Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss existing and proposed policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new other than a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.

« Archives, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 5 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

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 9 days the discussion can only be found through the page history.

Request for Comment regarding ALF, Alf, primary topic, and appropriate disambiguation standards

A WP:LAME edit war, in which I have gotten involved against my better judgment, raises some issues relevant to the intersection of disambiguation and some other policies. Your comments are welcome at Talk:ALF#Request for Comment regarding ALF, Alf, primary topic, and appropriate disambiguation standards.

Nationality

First of all, apologies if this has been discussed here before, but this is something I have come across many times and would like to discuss this to try and put a stop to the edit warring that is occurring.

There are many articles about Scots on Wikipedia - some sporting infoboxes have a nationality tag and in the case of anyone born in Scotland, their nationality is British, as Scotland is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Many times I have seen their nationality set to Scottish with a Scottish flag alongside. In my eyes, this is wrong. Nationality is about which sovereign country you are from. If we allow autonomous communities to represent someone's nationality then that means including Quebec, Catalonia, Valencia, Bavaria, Walloon et al.

I'm in no way stating that we should not mention that someone is from Scotland, but as far as their nationality goes, describing someone as a Scottish national is plain wrong. Scottish nationality has not existed since 1707 when the United Kingdom was formed with the Acts of Union. People from the United Kingdom are British citizens, as described on their passports. I believe that stating otherwise is not NPOV, due to having political undertones to do with independence movements.

I would like to suggest that Wikipedia policy be amended to state that a person's nationality must refer to a sovereign state. Readro 22:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose proposal. If a person self-identifies as Scottish, that would be their nationality. Scotland does have its own national parliament, I believe. Badagnani 22:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

But Scotland is not a sovereign state. How far do you take it? If someone self-identifies as, say, Gallifreyan, it would be daft for an encyclopedia to list that as their nationality. Readro 22:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither is Northern Ireland but a lot of people don't consider themselves British there as well as others not considering themselves Irish.It has been and still is to an extent a highly charged political situation so if somebody self-identifies as just being from Northern Ireland that should be allowed .Garda40 22:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the important distinction should be the self-identification. If, for example, John Smith self-identifies as being Scottish, instead of British, then Wikipedia could indicate as such. If, however, John Smith does not express any public preference, then Jane Doe (Wikipedia editor/Scottish nationalist) should not be permitted to change "British" to "Scottish". Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat</font>_spy 23:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

But the problem I see is that how far do we take it? One former NASCAR driver self-identified as being from the Confederate States of America. Should that be allowed too? What about Québécois? In my opinion, we need an unbiased criteria to discern what is allowable, and limiting acceptibility to sovereign states is the obvious choice. Readro 00:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any strict criteria that define a 'nation', we must simply use our common sense: if a significant number of people identify themselves as having a certain nationality, then that nationality exists. I admit 'a significant number' is still vague and undefined - but self-evidently, the millions of people who identify themselves as 'Scottish' would qualify (see Scottish people), while the tiny minority who call themselves 'Confederate' or 'Gallifreyan' would not. Terraxos 08:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a debate that frequently crops up outside of Wikipedia. Often, it's about whether or not Wales, Scotland and N.Ireland qualify as countries. The nationality slant is new to me, I must admit, but I think that the same applies to this also. Technically, of course, people from these respective countries are British - they are British subjects. However, I think self-identification is very important. It's not fair for people to suggest that Scotland isn't a real country or nationality when, under the same criteria, England isn't a real country and English isn't a real nationality! For some reason, you never hear that argument levelled at us (I'm English) as if we're somehow different or above that (most persons respond with: "Well of course England is a country!". Therefore, if it can be determined what nationality someone identifies themselves as, I think that is what should be stated. Blaise Joshua 12:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Some people don't care. Some people would care very much. Scotland is a country, it has a parliament, it has its own banknotes. Many Scots describe themselves as Scottish first and "British" last. This isn't just about some Scots being Pro-Scottish, it's about some Scots being vehemently anti-English. It's easier, and nicer, if we allow people to use either. With maybe wikilinks to relevant articles about Scotland and Britain so that people can learn the difference. I know that trying to 'force' the use of a nationality will cause very many megabytes of bad-tempered discussion and edit-warring, just for "Scottish" vs "British", let alone any other nations. Dan Beale 12:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Your examples are not the same. You are describing areas of a country (Quebec etc) not countries. Scotland is a country within a union (the United Kingdom of... etc a United Kingdom of seperate nations). It is described internally and externally as a seperate country and is recognised as such. It is governed by UK paraliment but it has borders, seperately printed bank notes (although the same currency), a seperate parliment, a seperate eduation system, a seperate health care system, a seperate flag and NATIONAL teams for sports (Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are seperate nations in the World Cup and Commonwealth games for example. They are not described as regions but as nations. This was raised in the news when Cornwall tried to compete in the Commonwealth games seperately). It may not be a fully autonomous country currently it is still a country not a region or a state. AlanD 16:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving beyond self-identification for the moment... in articles about historic personages the Scottish ID in an infobox may well be absolutely appropriate. Certainly for anyone living prior to the Act of Union in the early 1700s. Blueboar 18:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm just not convinced that, as a matter of encyclopedic integrity, we can take self-identification as our absolute here. If two people can be born to the same parents, grow up in the same house, live in the same places, hold the same nationality and passport, but still end up with one being 'British' and one 'Scottish', 'Welsh' or 'English', then that information is more or less meaningless.

Scotland does have a parliament, but it's a subordinate body of the Westminster parliament - Scottish regions are still represented in Westminster on the same basis as English, Welsh and Northern Irish ones. Bodies on not entirely dissimilar lines have been proposed for the regions of England, but no-one would have then said they were each a separate country. Bank notes are printed by several banks in Scotland; but they are not legal tender in the technical sense - the only legal tender in Scotland is Royal Mint coins, which are the same across Britain; and in practice, Scottish and English notes are equally accepted in all regions. It has a flag; but then so do Cornwall and various other regions.

I'm also not sure it's consistent with how we treat areas in non-English-speaking parts of the world. The Basque region, for example, has its own borders, its own flag, its own parliament, even its own president. Many of its residents would identify very strongly as Basque, not Spanish. Yet we still begin the article on Juan José Ibarretxe with "Juan José Ibarretxe Markuartu (born 15 March 1957)[1] is a Spanish politician."

The problem with recognising someone as belonging to the 'Confederate States of America' is not that not very many people identify as being from there; but that no international body recognises its existence. Similarly, Paddy Roy Bates may identify himself as Sealandish, and even issue passports, but we should still consider him British because no country or international body recognises Sealand as a nation.

I would have thought that we are best sticking to internationally-recognised nations for determining nationality; and for all international purposes, the nation is the United Kingdom. No-one holds a Scottish passport; no nation has a Scottish embassy; no-one represents Scotland to the UN.

This is no slight on Scotland, which is a very important cultural entity - and, of course, for pre-1707 citizens, "Scottish" is entirely appropriate; but I think that, if our designations of nationality are to have any meaning at all, they need to be based on internationally-recognised nations - what passport the person would be recognised under; not self-identified nationalities. Self-identifications can of course also be mentioned if they are sourced; but if one person with a British passport is identified as 'British', another should not arbitrarily be identified 'English' or 'Scottish'.

Mohamed Al-Fayed is another example that springs to mind. "Mohamed Abdel Moneim Fayed (Arabic: محمد الفايد ) (born 27 January 1929) is an Egyptian businessman and billionaire." He has lived in Britain for many years, and would like to consider himself British; he has applied several times for citizenship. Because it has not yet been granted, however, we call him Egyptian.

If we do not have an absolute, verifiable standard for nationality such as this one, then it seems to me that we are making our information on nationality more or less useless, by not applying the same standards of verifiability and NPOV to nationalities that we expect from the rest of our data. TSP 20:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the "self-identification" argument is not the point. Unlike the other places you have raised the status of Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales as seperate nations within a union is not something that is contraversal it is commonly accepted. I honestly cannot see the problem here. The UK is a union of nations not states or regions. Seperate nations that are accepted and defined as such. I return to the "national" football teams and so forth as just minor proof of that. Plus I doubt very much if you were to go out on the streets of any British town and ask the question "Is England a country or a region?" that you'd get many responses for the latter, if any.AlanD 21:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I would have said that England was a country but not a nation; but use of all these terms tends to be ambiguous. What it isn't, however, is a sovereign state.

The problem with using nationalities which do not correspond to internationally-recognised, passport-issuing states is the lack of verifiability. Tony Blair was born in Edinburgh to parents from Glasgow; is he Scottish? I don't think most people would consider he was, but there's no definitive standard. On the other hand, Greg Rusedski was born and grew up in Canada - so why do we call him British? Because that is now his citizenship. For sovereign states, we can verifiably establish someone's nationality, by establishing their citizenship. For countries within a sovereign state, we have no such standard, because English and Scottish people alike (since 1707) have British citizenship. (The UAE presents similar challenges.)

The constituent countries do play separately in some sports (but not, for example, in the Olympics) - sporting nations are often formed for reasons of history or fairness rather than recognised national boundaries - for example, no-one believes there is such a nation as the West Indies, but still it has a cricket team; and similarly, the Ireland national rugby team fields players from two nations - Irish players from the Republic and British players from Northern Ireland. There may be a case in sporting infoboxes for employing national team identifiers rather than nationalities - which would also mean that, in that context, Tony Cascarino, for example, would be identified as Irish, even though he has always been a British citizen, because there we are determining what national team they play for, not what their nationality is. That's fine, as long as we define what we mean by displaying a particular flag, and as long as it is a matter of verifiable fact.

The fact that someone comes from Scotland, or considers themselves Scottish, is important, and should absolutely be mentioned; just as it should be mentioned if a Spaniard is from the Basque region, a United Arab Emirati from Sharjah, or indeed an American from Texas. For defining nationalities for lists and infoboxes, though, I think we should stick to verifiable nationalities: that is, the sovereign state (or states, in the case of dual nationality) which issues the person's passport. TSP 10:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that if you stick to the above suggestion, TSP, you will lose a core element of someone's biography. To take myself as an example, I was born in Ireland to English (or British, if you prefer) parents. I spent my formative years in Ireland before my family moved back to England. Then, in adulthood, I returned to Ireland. However, during all of this, I have only ever considered myself to be English, despite the fact that I have two passports and two citizenships. On what's been suggested, it would be as correct for you to describe me as Irish as it would be to describe me as British. However, I have English parents, English heritage and English culture - as much as I love Ireland, I don't consider myself Irish and none of my Irish friends and family would consider me to be Irish. While this is somewhat clearer cut because Ireland is not part of the UK (neither, technically, is N.Ireland). I believe that if you only describe someone from Wales, say, as British, you are withholding very important biographical information on that person's culture, heritage, identity and background. What is much harder, and this has been mentioned, is where the line is drawn. Many, many people consider Wales, Scotland, etc, to be individual countries. I may be opening myself to criticism of my ignorance here, but I don't believe the Basque region is (generally). Now, gentlemen, I don't really think I have anything more to add to the above discussion. However, this can be a very contentious issue and I should commend all of your for discussing it so peaceably! Best regards from the beautiful island of Ireland : o ) Blaise Joshua 11:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that any information should be left out. If you were born in England, that is a verifiable and important fact. If you live in England, that is a verifiable and important fact. If you call yourself English, that is a verifiable and important fact. But for nationality, there's no rule for which of these, if any, adds up to your being English; it becomes a matter of the editor's opinion. We can definitely say, though, that you hold British and Irish citizenship. I expect that Greg Rusedski's family and friends consider him Canadian; but nevertheless, he has taken British citizenship, so we call him British - with, of course, extensive mentions of the fact that he was born and brought up in Canada, his father is Ukranian-Canadian, and there is controversy over him taking British citizenship; but nontheless he did take that citizenship, so he is British. This rule is, from what I have seen, applied everywhere else in Wikipedia; so it should be applied for Britain too. If the citizenship they hold is British, the person is British, not Scottish, English or Welsh. It should absolutely be mentioned, if we know, where a person was born, where they live(d), and any cultures with which they self-identify; but these don't add up to a verifiable nationality. TSP 11:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly my point TSP, although maybe you phrased it better! It would remove the ambiguity from British biography articles. If English and Scottish nationalities are allowed on Wikipedia then there will be edit wars where no party is in the wrong. With a rule, then this grey area can be eliminated. It would be OK to state that someone was English or Scottish, but when describing their nationality they should be described as British. Of course, for pre-1707 individuals, English and Scottish nationality would be allowed. Readro 12:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok... but is nationality the same as citizenship? An Englishman may be a British citizen but his nationality may be English. AlanD 18:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As a further point, someone who has multiple citizenships, or lives in another country now, may self-identify as being of a different nationality. A person born in the USA, but living in Australia under a visa may self-identify as Australian even if they do not have formal citizenship and spent most of their life in America. It's not a clear-cut issue, so I think the original proposal does not hold up well. -- Kesh 18:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it holds up fine in this instance as they can self-identify as whatever they want, as long as it is a citizen of a sovereign state. In your example, either one of Australian or American would be OK, as Australia and the USA are sovereign states. Stating that they were a national of entities that are not sovereign states, such as Queensland or Florida would not be allowed though. Readro 20:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I would have said that we should consider them as being nationals of whatever nation they hold citizenship of. We should note if they choose to self-identify as belonging to another nation, but if they do not actually hold citizenship of that nation we should not consider it their nationality. If we are going to consider someone to be Australian based on self-identification, we might as well consider people to be citizens of the Confederate States of America based on self-identification. TSP 10:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If your proposal were to go into effect we could never identify anyone as being a Kurd, for example, or the Korean runner who had to compete for Japan in the Olympics prior to World War II (can't remember his name now), would have to be listed as Japanese, even though he was Korean. Corvus cornix 03:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not the case. Stating that someone is a Kurd is fine, as long as when explicitly referring to their nationality a sovereign state is used. The Korean runner could still be called Korean because Korea was still a sovereign state, but it was under Japanese rule. Readro 09:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Nationality is a very personal characteristic, hugely important to many people. I am hesitant to tell Scots (for example) that they must register as Britons; my English friends, after all, refer to themselves as English, not as British. I don't consider it my right - nor Wikipedia's - to tell people what flag they should associate with their homeland, heritage, or self-identity. The "sovereign state" argument holds no water with me. Why not just ask people to input a longitude and latitude? This sidesteps the issue of citizenship and nationality entirely, and just identifies people by geographic location. 67.189.48.7 20:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree to some extent. However, when your English friends refer to themselves as English are they instantly "corrected" by someone else telling them they are British? The problem that exists on Wikipedia is the constant back-and-forth editing of articles which means some articles have people going from English to British and back again many many times. Without a rule to stop it, this silly edit warring will continue. This is why there needs to be a rule. Readro 20:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this debate may have got a bit confused due to people using themselves as examples. We're not talking about user pages here; so we're not generally telling people what they may self-identify as. We're talking about encyclopedia articles. This means, firstly, that in the majority of cases (considering that we're talking about several hundred years worth of people, not just current celebrities) we won't have a sourced self-defined nationality. It also means that we need to deal with what is verifiable. That's really why I want to escape from subjective definitions, and say definitively, "When we identify someone's nationality, in a list or with a flag by their name, what we mean is the sovereign state they hold (or at their death held) citizenship of." I think this is the only standard we can hope to apply with any sort of consistency.

What sources do we have for what nationality, say, Byron considered himself to have? Even if we DID have sources where he called himself 'English', how would we know he didn't at other times or in other contexts call himself 'British' (or even 'Scottish')? We can't go and ask him, and even if we could, that would be original research. If we do have sources where he mentions the matter, we can't know that they are comprehensive and represent his full views. His citizenship, we can establish and state as a fact; anything else, I don't see how we can in most cases offer anything other than our opinion.

As ever, sourced facts about how people identify themselves, their ethnic origin, or anything else, are useful and can be mentioned in the article; but in a list, or for a flag set in an infobox, where we are saying "We will identify every person with a nationality, that they may be compared with other people", I think we need to have some standard for what we mean by that, or the information is of no use at all. TSP 01:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, to reside in Scotland and vote in Scottish elections, you must be British. IE an English person has the same rights in Scotland as a Scot, because they are both British. As does a Scot in Wales, or a Welshman in London (I'm not going to touch Ireland!) They are represented overseas by a UK embassy, they die in Iraq under the Union Jack. They are all British. I believe that is what is meant by "nationality" in the info box, and for the sake of consistency that is what we should put there. If an individual identifies with an ethnic group or a separatist movement, then that can and probably should be mentioned elsewhere in the article. --Michael Johnson 10:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Scotland and like are not ethnic groups or separatist movements (at least in the way you imply above). Consider they have football teams that compete in international tournaments (World Cup). Last time i checked this was not true for Quebec. David D. (Talk) 15:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That is purely because of the history of football, and the fact that there is a special rule (article 10.5 of the FIFA statutes) for the home hations. Otherwise there would have to be a unified team, as article 10.1 states that there can only be one football association per country. Readro 16:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

intellegent scholars hassled off by losers

I read once that there was this policy set up because really intellegent scholars would come onto wikipedia and be hassled off by losers. Anyone familar with this policy? 69.153.81.182 00:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility... although it doesn't only stop intelligent scholars from being hassled by losers, but also losers from intelligent scholars, and everyone in between. Sancho 00:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Citizendium? --tjstrf talk 00:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh how I LOVVVEEE wikepidia, Instant gratification thanks User talk:tjstrf and User_talk:Sanchom :) 69.153.81.182 00:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Opps, spoke too soon, this isnt what I am looking for :( there was an Arbcom case some time ago, 2004 or 2005...wondering if policy came out of it... 69.153.81.182 00:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was more or less the theory behind the founding of Citizendium. There isn't actually a policy that states what you are asking about, though there are certainly proposals regarding them (Wikipedia:Expert retention and linked pages.) We also have some rules that dictate when and how you may cite yourself, which I think are part of the WP:COI policy.

In general though, if by "hassling" you mean "not letting the professor add stuff just because he says it's true", we do allow that. Even if you are a professor, or for that matter a "professor", you must keep to the same standards of verifiability and referencing as everyone else. --tjstrf talk 00:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There were just edit wars, if I recall. I looked through Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions and couldnt find anything in particular. Thanks for your time User talk:tjstrf. Ha--thanks Wikipedia:Expert retention is perfect.69.153.81.182 00:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Scholars should hold themselves not to the same standards but to higher standards, because they have access to libraries and journals that often are not readily available to others. What "hassles" scholars is not the fact that they're expected to provide sources. Instead it's the fact that Wikipedia is too often like the wild west, where the ability to shout the loudest, swing the hardest, and outlast the other fellow counts more than the quality and depth of one's sources. Raymond Arritt 00:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is too often like the wild west, where the ability to shout the loudest, swing the hardest, and outlast the other fellow counts more than the quality and depth of one's sources." That's true but that's democracy for you. But as Churchill said: "Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."--Svetovid 23:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• And finally, Wikipedia:Tendentious editors and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. >Radiant< 07:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocking policy/NLT alignment

Blocking policy states a reason Users may be blocked is by:

• making personal, professional or legal threats (including outside the Wikipedia site); but only NLT is a policy. I propose WP:NLT No Legal Threats be changed to WP:NT No Threats to include both personal and professional as well as legal threats. Anynobody 00:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Other threats are generally covered by WP:NPA. Legal threats get their own category, as they are not direct threats of harm, nor even a personal attack, in many cases, but must be dealt with seriously for... well, legal reasons. -- Kesh 01:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Unlike death threats. — The Storm Surfer 22:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • And bomb threats. — Andmark 02:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

User Contact

I know that this proposal is almost certainly going to get shot down in flames, but I will float it out anyway.

The general policy of anonymity of editors, which most (but not all) follow, means that there is no way of contacting an editor except through the project user talk pages or through e-mail. It is not uncommon for editors to make quite close relationships, without either party knowing anything personal about the other. And if that is their mutual wish, fine.

But sometimes editors vanish unexpectedly and without warning, as User:Coelacan appears to have done, to the distress of his adoptee; and as User:DocEss did a few months ago, to my personal distress.

My proposal: that a register be formed of contact details of all editors; to be held in the office under strict security, and details to be released only by senior wiki officials (bureaucrats? stewards? Jimbo?) and only on the presentation of absolutely irrefutable reasons by editors whose identity can itself be verified, by e-mail or other means to be agreed.

It seems to me that there are rare occasions when the sudden and unannounced absence of an editor can cause serious concern, And I feel that some way of avoiding this situation could be considered. I welcome comments. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Get in touch with editors you are in close contact with by email or other means before they leave, and you'll be set. Λυδαcιτγ 03:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

To some extent there is comfort in the anonymity of Wikipedia. If someone can piece together my identity based on tidbits of information scattered about my userpage and/or contributions - good for them. Should someone suddenly decide to up and depart the project; that is their decision, despite what void it may leave. If an editor wishes to leave some way for them to be contacted it is up to their discretion; otherwise I am a little uncomfortable with the idea of a "database" of Wikipedia Editor contact info floating around in an office. Or hard drive. --Ozgod 05:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above sentiment - anonymity is an important factor for a lot of editors, and the possibility that personal information might become available without their explicit permission would turn many away from the project. I could see some utility in an opt-in only system, where interested editors could supply contact information for just such a use, but I suspect that it is far simpler to have interested editors leave contact information with a trusted editor for "emergency use". Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 19:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Arkyan, you actually are onto something with the opt-in idea. On the preferences page, there could be an 'opt-in' page where users are free to share information with which they are comfortable. When someone goes to 'pull' a master list, this information could be utilized. It's really not a bad idea, especially if it's voluntary. the_undertow ^talk 21:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I could make this very long, but I'll make it short and sweet. Why are bus stations, subway stops, and train stations notable enough for inclusion. there are almost never sourced, and are very short. for example, see Yishun Bus Interchange. A few are well known, such as the NYC subway, but everyone else violates WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and makes articles for every little non-notable station and stop, many of which don't even exist anymore (Calvert railway station). I just find this to be getting quite ridiculous. Reywas92^Talk 18:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It is just indiscriminate inclusionism with no thought to the criteria on a case-by-case basis. I'm not certain what can be done to reduce it, apart from further increasing the AFD backlog. Adrian M. H. 19:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There was an AfD run on each entry in List of masts that had an article in attempt to remove all the "This tower is 536 feet tall." articles. A Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts was even created to speed things along and there were many mass AfDs. The even got rid of List of masts. I think they are still fighting the good fight on that one, however. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried to get some discussion on this just a couple of days ago at #Notability and Minor Article Sprawl above, with little response... but I do think it's quite a problem. Either there needs to be some sort of consistent standard for these various sprawls, or notability can practically go hang. I tried to approach the issue tentatively on a few railway stations, and was told that "all railway stations are notable", without any decent reference. In fact, there seem to be several wikipedia projects supporting such behaviour. I just want to know - are such things acceptable, or not? Or rather, should they be? SamBC 21:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Not only will removing such cruft swamp AfD, or PROD, or Speedy Delete in the short term but it will also overwhelm the ability to remove it in the future, as well meaning (and many not so well meaning) editors will add it back in; "Hey, lookee, there's no article on the old station that was pulled down back in the 80s... Well, there is now!" Really, the best that can be done is to make it a reasonable stub so that it is at least up to presentation standard and it is not recreated in a poorer version. LessHeard vanU 21:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

For articles on groups of objects - subway stations, train stations, etc., I'd suggest combining them into the article about the system, and making them redirects. I did this with University Students' Cooperative Association, with a controversy over only one of the 23 houses (I kept house articles on one existing and one defunct house, and got complaints about one other.) It might be worth making a table within the article, or a "list of __ stations" article instead, if there's a decent amount of information. Keeping the original articles as redirects limits the problem LessHeard outlines. User:Argyriou (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly agree with the use of redirects for all instances that aren't independently notable, and information moved to a central page. In the case of, for example, railway stations, then their may well be a full article for each network or system, or possibly even line, depending on notability/amount of worthwhile information; this article could contain all the moved information. However, based on prior experience, this is not going to happen successfully without 2 things:

1. A policy supporting it.
2. A major mobilisation of volunteer effort.

I would personally support and participate in both, and I have some free time coming up, having just finished my degree and waiting over the summer before starting a master's. SamBC 22:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I would support those too. Part of this is that I hate seeing us *brag* that there are so many articles and such, but really, a lot of it is crap. I know that most of these sprawls (a great word for it) are easily categorized and are accessible to find. For the indiscriminate collections of train stations, so often the same material is repeated over and over, listing would be a great option.

Additionally, I occasionally see one-lined articles on an obscure town telling only where it is. I've read that "all geographic places are notable", but there is no point in having one sentence on it. Eventualists will say that an article on a town will surely grow, but I say to delete it and recreate it when new information does arise. I suggest implementing a minor version of a policy from the German Wikipedia, that there should be a minimum length for articles. Well, there's more to say, but I hope you understand. Thanks! Reywas92^Talk 22:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the birdwatchers. We have an article on every godforsaken state route in Alabama, and there are road geeks who will kill rather than merge the damn things back into one article. We have well-fleshed out articles on all 493 Pokemon characters. That kind of energy will rise up in defense of their collections of articles. There exists enough documentation (somewhere) to provide references for everything, and without a big tightening up of the notability guideline, someone will find two newspaper sunday-supplement articles to establish notability.

The one proposal I'd make to tighten up notability is that press coverage must come from outside the area - the subject must be located outside the newspaper's normal circulation area. For example, San Francisco Bay Area high schools wouldn't be notable if the only sources were Bay Area newspapers. Local politicians would only be notable if they get coverage outside their constituency. Pokemon characters would only be separately notable if the character is mentioned in something other than the Pikachu Press-Democrat. Roads would only get the nod if they were discussed in papers which didn't use the road for their delivery routes. But that's a pipe-dream. User:Argyriou (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a part of a proposal. If someone can come up with a non-pejorative title for a proposal, I'll start a draft in my userspace, and then invite anyone interested who supports the essence of the proposal to collaboratively edit it into something really good. Then we can actually 'formally' propose it. SamBC 22:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above, I've started what is currently a completely skeletal proposal at User:Sambc/wip/Sprawl Control Policy Proposal. Feel free to use the associated talk page, but I'd lie to fill in some material before opening it for collaboration. SamBC 01:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The proposal is now at a point where I'd really appreciate feedback. Thanks. SamBC 02:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

And I'm now inviting active collaborative editing from ayone who supports the essence of the proposal. If you're against it in principal, then just wait until we feel it's ready to present formally and then oppose it. SamBC 03:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Lists of aircraft serial numbers - best transwiki?

WikiProject:Aircraft is currently considering what to do with lists like Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress serial numbers. A number of broadly similar lists have been created by the one user, but no-one else considers them to be encyclopedic. To put it in perspective, if this particular list were ever finished, it would be a list of some 12,000 serial numbers. Nevertheless, this list and others from the same contributor are well-researched, verifiable, and sourced, and it seems to me to be a shame to simply delete them out of existence. I'm wondering whether there's another wikimedia project where they could usefully and appropriately be transwikied to? --Rlandmann 21:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the list sourced from several different references, or are the sources in general agreement? If it is the first then the editor may have to consider if WP:OR applies, and if it is the latter then is it possible to just link to the source material (presumably Government or Manufacturers) statistics. Obviously if someone has taken some time and effort over this it would be a shame to lose it... Is there a WikiDirectory or WikiList somewhere? LessHeard vanU 21:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The material has been collated from a variety of places, but I don't think that OR applies, because they're all secondary sources. I'm sure that the "bones" of the list of serial numbers exist somewhere out there, but these lists go a little beyond that into including brief notes on the fate of the individual aircraft (where known), their radio call signs, names, and other minutiae. A truly noble effort - but (a) not encyclopedic, and (b) probably a bad precedent for the next person who wants to create a list of the chassis numbers of every Model T Ford built (or serial numbers of Sony Playstation 2s, or whatever). --Rlandmann 23:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with both points, it isn't encyclopedic (it isn't descriptive, and it doesn't explain) and it is a very worthy effort. Is it possible that it could be placed on an enthusiasts site (if they will except the GDFL lisence) and then be referenced from the main article? I'm not certain how reliable it would be as a source (since interWiki links aren't) but a third party host might be acceptable. Hmmm, perhaps a link to a warbird site generally that would agree to host the info?

Perhaps the best thing to do is AfD the article, get consensus on its fate, if deleted have the main contibutor(s) move it to their userspace and then see what can be done with it. I am sure some warbird/USAAF/B-17 site would be pleased to host it. LessHeard vanU 23:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a candidate for Wikia, no? Or possibly WikiSource? Still don't understand that project, to be very honest. Jouster  (whisper) 23:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been wondering about a new Wikia project as one possibility, but would prefer to find an existing project to slot it into, if possible. WikiSource is only for free primary source documents. (So, for example, if the USAF had at some point generated a list of all B-17 serial numbers, this would be acceptable there, in its original unmodified form) --Rlandmann 00:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this the sort of thing WikiSource would accept? --Carnildo 02:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This does sound like something that belongs in WS, yes (although I am unsure of their inclusion policies). >Radiant< 12:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please ban User:DVdm, see User talk:DVdm, especially his sect. [[1]]

rm large copydump 84.158.253.69 20:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have a complaint about this user's behavior, please take it up with that user first. if that fails, use our dispute resolution process. This page is for discussing Wikipedia policy, not the complaints department. And please do not copy large portions of Talk page discussions to other pages. -- Kesh 05:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Naming Conventions: Abbreviations

I decided to move this fragmented discussion here (I found a debate here after posting one here) since I think this area is appropriate and probably receives more traffic (meaning more consensus).

The debate is: should there be a space after abbreviations of two consecutive names? For example, should it be H.G. Wells or H. G. Wells? There has been no broad consensus on this, although wiki-guidelines say there should be a space.

I believe there should be a space because (1.) There should be spaces between words (2.) There's already a guideline in place, and (3.) I think it looks better.

Please use support (meaning you support the guideline in having a space), oppose, or comment for a clearer picture.

Well I think it looks better without a space, but regardless, it should be how it is commonly used. For example, if H.G. Wells novels list him, rather, if the book publisher(s) use a space, then I think he should use a space. For example, per a discussion here, J.R. Chandler, a character on All My Children, has no space. Also, per a discussion here, the title of The Doors album L.A. Woman is also without a space as that is how it's spelled on the album cover. I'm not arguing for no space (though I prefer it), I'm citing examples of how its not as cut and dry as consensus would prefer. Pepsidrinka 21:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There should be a space [support] unless there is a really good reason for there not to be a space. (The reasons for the examples given are likely dubious, but I'm not going to get involved with those articles myself.) — The Storm Surfer 03:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As with the debate over American/British English, I say go with the most appropriate version for the subject. As listed, if the author's name has spaces on his novels, use the space; if not, don't. -- Kesh 03:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, there should be no space (looks better without it) unless the it's clear that the subject of the article more commonly uses a space. So I guess I would say Oppose unless the person uses a space. TJ Spyke 05:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd also oppose. I think it's best to use the most common form found for the name. Similarly, you see U.S. and UK (quite often next to each other like that). Kevin Judson 13:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons U.S. is favoured over US in Wikipedia is that the first is not confused with us by the search function. — The Storm Surfer 00:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you may want to consider Edward Estlin Cummings#Name; authors probably don't generally have as much say in how their names are printed as you may think. — The Storm Surfer 00:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can't enact a guideline through a majority vote, and certainly not on the village pump. >Radiant< 12:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is one of those things we ought to do one way or another consistently. Whether or not to use a space between the initials of T. S. Eliot is entirely within the purview of a publication's style guide. We don't need to open a thousand cans of worms by making it a matter for competing google tests and accusations of POV. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with GTBacchus: this is a purely stylistic issue. I also agree with (1) and (2), both of which are reasonable arguments. I think (3) should not be used as a reason, as both it and its counterargument (as given by T. J. Spyke TJ Spyke) are questions of taste that are unlikely ever to reach any kind of consensus (cf. WP:BIKESHED). Personally, I think it looks better with a space, but I don't think that that's any reason to produce, retain or discard a style guideline. --Stemonitis 06:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is the kind of issue for which an arbitrary decision is better than a perennial debate. Do we have statistics on which of the two is the most prevalent? >Radiant< 12:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Question about decorative non-free images

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Book_covers, where I ask whether images of book covers are acceptable in articles about their books when those articles have no critical commentary about the cover itself. Similar questions apply for album covers and corporate logos. The question whether this is a legitimate "fair use" on Wikipedia will be crucial for making decisions about deleting images with possibly unacceptable fair use rationales. It would be beneficial if a consensus on this can be documented before we begin evaluating whether images have acceptable fair use rationales.

This is only an announcement; please keep all comments on WT:NONFREE so the discussion isn't fragmented. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Google Earth placemark question

What is the accepted policy for uploading a Google Earth placemark file (.kmz) to help illustrate the location of a geographic subject?

The article on Jabal al-Lawz, a mountain in Saudi Arabia that some think is the biblical Mt. Sinai, has a link to Google Maps. I'd like to add a Google Earth placemark with tilt to show the terrain of this area.

I don't find an FAQ or other policy addressing this question.

Thanks. Ghoffman 05:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates project, they have alternate tagging suggestions that integrate with other tools, including Google Earth. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference Desks

I propose that anyone responding to questions posted on the reference desk be required to state their age since many of the current responses appear to be little more than guesswork as if to say "I can answer that." when in fact the response is no where near an answer but just wasted time and space. Julie Moon 09:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Firstly, because age has nothing to do with whether a person is capable of answering an RD question. Secondly, because sometimes the question is so poorly worded that people tackling it have to guess what the poster is actually asking. Thirdly, because while the Reference Desk is not a place for personal opinions, and answers should have some level of verifiability (not necessarily as strict as articles, perhaps), sometimes one person making a guess towards an answer (particularly if they provide a couple of appropriate links) can help inspire someone else to give a more complete answer - particularly on, say, the Mathematics desk, where one person can get from the question to a point half-way to the answer, and someone else can get from the answer back to the same half-way point. Confusing Manifestation 03:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Define External Links Spam

Vote Responses: Spam: Valuable External Links:

I have tried repeatedly to add what I consider to be valuable external links to related wikipedia content. The links are to online recreational topographic maps of the geographic area covered in the wikipedia article. However, many editors have erased the external links and have threatened to ban me from Wikipedia for spamming, while other topics have retained my external links as relevant info. This has been disturbing to me, because the online maps that I have linked to are original content and valuable resources.

Please see the following links and respond to the content as Spam or as a Valuable External Link as a vote at the top of the page.

All of the following links are for geographic areas within Connecticut.

Rivers

Connecticut River: [[2]]

Housatonic River: [[3]]

Ten Mile River: [[4]]

Sandy Brook: [[5]]

Nepaug River: [[6]]

Saugatuck River: [[7]]

East River: [[8]]

Hammonasset River: [[9]]

Coginchaug River: [[10]]

Quinnipiac River: [[11]]

Farmington River: [[12]]

Willimantic River: [[13]]

Hockanum River: [[14]]

Hop River: [[15]]

Blackledge River: [[16]]

Salmon River: [[17]]

Jeremy River: [[18]]

Yantic River: [[19]]

Eightmile River: [[20]]

Shetucket River: [[21]]

Natchaug River: [[22]]

Mount Hope River: [[23]]

Trails

Appalachian: [[24]]

Metacomet: [[25]]

Mattabesett: [[26]]

Hop River Bike Trail: [[27]]

Airline Bike Trail: [[28]]

Pachaug Trail: [[29]]

CT Trail Directory: [[30]]

State Forests

Cockaponset State Forest: [[31]]

Pachaug State Forest: [[32]]

Rock Climbing

Main Rock Page: [[33]]

Bradley & Ragged Mountains: [[34]]

Lamentation Mountain: [[35]]

Cathole & East Peak Mountains: [[36]]

Sleeping Giant State Park: [[37]]

West Rock Ridge: [[38]]

Chatfield Hollow: [[39]]

Pine Ledge: [[40]]

Whitestone: [[41]]

Deer Cliff: [[42]]

Saint John’s Ledges: [[43]]

Beech Rock: [[44]]

Diamond Ledge: [[45]]

Campground Map

[[46]]

CT Cycling Routes

Statewide: [[47]]

Canaan: [[48]]

Kent: [[49]]

Washington: [[50]]

Litchfield: [[51]]

Burlington: [[52]]

Milford: [[53]]

Wallingford: [[54]]

Valley-Shore: [[55]]

Mystic: [[56]]

Storrs: [[57]]

Windsor: [[58]]

Farmington: [[59]]

New Hartford: [[60]]

Thank You for Your Help,

           Czimborbryan

Adding a large amount of links to many pages (especially when the links are to the same website) is widely considered as spam. Since Wikipedia is based on consensus, not voting, a vote for whether these links are spam is largely irrelevant. This time around, add the links to the talk pages of the articles and let other people add the links.

Did that help? ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 01:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

All of those pages – indeed, that entire site – seem plagued by issues with layout and formatting. Viewing in either Opera or Internet Explorer shows serious problems.

Take this randomly chosen page from the list above. The image is too large to be viewed comfortably in a web browser window on any reasonably-sized monitor (1118 x 2140 pixels). This might be excusable if the intent was for the user to print the map for use (though even then a better solution would be to provide a screen-sized map and link to a larger, printable, version), except that the map suffers from compression artifacts. Small text and symbols are difficult or impossible to read.

The text information to the left of the map runs over the edge of the coloured region in which it ought to be contained, hindering readability. The title of the map is misspelled ("Appalachion"). On opening the page, the top third of the screen is consumed by two panels of Google text ads, which may well be what pushed the editors involved to the conclusion that this effort was spamming. The site's homepage needs to be drug out into the street and shot.

In any case, USGS topographical maps are available online through a number of sources, including free ones. See, for example, the USGS's National Map site. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is not a travel and recreation guide. I don't have the cite for that, but I'm pretty sure it isn't. If you decide to add a recreation-based feature as a standard item to a bunch of different articles about geographic locales, you are really enforcing a private style guide for those articles and taking them in your own direction. That in turn might step on the toes of a wikipedia project that has its own ideas about what articles should look like. Wikidemo 05:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Usurping a user name that is currently indefinitely blocked

I am interested in changing my user name, but I found out that particular user name has been indefinitely blocked, and he has an empty contribution log. Is it still possible to ask for a WP:USURP?--Kylohk 13:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

For one, why is it blocked? One of the main reasons for not having any contributions is that it may be inappropriate. If it's a sock puppet or something, it may be possible. It would probably be better to ask one of the bureaucrats over there. TTN 13:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why it was blocked, but according to the block log of User:A, he's been blocked for more than a year now. That's the only thing on his log.--Kylohk 13:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess this answers your question. TTN 13:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

How odd. I suspect the account does have edits, but they are deleted. -N 14:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Why would you want a user name that has been indefinitely blocked? It might come with a bad reputation attached. Cardamon 00:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious that he doesn't want a user name, he wants user name A. At least whatever reputation it has is obscured enough that he didn't find it. (SEWilco 04:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

Based on this, the user made a claim to be some famous person, so they were indefblocked pending confirmation of that. Which I guess was necer revieved. -Amarkov moo! 21:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale required on internal wiki-stuff

Got a couple of messages form out friendly neighborhood bot betacommandbot, about missing fair use rationale for a couple of images made a while ago for the reform of the main page project. A question I have is that are a fair use rationale required for "internal" wiki-stuff. The images in question are not important any more, it's just a general question. Image:Main Page Draft 1600x1200 A.png etc... _→AzaToth 13:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• ..................... There should be no need for a fair use rationale for copyrights OWNED BY US! -N 13:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  Well... you could always put that "The WMF owns the copyright, so this can be used." 68.101.123.219 17:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If that bot interferes with you, just revert whatever it does. It (and the owner) are both currently the subject of a number of complaints on various pages. Jtrainor 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Gender neutral placeholder images

A user or group of users (apparently only on IRC) seem to have started a campaign to put gender stereotyping placeholder images which in my opinion are pointless and look worse than the original gender neutral ones. I don't really like these at all, but if we must have them we shouldn't use such ridiculous sterotyping images. Gender neutral one here Claude Bachand, female one Melissa Joan Hart, male one Christopher Lambert. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Looks pretty pointless to me. If such images bother you, I'd suggest you list them at WP:IFD. >Radiant< 12:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User pages of IP addresses

Vishwin60 and I have been having a discussion on his talk page, and we'd like to get some more opinions. He mentioned in a comment that he thinks it is against policy for IP addresses to have user pages (later clarifying this to except redirects to the talk page), but I disagreed. He pointed to m:Anonymous user, but I don't think this actually disallows them - it just mentions why they are impractical in most cases. There are several examples of static IP address with user pages that have been started for them (because they are technically incapable of it), which then took to editing said user pages themselves. (Obviously I don't remember them off the top of my head, because they are comprised of numbers, but I will look around.) We'd like a third opinion on whether policy forbids IP address userpages. Picaroon (Talk) 19:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Or even should forbid these types of pages. But yeah, we'd like at least a third opinion on this. (→zelzany - review) 19:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't this a theme/code page for an IP's talk page?—trey^jay–jay 01:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why they shouldn't be fine for static IPs. There really isn't a point to creating one for a dynamic IP. Prodego ^talk 05:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on dynamic IPs. However, static IPs also change from time to time, like mine (like this to this and finally to this). Wouldn't userpages for static IPs, based on that, be illogical as well? (→vishwin60 - review) 16:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If your IP address changes, then it's not static. --Carnildo 00:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

All IP addressess change/get reassigned at some point. Furthermore, the main reason why some IPs change more often than others is that it's a proxy server (not necessarily open) or a berserk router. In my case, it's just a normal routine reassigning of my IP. (→vishwin60 - review) 01:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No. Should, for example, the IP address for the webserver at the company I work for change, heads would roll. You seem to be confusing static IP addresses, where you've got a contract that says this IP address won't change, with semi-static IP addresses, which don't change very often. --Carnildo 01:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Returing to the original point, userpages for even semi-static IPs are illogical in every which way. Even userpages for static IPs wouldn't make sense either, since who knows when somebody else will use your IP when you move out of that residence? (→vishwin60 - review) 02:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

IP addresses are not reserved in Wikipedia. Everyone is also User:127.0.0.1, although we won't see that. (SEWilco 04:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

I apparently don't care about localhost. If IPs aren't reserved, then that's another reason why IPs shouldn't have userpages. (→vishwin60 - review) 12:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

UK, England, Scotland...

As I read through Wikipedia articles, I noticed something I wasn't familiar to. It is the high level of nationalism British people have for their respective constituent country and a rejection of the "UK" entity. While I'm not writing here to argue this, but to discuss some of the inconsistency and confusion in Wikipedia articles any non-British reader might encounter. First, non-British are only familiar with the UK, they might be able to identify England and Scotland but rarely Wales; I find it odd that there isn't any page in Wikipedia that clarifies this issue, instead, it takes for granted that regular reader share the way of thinking of British people and find it perfectly normal to reference locations by their consitituent country (instead of UK); nationalities (English, Scottish, instead of British) and flags (flag of England instead of the UK flag). In addition, this leads to some inconstistencies between pages maintained by UK Wikipedians and others that don't (take a look at List of counties in Rhode Island).Could someone clarify this issue, and maybe write a guideline, policy, page about it. Thank you. CG 12:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. You might want to read the 'Nationality' debate further up, though it doesn't seem to have come to any particular conclusion, unfortunately.

I agree that the sovereign state (i.e. United Kingdom) should always be included at the end. I would also say, though, that it looks odd to me to just have "Newport, United Kingdom" Would you say, "Boston, USA", rather than "Boston, Massachusetts, USA"? I would have thought that you at least want "Newport, Wales, United Kingdom", if not "Newport, Monmouthshire, Wales, United Kingdom". TSP 12:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. I would probably just say Boston, Massachusetts or Newport, Wales. If an English speaker doesn't know where Wales is, it only takes one click to learn. The argument is a bit weaker for U.S. states (since there's 50 of them, instead of four), but I think Boston, Massachusetts is probably the most common on Wikipedia today. — The Storm Surfer 00:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad example, Mass and Wales don't compare, since Wales is a country, Mass is a state within a federal system.ALR 15:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not that bad of an analogy. The US states actually have more autonomy than the countries in the UK. David D. (Talk) 15:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult discussing this using Wales as the example, but I'd see autonomy as different from existence as a state entity. ALR 14:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue is interesting at the very least though. Jmlk17 05:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the analogy overall, however, the problem with the state/country analogy (and correct me if I'm wrong), is that there are more common city names in America. There are at least two well known by the name Lexington, many Springfields, and plenty of British city/county names (Suffolk, Essex, Oxford, etc.), so the state names are more important. It's not about the ease of knowledge, because the convention is perpetuated by those who use it. We shouldn't say "Newport, UK" because Americans are ignorant, or "Boston, USA" because it's not worth a European's time to memorize the states. The convention is determined by the people who use it because they need it quickly determine what city they are talking about, and adding "USA" to the end of cities is just superfluous for most Americans. tdmg 23:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles relating to places in Cornwall present special problems. There is a certain degree of debate about the Constitutional status of Cornwall, particularly whether or not it should be considered a part of England, and about how to refer to locations within Cornwall. A rough consensus to use the formula "Cornwall, England, United Kingdom" has been hammered out at WikiProject Cornwall (after much debate at various other locations). There are periodic outbreaks of edit-warring relating to this, and I would ask & hope that any policy or guidance as suggested above take this into account. DuncanHill 23:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There may be an issue here with being neutral in our treatment of different countries. Personally, I find both "Boston, Massachusetts" and "Newport, Wales" entirely clear and unambiguous. But would we say (in an internationally-focused article) "Shillong, Meghalaya" and equally expect people to know where that is? Meghalaya has a population comparable to Wales or to, say, Nevada, and English is one of its official languages. If we wouldn't expect our readers to know where Meghalaya is, should we expect them to know where Wales or Nevada are? TSP 14:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

England used to be broken down into smaller countries, known as the heptarchy. The seven kingdoms were unified into England in 927. Could East Anglian, Kentish etc be valid nationalities for contemporary people on Wikipedia? Now fast forward to 1707. The same thing has happened, only England and Scotland have merged into one country, the United Kingdom. This was 300 years ago. I don't want Kentish being used as a valid nationality for recent folk, and by the same logic I'd rather have British used as a nationality than English or Scottish. For nationalities, it is my opinion that only the sovereign state at the time the person was around should be used. If we start breaking down a sovereign state into subdivisions then what limit is there? It would then become subjective and there is no place for subjectivity in Wikipedia articles. Readro 15:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that my post has initiated some discussion, but I think that my point hasn't been understood clearly. I wasn't looking for a change in convention and usage but for a clarification. I think that the usage of city, constituent country is pretty clear and analogous to city, state. However I don't understand, and this what needs to be clarified, is primarly why the flags of the constituent countries are used instead of the UK flag. And why UK isn't treated as a country like non-british people would view it. CG 19:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Because that's not how people view it, most people will refer to their individual nationality rather than identifying themselves as British. In the interests of disclosure I'm an expat Scot living in England.

ALR 19:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Referencing blogs

So I don want to sort through a pile of policy articles so is it OK to reference a prominent blogger that has "pondered over" a matter in a political allegation? I mean a prominent blogger has assumed something and is it OK to mention that this particular blogger assumed this and actually include it in an article (of course giving full credit the blogger, i.e., referencing the blogpost). Thanks! 354d 20:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:V, WP:RS and WP:ATT/FAQ (Historical, but relevant). Much better if you do find out for yourself. Adrian M. H. 21:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Short answer... no, blogs are not reliable sources. Longer answer... it depends. Seriously, this is an issue that does not enjoy complete consensus from the entire community. There used to be a firm "no blogs" policy... but certain exceptions have gained acceptance. You are going to have to read the policies and guidelines to sort out if a specific blog will be acceptable in a specific article to back a specific claim that is phrased in a certain way. Blueboar 14:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it may sometimes be borderline, if the blog belongs to the actor or musician. Such as in Jackie Chan, I mentioned his intentions, starting with "According to his blog,". If you quote his blog and use the blog as a reference, I don't think it would be much of a problem.--Kylohk 13:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Chicago and Philadelphia and the City,State convention

Over at the naming convention page, a discussion has been started about moving Chicago and Philadelphia back to the city, state standard. All views and inputs are welcomed. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Mandatory categorization of new articles

I want to bring up the proposal at Wikipedia:Enforce inclusion of categories, which has been sitting around for a while. I believe much of this proposal could be implemented without a software update. Perhaps it would be possible to add a message to the "new article" page, instructing the user to include a category (e.g. near the "save" button). It would be even better if the wikicode for a category was also added automatically to the edit box on all new pages. I have heard that administrators can edit these boilerplate pages, but I am not sure of the extent of their powers.

I think the best way to do this would be to use a template similar to {{Afd3 starter}} (shown when URL is, for example, [61]), which asks users to provide a general category code on articles for deletion. New articles would be placed in Category:New articles or a subcategory.

Categorization of new articles would help with a couple issues:

• Orphan articles which are created and then lost for long periods of time would not be quite as lost.
• Sorting into proper subcategories would take place more quickly.
• The maintenance load at Category:Category needed would be distributed to more users.

--Eliyak T·C 08:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see this being troublesome. New users might not know what category to put a page in. Sure, it's wasy sometimes (ER being a tv show is a given), but other times it's not. This would just make trouble for unexperienced users. Not that it's an entire;y bad proposal, but perhaps a bit too forceful in its implementation. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In the case where the user doesn't know what category to use, the template could default to either Category:New articles (my preference) or Category:Category needed. By the way, EBay comes to mind as having a user-driven category system. --Eliyak T·C 08:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

With what you suggest, this isn't something you'd need a software change for. This is what bots do. They tag uncatted articles, giving them cats, albeit useless ones. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 09:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's the point- to harness the power of the users (who ostensibly are more intelligent than bots) to alleviate some of the backlog in Special:Uncategorizedpages, and push the articles into more specific cats where those who are interested can find them more easily. --Eliyak T·C 09:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A related matter is the sorting of new articles into subject areas, as done by User:AlexNewArtBot. This allows Wikiprojects to be aware of (almost) all new articles in their area. Thanks to this bot, I've been able to cast at least a quick eye over every new article related to New Zealand for the last few months, which includes giving it an appropriate category and doing a bit of cleanup when required.-gadfium 09:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad categories can be worse than no categories. I'd rather see a long requested feature implemented: a way to get a random list of uncategorized pages. Right now, in Special:Uncategorizedpages, it's hard to get past the A's.--agr 10:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with agr, unfamiliar users adding the completely wrong category could cause a lot of clean up work that is harder to find than an uncategorized article which can easily be tagged by a bot and dealt with by Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories/uncategorized, it would be much harder for a bot to find items which were just in wrong categories or only one high level category (i.e. Category:Living People). I do think an automatic tag of "New Article" might be a good idea as it would bring more attention to new articles that need work however if it ended up staying on for months or years with nobody seeing it then it wouldn't be doing anyone any good. It's a good idea overall, just I think it won't solve the problem entirely. Stardust8212 12:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Age of unreferenced

The discusion is continued at Wikipedia talk:Requests for verification

A discussion is underway at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced that in part suggests the use of the Wikitionary tag {{rfv}} to be used on new unreferenced articles (newer then January 1, 2007) which reads

The rationale being at some point Wikipedia needs to start enforcing WP:V and WP:OR currently the rebuttal's center on encouraging use of references without actually removing unreferenced material. Jeepday (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The discusion is continued at Wikipedia talk:Requests for verification

Extension to dispute resolution: Supervision process

This relates to a problem that's been on my mind a great deal the last year, since I first came across a certain banned editor....

I've been looking at a kind of serious article dispute that's sadly not uncommon, and where (for various reasons) current dispute resolution processes don't work well, or quickly enough. A number of articles are train-wrecked by this scenario, and a number of positive editors driven away.

The basic notion would address situations where a period of editorial supervision is better suited, rather than mediation or arbitration. These situations happen, and WP:DR doesn't handle it well right now. When they do, a disproportionate amount of damage is done to the project and to its editors. In some cases, I think we need a dispute resolution avenue that doesn't need to go to arbcom, that's supervisory rather than judicial (somewhat like Mentorship), and which is accessible much earlier on as one of many dispute options.

Unlike other interventions, the intervention here would be to enforce the establishment of good editorship, in an environment where AGF cannot be assumed, and create a more level playing field for a neutral and objective approach to become established by editors who are prepared to respect Wikipedia editing policy. Evidence of appropriateness would be required for acceptance, and it would not be accepted if mediation or arbitration was in progress.

In this sense supervision would parallel mediation; both take place over a medium period of time, but where RfM requires and assumes good faith, supervision is explicitly designed for disputes where good faith is dubious or not to be assumed. Where mediation looks to editors to understand policy and work together, supervision addresses directly editors who persistently refuse to edit in a policy-compliant manner.

See Article supervision proposal (further notes on its talk page). Views welcomed. Looking to see whether others have noticed similar situations, and would support this as a useful option and approach, within existing dispute resolution processes. Examples available.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR and free images

Over at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, User:Mosquera posits that Wikipedia:No original research forbids the use of many free images because they have never been published anywhere. I invite those familiar with NOR to comment. Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Fair Use Rationale: The Extended Mix. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 21:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we have to? :) Oh brother.... Garion96 (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

As images are usually used for illustration rather than verification, there is really no valid reason to invoke WP:OR. This is certainly a new interpretation of the policy! Adrian M. H. 21:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)