus the total count as of Jan 2006 (i.e. the latter, including both newly promoted articles and those delisted). There's a backlog of articles that are being FAR'd, which I think will dry up in the not too distant future at which point FAs will increase more like the promotion rate. 561 articles were promoted in 2006. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

A bit related, we also have 213 featured lists, 27 added in the last month. Garion96 (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll be interested to see what happens after the uncited FAs go through FAR; at the moment, the vast majority of removals are for that reason. The criteria for FAs seem to have stabilised and ,unless they undergo another significant change, that should mean a faster increase in FAs. It is slightly depressing when as many articles are unfeatured as featured each week. Trebor 17:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Lots of points here!

• The number of former featured articles has been increasing rapidly recently, mainly because the change to the FA criteria to require a better standard of citation has been applied more rigorously of late. This is sad, but a necessary evil.
• There is, of course, a self-selected group of participants at WP:FAC and WP:FAR. This group is not a cabal - it includes all those who take part; all you have to become a member is propose an article as a FAC or FAR, or comment upon a FAC or FAR. There are accepted ways of doing things, of course, but I see new people joining the discussion all the time.
• There was some noise about WP:100K a few months ago, but it remains a pipe-dream. The fact is that we do not create featured articles at a sufficiently fast rate. It is hard to meet the FA criteria - believe me! It is especially hard to write a featured article on a core topic, such as Physics or Law - the scope is so wide, everyone has 2p to throw on the heap, edit wars often break out, editors cannot agree on what to include and what, following summary style, should be left to daughter articles, ... Much easier to focus on a smaller topic that can be done well. On the other hand, wide topics can become featured: Dinosaur, for example, or Evolution, or African American literature.
• Contrary to the argument above, despite Bulbasaur and Torchic becoming featured articles, there has not been a slew of featured-quality articles on Pokemon. That is also sad. I look forward to Pikachu and Charizard and Squirtle and Jigglypuff and Meowth and many others joining them.
• The line has always been that any article that can survive WP:AFD can become featured (although some, such as lists, will clearly never meet the FA criteria). But what does "trivial" mean? Is Durer's Rhinoceros trivial (just a print, after all - not even a painting)? Is England expects that every man will do his duty trivial (some signal flags?!)? How about Oroonoko (an obscure novel)? Or Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima (a photograph)? Other than requiring that an article is "notable" or "encyclopedic", why should be add another criterion, that it should not be "trivial" (if that is any different)? Surely it is a strength of Wikipedia that it extends beyond the boundaries of a paper encyclopedia to deal with topics that other encyclopedias leave out?
• Raul654's position is anomalous. Determining consensus for promoting other featured content (pictures, lists, etc.) or for the reverse process, at WP:FAR, is not delegated to a single person but rather any one of the regular participants is trusted to make the decision. Similarly, choosing entries for WP:DYK or WP:ITN is not delegated to one person, but left to anyone who takes an interest. Raul654 has done an excellent job, and I have no problem with what he does or the way he does it, but I am not sure whether we need a "director". On the other hand, if the system is not broken, why fix it?
• The original complaint seems to be that "low brow" featured articles on the Main Page attract vandalism. Well, yes - see the articles' edit history. Vandalism is a fact of wiki life. Just see what happens when The Colbert Report mentions Wikipedia. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Responding to your point on Raul: yes, it has always struck me as slightly odd too; I'm not sure I can think of many other "one-person" positions on the Wiki. But as you say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it (although after two and a bit years, I would have thought he might want to share the load). I think the system is working well, and certainly the "new breed" of very well-referenced FAs are top notch. Trebor 00:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It's probably done by one person because it's really a one-person job at the current level of activity. If there were 50 viable FA nominations a day, more than one person would be needed, but as it is, it's not an unreasonable load for a single person. Opabinia regalis 01:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Show us the vandalism

The inception of this thread is based on the claim that featured articles of the day on wikipedia lead to vandalism on wiktionary. Multiple users have asked multiple times for examples demonstrating this. There have been many posts, mulitple heading breaks, you even took the time to make a table, yet no examples? I'd like to assume good faith, but it's hard not to suspect that the vandalism claims may be an attempt to give credibility to a weak IDONTLIKEIT complaint. So please, if you return to continue this discussion (and I certainly wouldn't object if you didn't), give us some diffs (or preferably a history page that shows a bunch of these if there is one). --Milo H Minderbinder 13:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I leave the subject of vandalism that has resulted from choice of featured article at Wikipedia to others, but it is most definitely true that Wikipedia editors should be aware that Wikipedia does not operate in a vacuum when it comes to other Wikimedia Foundation projects. Wiktionary has had to suffer the fall-out from the various Colbertisms targetted at Wikipedia, for example. "reality" and several related words have had to be, and are currently, protected. And we do regularly get people whose articles were deleted from Wikipedia coming to Wiktionary to re-create them. Uncle G 20:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that we here at Wikipedia are definitely aware that we do not operate in a vacuum. I, personally, and I'm sure my fellow editors here feel the same way, want to see all of the Wikimedia projects succeed, and we certainly don't want to feel like we are causing harm, even inadvertently, to other Wikis. However, no one has yet provided us with valid, concrete evidence that this is happening. We are certainly not at fault for the Colbert-related vandalism, and I'm not sure what we are supposed to do to stop people creating articles on Wiktionary that have been deleted here. Are we supposed to stop deleting all articles, no matter how worthy of deletion? Connell MacKenzie spent lots of time making a table to document his fanciful "Featured Article cabal", but didn't spend the 30 seconds it would take to provide even one concrete piece of evidence of extra-Wikipedia vandalism inspired by Wikipedia articles. If such evidence does exist, and someone who's seen it can direct our attention there, then we can do something about the problem. Until then, it seems like this whole discussion is pointless.--Aervanath 04:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to contribute my own hypothetical (because arrived at completely without a thorough statistical sampling) explanation of which articles tend to attract  graffiti taggers  vandals more often, and thus should not be featured on the main page lest their increased visibility draw increased vandalism. (1) Wiki-vandalism, like real-world "tagging", is an immature behavior, thus its practitioners tend to be of immature interests, very often due to immature age. Non-recent history, classic literature, and advanced sciences, tend to hold less interest for them than video-games and whatever else is "hot" in specifically young people's "popular culture" at the moment. (2) Vandals tend more often to read, and then "tag" for boasting purposes among their peers, articles that interest them. (3) Therefore articles on, say, 19th-century European statesmen will draw less vandalism than articles on Pokemon, World of Warcraft, and this year's most-talked-about sports figures and TV celebrities. (4) It follows that the best way to reduce main-page-inspired vandalism is to exclude such "hot" topics from the main page. In fact, don't feature any article there that could not have appeared in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, or that would have been a most-read article even in the EB. Our safety lies in boredom! If our main-page article bores vandals so much that they can't be bothered to finish reading it, likely they won't trouble to "tag" it either. In fact, the more boring Wikipedia as a whole becomes, the more likely vandals will go elsewhere, to "tag" something more interesting, like blogs. I suggest this become a new guideline, or even policy, as to what articles should aim for, or be deleted for lacking. Future old-timer Wikipedians will be recognized by their commenting to each other, "Say, remember when we used to have vandals here?" -- Helpfully yours, Ben 19:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Update

The nefarious Featured Article Cabal has now been added to Wikipedia:List of cabals. Users with experience of this sinister group are invited to adjust its description there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

corporate censorship is happening

What is the policy for dealing with PR people from the corporations described in wikipedia editing their own articles? I don't know a ton about wikipedia but I think that free advertising is not the purpose. Neither is censorship of a long and dirty corporate history. Personally I see NPOV as partly to blame. It is too easy to mean Mainstream or Status Quo... or complicity in power. Wikipedia use to be a place you could go to cut through the BS that you get on a google search where the results are paid for. Now that wikipedia is THE content creator for all the fake webpage robots and has so much influence... it is becoming a lot more contested. Articles are shorter and have less open conflict written out. I liked the conflict because it gave balance and I could link to both sides of the arguement. We need a more coherent ideal than absurd objectivity. It seems like the norm is becoming stylistically concise, naive, less informative, more palatable to those not in the know. The article in question is the Unilever article and the edits are being made by a user who admits to working for them making websites. The animal rights and other political criticisms have been de-linked in the name of NPOV. Has this sort of thing happened before? I think it is going to become more of an issue. I think it is a great project nonetheless, you are all admirable for participating. I am always melodramatic. ~rusl

All that can be done is to be vigilant and revert anything that seems to violate WP:NPOV. It is difficult, because paid PR people will be able to edit full time, so obviously they have an unfair advantage.--Runcorn 12:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV *means* you get the good and the bad. Revert them. --BenBurch 16:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I have found it possible to deal with such concerns by persistence. It helps also if there is more than one person involved, so it doesn't get to a 1 on 1 personal matter. The determination of many of the WP editors is the equal of any hired PR, as is the special knowledge of how to work in WP. The editors who come to work on the article for their company have sometimes made very useful contributions; it might help to have a Wikiproject for commercial products. What I have learned to watch out for is the simultaneous starting of pages for many different individual products. For consumer products, especially product safety, Consumer Reports is a well known source of NPOV information. DGG 18:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought... PR departments for an international company usually operate from the head office on one continent/time zone. Find editors who are active outside of said company/dept. work hours who would be willing to patrol the pages for POV edits. LessHeard vanU 23:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Or you could just add the page to your watchlist and check for suspect edits. Caknuck 21:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

True, but one of the comments is that multi-nationals can afford to hire a dept. to look after their interests and overwhelm a volunteer editor. I was suggesting patrolling an article out of office hours. LessHeard vanU 22:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about this until I saw this section. There are sections in Wikipedia that document corporate corruption, but there would be a strong temptation for the coporates to try to re-write history in their favor. Don't let them win. Richiar 03:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Business ethics - Corporate crime

This would be a conflict of interest. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as the animal testing section Unilever goes, keep in mind that NPOV can be applied to controversial issues. If we have legitimate sources for citation -- and bear in mind that when dealing with huge multinationals and issues, we need SOLID sources -- then we shouldn't shy away from stating the facts of the matter. Caknuck 21:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Policy bloat

It strikes me that there is a growing, and understandable, movement to promote more and more to policy or guideline. I'm no fan of policy bloat because it leads to additional management overhead and in the pseudo-democratic wikipedia universe that slows down production. So do we need to develop a policy which says not to create policy cruft?

ALR 13:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree: we currently pile up policy, but hardly manage to slim down existing policy. I'm sure I'm not aware of half of our policies by now, WP:ENC, WP:5P, WP:BOLD and WP:DICK are quite enough most of the time. dab (𒁳) 14:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It already exists and is called m:instruction creep. ColourBurst 15:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's almost like everybody with an edit wants to make a policy nowadays. What ever happened to WP:IAR? Wikipedia isn't like getting a PhD where you need to write a dissertation for your time here in policy. I think WP:KISS needs to apply itself to policy, as in keep them amount of them short and to the point, no use in 100 policies on the same thing. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 16:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Aren't admin candidates required to write something in the Wikipedia: namespace these days? Ut oh. --Kim Bruning 16:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's well and fine, but does each administrator need to make up a separate policy? I think not. There is nothing wrong with contributing to existing policies or making one when absolutely needed, but there is no need for every administrator to have a policy on Wikipedia. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 16:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It'll be on one of thos my criteria for admin promotion or my vote will be super strong you cant bed it oppose, just after 3FA.ALR 16:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a side note, when I mean policy I don't mean individual administer policies that are on their user space, I mean ones like WP:SOAPBOX, WP:IAR, WP:NOT some, maybe most of which have merit, but policy bloat is never good since much of it can be compressed and combined. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 16:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• We have slightly over forty policies, most of which are reasonably straightforward. We could reduce this number by doing some creative merging, e.g Wikipedia:Appealing a block, Wikipedia:Blocking policy and Wikipedia:Banning policy arguably belong together, as do Wikipedia:Protection policy and Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy, and the duo Wikipedia:Libel and Wikipedia:No legal threats. >Radiant< 10:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea to take out excess policy bloat, there really is no need for separate articles when it can all be found in one place. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 14:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think in general it would be useful to streamline some of them, there is the risk that in streamlining they become too abstracted for many editors to deal with. I think Attribution is quite a good example, good effort but I think it's still going to need some supporting material in guideline form to really be useful.

Probably a common theme from me recently but one of the problems is the lack of either content or process strategy, which in itself positively encourages the apparent proliferation of special cases and the bloat of extant policy and guideline.

Now is there a place appropriate to raise the absence of effective governance?

ALR 11:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

full circle? --Kim Bruning 14:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Articles

The content of a deleted article should be retained, the submitting author notified, most likely on the user's page. If this is current policy, it is not always followed. Recently a new article that contained considerable information was deleted. There is no "history" to account for such disappearance, nor any indication of where the information may be retrieved by the contributor. Apparently it is lost forever.Phmalo 15:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "retained"? The content isn't actually deleted except in the case of clear copyright violation. Speedy deletions recommend that the author be notified, but do not force the tagger to do so. People can see that the article's deleted through the logs (and if the article is deleted, there's a clear link there that will point them to who deleted it) and they can then go ask the deleting admin why it was deleted. I'm not sure why they need the contents unless they needed it to 1) recreate the article (in which if they haven't addressed the concerns will probably be deleted again) or 2) move the article somewhere else (in which case they contact the admin who deleted it). Please show me an example. ColourBurst 15:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The "content" of a deleted article always is retained, but this deleted history is only visible to admins. The deletion is recorded in the deletion log, for which a link is provided on the "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name" screen. If someone wants to object to a particular deletion, they can talk with the admin who deleted it (I have on occasion undone my own deletions after requests/explanations), or follow the procedures at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Postdlf 16:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the content isn't lost, it just isn't visible to our readers, or to non-admin editors. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?. The preferred method of trying to get it back is to talk to the deleting admin first, and only after they've responded then go to deletion review. Less than 10% of page restorations come about through deletion review. GRBerry 18:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Cracking down on Politics Edit Warriors

One of the weakest parts of Wikipedia's content is anything about politics. There are a spate of editors who edit wikipedia not to create an encyclopedia, but rather to push their political viewpoint as fact on a large website. I suggest that there is wide consensus to take strong and decisive action towards these editors - community bans from all articles about politics/current events. I further suggest that the only reason these actions are not taken is because of fears of backlash. I am very interested to hear if there are others who feel this way, or if there is a belief that we are not overly leniant with what I will call "politics edit warriors". Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain your campaign regarding David Horowitz then please?

• User puts David Horowitz Freedom Center up for deletion: [9]
• Votes to delete FrontPage Magazine [10] which is edited by David Horowitz.

Removes all External Links related to Horowitz:

• National Lawyers Guild

[11] [12] Bill Moyers [13] [14] [15] Christian Peacemaker Teams [16] [17] World Festival of Youth and Students [18] Evan Thomas [19] Mengistu Haile Mariam [20] Paul Booth (SDS activist) [21] Brandeis University [22] CounterPunch (newsletter) [23] Lynne Stewart [24] Political Research Associates [25] Mumia Abu-Jamal [26] Durban Strategy [27] Keith Ellison (politician) [28] Joel Beinin [29]

I have to agree there is much warring over politics, seems deleting a commentator you do not like is not the answer either. --NuclearZer0 18:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A big reason is the way the sentence gets reworded as the pronoun changes. "I am defending Wikipedia." "You are being contentious." "He is a POV edit warrior." (Not that this situation is unique here; script writers use the technique often.) There are quite often counterclaims. Sorting them out is never simple, and always takes time. The policies are clear, handling the situations is non-trivial. GRBerry 18:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What value is gained by sorting it out? Ban em' all, let it sort itself out. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree that Politics warriors are a big problem here, and may I suggest you start by looking in the mirror, Hipocrite! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A 'crackdown' would accomplish exactly nothing. So you ban all the POV pushers on politics, somehow being completely fair and impartial in the process... and miraculously none of them create new accounts to get back into the game. A month later a whole new batch of politics POV pushers will discover the site and start it up all over again. It's a non-starter. Even setting aside the vast and many problems with implementing it, even imagining that it would somehow not cause far greater problems than it aimed to solve... the end result still would be of no benefit. The only real hope for dealing with such situations is to educate people on NPOV and verifiability and slowly build up a cadre of people who feel passionately about politics, but follow Wikipedia policy on writing about and discussing them. Ban the people who show no effort in even trying to comply after repeated efforts... but we desperately need to keep the ones who make any progress towards cooperative editing. --CBD 18:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

we do already crack down on vandals, trolls and edit warriors. WP:NPOV is policy, and firmly in place. People are free to have an opinion, and to focus on documenting their selected point of view by referring to WP:RSs. But at the point where they try to spin the prose, or insist on undue representation of a fringe position, they are violating policy, and any admin may, and should, crack down on them. dab (𒁳) 19:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It would seem to me that the fairest thing to do would be for editors to limit themselves to AfDing only articles on subjects supportive of their own strongly held viewpoint, and eschewing doing so for those in opposition to it as a simple matter of WP:COI. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the NPOV editing of political articles is sorting the wheat from the chaff. I would argue (but not so much as to trawl a few dozen articles for examples) that some good notable information is provided by POV pushers (both for and against) which a dispassionate contributor who may not have been so inclined to do the research would not have found. Whilst it is undoubtedly frustrating to deal with such 'warriors' simply removing them may result in a case of baby/bathwater etc. LessHeard vanU 22:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Image use policy

This conversation needs more input by people well versed in our image copyright policies: [30]. SchmuckyTheCat 22:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotection notice

If you would like to comment on doing away with the semiprotection notice on articles that are semiprotected by adding additional information elsewhere, please see this discussion. -- Kjkolb 04:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Essay pages being mislabled.

There seems to be a growing trend in the WP namespace of late, to try and make the {{essay}} tag obsolete. Either by creating essays and putting them up mislabel as howtos or removing the essay tag and replacing it with a witty tag because this page doesn't need to follow convention.

The {{essay}} tag serves a pretty important use, as it makes sure new users can tell that not all pages in the WP namespace are official policy. Without it, anyone would be able to create pretty much anything in the WP namespace, and declare it 'The way we do things here' by fiat. While it's a good thing that the WP namespace is open for editing, it really needs to retain the use of essay tags so this doesn't happen.

Loosing the essay tag would lead to a flood of pseudo-policy pages, conflicting with each other, and all appearing to new editors to be 'official'. --Barberio 01:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Not all non-policy/guideline WP pages need the essay tag, and I'm quite happy with the one that's currently up on WP:SNOW. -- Steel 01:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Also worth noting is that this thread is only here because Barberio's attempts at getting rid of a page he doesn't like are failing (See MfD and talk page disussion). -- Steel 01:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! You have seen though my disguise, and now know I am the evil Doctor Smythe, and my aim is to Take Over The World via editing the Wiki. My five year plan to get one small essay deleted is Ruined! Quick, to the Escape Pods! --Barberio 13:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree that is is becoming a bit of a mess. Essays should remain essays, and these "witty" tags removed from the Wikipedia namespace. The WP namespace should be reserved for policies, guidelines, and help and FAQ pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I start to wonder if we might need an equivalent of notability requirements for the WP namespace. I think the WP namespace is where we really need to be deletionist, and right now there's just too much stuff that really belongs on userpages. --Barberio 13:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I should also draw the comunities attention to this edit [31] made to the Policies and Guidelines page without any apparent discussion, and seems to be intended to support those who want to abandon use of the {{essay}} tag on their essays. --Barberio 13:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oh no! You have seen though my disguise, and now know I am the evil Doctor Smythe, and my aim is to Take Over The World via editing ... well, anyway. No, you're missing the point entirely, which is that there are quite a lot of pages in Wikipedia namespace (over 80% if you must know) that are not policy, guideline or essay. So this is to counter the misguidedly bureaucratic effort to tag every page, including sticking essay tags on pages that aren't essays, or indeed proposal tags on pages that aren't proposals. Also, please do quit your forum shopping. >Radiant< 13:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This isn't forum shopping,t his is consensus building. Take notes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • LOL. You wouldn't know a consensus from a hole in the ground. >Radiant< 13:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
      • WP:KETTLE indeed! --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, most of the pages that are not Policy Guideline or Essay are... Process pages or Wikiprojects, or *purely informational* Help pages. If it's not a Policy or Guideline, if it's not a Process page or Wikiproject, and it's not a *purely informational* help page, then what is it?

Radiant, you haven't addressed the fundamental issue, that the Project namespace should not be cluttered with things a new editor could mistake as being 'Official Policy'. --Barberio 13:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, 'Forum Shopping'? Er... On the Pump? Er... Isn't this supposed to be where we discuss this stuff? --Barberio 13:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yep, forum shopping, since you've brought up the same issue in at least three different places already, and got disagreed with in all of them so far. The point is that not every page is going to fit into whatever neat classification you devise. But since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, that problem lies in the classification, not in the page that doesn't fit.
• At any rate, I fully agree to an effort of clearing the Wikispace of some of the worst cruft. That seems to be a productive task that we both agree on, wouldn't it? But how exactly do you seek to accomplish that? MFD? >Radiant< 13:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we can have pages in the project name space which do not fit cleanly into the categories of process, wikiproject, help, policy, guideline and essay... However, the question is should we?

I think such quasi-policy pages would be a very bad thing for Wikipedia, creating extra bureaucracy and instruction creep and confusing new editors. Everything in the project space should be there for a reason, and be immediately identifiable into a category of project page.

The project namespace is not somewhere you can just put anything in, and too many people have been using it as such. It may be time for a review of what should and should not be allowed in the project namespace. --Barberio 17:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, that's what you want, but how do you seek to accomplish that? Besides, you're pretty much wrong. The project namespace is somewhere you can just put (almost) anything in. You may not like that fact (I surely don't) but nevertheless it is fact. Everything in project space is there for a reason, it's just not always a good reason (e.g. disgruntled people writing an essay may not be a good reason, but it happens all the time). "Quasi-policy" doesn't exist, and is only a problem because you assume it does. Also, nearly everything in project space is identifiable into a category of project page (in large part because I actually read through all of project space and added a lot of categories); the problem appears to be that you don't like some of the categorizations. >Radiant< 10:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• First off, I'd like to object to the term forum-shopping in this context. This implies that these different places that Barberio has used to discuss this matter are fundamentally separate in some way. I do not agree. All of Wikipedia is, and should be, one common forum. Just think about it like the original Roman forum (or was it Greek?...doesn't matter). It's all one big place, but there are various clusters of people gathered at different corners. Think about it more like running to different clusters of people to try to gain a consensus of the larger group, rather than as going to different places that will produce different decisions.

• As for Barberio's concern about confusing the newbies, however, I think this is pretty much unfounded. Newbies are much more likely to run across actual policies and guidelines before they run across the random essays and cruft that are scattered throughout the project namespace. Personally, I really like some of the essays, including WP:SNOW, and I think there should be a systematic gathering of consensus on whether to promote them to guidelines, even if this is not the original intent of the author.

• I also agree that there is a trend towards trying to over-categorize and over-tag these articles, and I think that this part of a general worrisome trend on Wikipedia towards trying to put everything in a "box". Not everything belongs in a box. "Think outside the box", after all, right? (Yes, I know this could be read to partly conflict with my second comment. Hush, you! I'm ranting.)

• I will stop babbling now. :-D --Aervanath 03:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say that after reading that hilarious edit summary I had to pop in and see what was going on. --Ideogram 04:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I live to please. :) --Aervanath 02:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Cleanup

I've created Category:Wikipedia Cleanup and associated template as a way to identify and clean-up problematic pages in the project namespace. No idea why we didn't have this before. --Barberio 18:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Because that doesn't actually help. It just encourages people to stick it on pages they don't like (which incidentally is precisely what you've been doing). We have a process that does help, and it's WP:RFC. >Radiant< 09:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The category description says It may be for any of the following reasons:

• Confusingly written, and in need of clarification.
• Obsoleted and no longer used.
• Incorrectly identified. ie, help page that contains actionable recommendations more suitable to an essay or guideline.

Or other unresolved issues.

• Bad, bad idea. We have already have variety of templates that specifically identify a problem. This new category basically calls for mind-reading, which is in scarce supply here. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 04:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Seaking opinion on use of Essay Tags

Since {{essay}} is getting considerable opposition in it's use, I'm going to raise this issue to try and get some general measure of the opinions on it here.

Is the essay template ...

1. mandatory on project space articles which are not consensus supported, but read like policy or guideline.
2. highly recommended on project space articles which are not consensus supported, but read like policy or guideline.
3. optional, not everything that reads like policy, but isn't consensus supported, is an essay.
4. should be avoided all together.

--Barberio 01:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Most of what you propose here is instruction creep, and "read like policy or guideline" is somebody's opinion. Actual policy or guideline is obviously identified by the presence of {{policy}} or {{guideline}}. There is probably something to be said for deleting {{essay}}. As I said before, the solution to ignorance (about p/g) is education, not forcing all of Wikipedia to change their behavior to accomodate the ignorant. >Radiant< 09:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Barberio, I would disagree that {{essay}} is getting "considerable opposition." From what I can see, it's a vocal minority who are simply objecting to having {{essay}} forced upon them. This is OK by me. I would go with your third alternative above: {{essay}} is completely optional, which I believe is already established practice. If the author wants to put it on there, fine. If not, fine. I don't think it's worth worrying about.--Aervanath 04:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Why should what the author wants matter? Anyway, I think there is a question that hasn't been answered any of the places this has been brought up - what is an {{essay}}? If it's a purely optional categorization what's the point in having it at all? --Random832(tc) 14:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Assume good faith. Perhaps -as the person on the ground- they realize that the categorisation scheme might be broken? :-P --Kim Bruning 14:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • User:Ta bu shi da yu has written an essay about essays: WP:EANP, which gives a great explanation of essays, and what they are for. Personally, I think that anything in the WP namespace that isn't an official policy or guideline is an essay. As for the categorization scheme being broken, is it really? --Aervanath 02:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Anon editors

I know this has probably been discussed to death, but why allow anon editors to edit? In my experience on the 171 pages I monitor, they are responsible for almost all the vandalism, and rarely add anything useful to Wikipedia. --Michael Johnson 01:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes this has been discussed to death - see perennial proposals. In fact, if you scroll upwards, you'll find that it has already been discussed on this very page only a couple of days earlier. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 01:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it remains a contentious issue, and a source of frustration to all of us out there trying to achieve something with this project. The claims in the reference given just don't stack up in my experience. --Michael Johnson 02:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Even though I can see why we wouldn't want to have annons editing (ie: mass vandalism, which even registered users do anyways), it might take away from the whole "anybody can edit" ideal. Although, it isn't that hard to register really, unless you absolutely can't and that I can understand. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 02:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As an example how helpful is this edit? The anon editor has made two edits, in which they carefully alter Orangutan to Orangutang thoughout the document. Probably not vandalism, but pretty typical of "genuine" anon edits I see. --Michael Johnson 02:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, even if they weren't annon's they would still make the same mistakes, shave the tiger can't change it's stripes. When I'm on RC patrol, I tend to search for new users and IPs. Lately I've been finding more new user vandalism than IP, but that's probably just me. For myself personally that just makes the whole point of forced registration a little tougher to decide on. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 02:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that IIRC most valid content actually comes from anons too. --Kim Bruning 21:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I see plenty of bad edits by logged-in users, and reverts of vandalism by IPs. (And please let's not confuse IPs and anonymous users; most logged-in users are equally anonymous.)--Runcorn 22:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I would totally disagree with this. It is entirely true that most vandalism comes from anons. It is also true, in my experience, that anons contribute very little useful information (at least, to the many articles I watch). Even if it's in good faith it's frequently illiterate, irrelevant, duplicated, not wikified, or just plain wrong. Frankly, my heart sinks when I see an anon edit on my watchlist, because most of the time the edit has to be copyedited if not just outright deleted. Most people who want to edit seriously create an account. -- Necrothesp 21:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I suspect this depends on whether a person enjoys the "social networking" aspects of Wikipedia. Many people just want to edit the encyclopedia and are reluctant to "join a community" (which is what creating an account amounts to) in order to do so. This is particularly true of editors who are not regular users, but contribute only occasionally. It is easy for a regular to underestimate just how much of a barrier a "registration wall" could be to such users - witness the popularity of BugMeNot for example. ISTM that Wikipedia benefits as much from its casual editors as from its "hard core elite" of regulars, if not more so, and anything which discourages them should be avoided. AdorableRuffian 16:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I used to be annoyed at anon editors too. That was before I got fed up with the politicking among the "clicks" and groupies. The wiki itch is a hard one to shake and I have found some refreshing freedom in my anon editing. Edits without politics. What can I say, I like to talk. I do agree though with the "cynical assessment" that IP editings allows easy targets for further review. I think in the long run the benefits outweight the annoyance. 205.157.110.11 23:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

nobody forces you to be "social", even when logged in; you can be just as anonymous by creating a new account whenever you feel your former account is burdened socially. dab (𒁳) 17:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

well, maybe this particualar proposal is "perennial" because it is actually a good idea? I understand we gradually take power away from anon editors, they cannot create new articles, and they cannot edit semiprotected ones. disallowing anons will just be a gradual process of sprotecting more and more evolved articles. Letting anons edit stubs is a good idea. Letting anons edit GAs may not be: I would be interested in a study showing what percentage of anon edits to FAs or GAs are actually useful. dab (𒁳) 17:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Should WP:HOAX become policy?

I think that Wikipedia:Don't create hoaxes should become official policy. There are several reasons for this: first, it is relatively uncontroversial, and seems to be accepted by community consensus, from what I've seen at AfDs about suspected hoaxes. Also, the guideline tag says that it "should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." It seems to me like that implies that it is occasionally acceptable to create hoaxes, and users not familiar with WP:V and WP:POINT might construe it that way. If there ever were to come a time when a hoax was allowable, WP:IAR would solve that problem.--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 12:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's too low-level for it to be policy. There are relatively few policies (blocking policy, deletion policy, stuff like that) and content issues do not generally belong there. Besides, WP:NOT and WP:V pretty much address the issue. >Radiant< 10:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • See also "policy bloat" discussion, two sections below this one. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 13:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Another option is to make a shortened version of WP:HOAX a section of Wikipedia:Deletion policy and create a guideline titled Wikipedia:Hoaxes or something of that sort for further clarification.--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 20:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think this needs to be addressed. Personally, I don't see how Wikipedia is even benefited by having this guideline at all. No potential hoaxer is going to read this guideline and say "Oh, ok. I won't do it, then." Hoaxes are just vandalism with some planning behind it, and as such, are already prohibited by almost all of our other policies. Definite policy bloat.--Aervanath 06:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Primary notability criterion questions

I am in the middle of a few discussions that have left me very confused about the notability criteria. I will just list the questions and comments that I have and hopefully some insightful discussion and perhaps changes will result. (These questions concern only notability; I understand that the article must also be in agreement with other policies and guidelines.)

• Are there subjects that have to pass a stronger test than the primary notability criterion?
• If no subject is required to pass a stronger test than the primary notability criterion, what is the purpose of the multiple subject specific guidelines regarding notability?
• In the subject specific guidelines, specifically WP:BIO, there exists a list of tests one can apply to a subject. Are these to be used in lieu of the primary notability criterion?
• In the subject specific guidelines, specifically WP:BIO, there exists a list of tests one can apply to a subject. Are these to be used in addition to the primary notability criterion? In other words, does a subject have to pass not only the primary criterion, but also some test on its subject specific page?
• If a precedent is set that is in contradiction with the primary notability criterion, or if a precedent is set that adds stronger criteria that certain subjects must pass, how can we best inform members that meeting the primary notability criterion is not sufficient?

Sancho McCann 23:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Each and every notability guideline includes the primary notability criterion of being (paraphrasing) "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the article's topic". What the subject specific guidelines do is define other criteria that where present, imply the primary criterion, even if not easy to verify, is likely true of the subject. For example, the WP:BIO guideline criterion: "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field," means that if a person meets this criterion it is "very likely that sufficient reliable information is available about...[that]... person. All of these additional criteria are disjunctive--they are additional bases for recognizing notability through the primary criterion, and not bases which must be met on top of the primary. So to answer your points in order as I see it:

• There are no subjects that have to pass a stronger test than the primary notability criterion;
• The purpose is to help us find other bases where the primary criterion is very likely true but is not easily substantiated, as well as provide guidance tailored to the specific subject area;
• They are not used in lieu of the primary notability criterion; they include it and expand our understanding of it and how to recognize other criteria that make it likely to be present;
• No they are not used in addition, meeting any one criterion is enough in all guidelines I know of;
• Your last question is only relevent if the above was not the case.

--Fuhghettaboutit 00:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The fundamental issues that all "guidelines" raise are made quite clear here. Guidelines offer a guide to common sense, not a replacement for it. Any guideline one can write will eventually be enforced as an iron-clad ruling by a Wikipedian coming from an enforcer-type background, buoyed by their indoctrination. There is no procedural solution if procedure is actually the problem. --Wetman 20:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Follow Up

Many AfDs have arguments that are simply: "Delete. Subjects of type x are not notable." Without addressing the primary notability criterion whatsoever. Is there a way that we could place more emphasis on avoiding this type of argument? Sancho McCann 18:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

How about the Argument from Ignorance— "Well, I've never heard of X"— that appears to trump all aces at Wikipedia? --Wetman 20:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You are encuraged to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (or WP:AADD) for short. A question I have no real clue about is how to shift the AFD culture towards better, more informative, discussions. The scale is too big, and I'm rarely there at all these days. GRBerry 03:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)