Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Greg Tyler (talk | contribs) at 22:40, 7 September 2009 (→‎Creating a new wiki: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcut
The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals pages, or - for assistance - at the help desk, rather than here, if at all appropriate. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.
« Archives, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78

Academic Research Study Survey: Final Call

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

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

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

Take the survey


Thank you!

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

Website White House Black Market uses same tab logo as Wikipedia

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

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

Creating a new wiki

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

I even consider this post of yours to be spammy - I don't recommend that you personally make any edits about this idea on Wikipedia itself. I think an external blog and/or getting coverage in a news service like Wikipedia Signpost or WikipediaWeekly (or even the New York Times) is the way to go.--Commander Keane (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, except for the fact that I said nothing about what it is, and indeed will not respond to any inquiries, it's definitely spam. Your suggestion about the signpost or WW is good, pity you couldn't make it without being rude. → ROUX ₪ 22:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WADR, Commander Keane has a point. Your post makes it sound like you merely intend to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for your own personal project. Nowhere on Wikipedia would people consider it acceptable to abuse the site's userbase in such a way. That is, as I say, assuming your project is as personal and unrelated to the 'pedia as it sounds. If not, then I certainly endorse the suggestions above as good places to communicate with editors en masse. Greg Tyler (t • c) 22:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about research

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

As there are only 20, why not just Google each one as you have done? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 12:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe kilbad wants to easily find the PageRank and not just the SERP position. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation

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

I encountered the same problem. I would say: not all of them. I think the deaths/births categories should not be included for example becasue they cause problems moreover, if you are lokking in xxxx births category you only need to look for the person not the category after the person. Maybe the only category that it should be subcategorised is the most relevant with the person, usually the profession-- Magioladitis (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is some discussion at Category talk:Categories named after people. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Input needed on rename proposal in silent corner of Wikipedia

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

List of zombie novels

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

I think of lists like that as wikipedia's equivalent of honeypot traps - they lure in a certain type of editor and occupy them with endless, pointless fiddly work, keeping them busy so they don't wander around and clutter up valuable articles. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well many bands that don't meet WP:BAND would do very well in a list. Notability is the criterion for having an article, not for inclusion in other articles. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 00:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others.. As far as I'm concerned, that "others" includes notability. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honey lures in the flies, but so do piles of something less sweet smelling. With all due respect (where it is due), this list is more akin to the latter. I am not sure if there is any kind of consensus to be found on these things, but I still believe that they serve as little more than a dumping grounds for things that just don't warrant a mention, at all. Shereth 20:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Political correctness or appropriate language?

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

WP:SPADE might apply. Powers T 13:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. It is an essay on project-space behavior, not article content. Mike R (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must say it makes sense to me to distinguish between those who simply use a wheelchair for ease and those who are physically unable to get around without one. Language has a lot of little ways of doing things and killing that in cases like this seems a bit too POV. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't offer any guidance, but I must say that I get goosebumps hearing about systematic revisions like this. I once saw a thread (I don't remember where) in which someone said they were systematically removing, from biographies, statements like "so-and-so was born to Jewish parents" or "raised ethnically Jewish" etc. He claimed that he was offended by the "racist" implication that Jewishness was a factor in that person's accomplishments, but I assume this person has done much towards making Wikipedia -- dare I say it? -- Judenrein. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 17:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's my European insensitivity, but while I understand the semantic difference between "uses" and "confined to", why would one of the phrases be considered more or less PC than the other? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the first instance, it could say, "A user of a wheelchair for mobility, ..." In the second instance, it could say, "...when he was restricted to using a wheelchair..." Bus stop (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In PC-speak, "confined to" has a negative connotation to it (directly implies powerlessness) whereas "uses" is more neutral (implies some kind of choice on the user's part). A bunch of silliness if you ask me, but there you have it. Shereth 20:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without taking sides in the overall debate, I reverted one change, to Spike (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), because the "confined to" wording appropriately conveyed a plot point, accurately depicting how a normally able-bodied vampire was reduced to a wheelchair-bound state and supplanted in the "pecking order", thus motivating him to sell out another vampire to Buffy. The issue in this case was that the negative conotation was intentionally applied to a fictional character, and the attempt to use more sensitive language actually reduced the focus of the sentence in a way that a non-content expert would not have realized. Jclemens (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An IP address has been continuing to make such changes, with non-AGF edit summary language. It doesn't look like the same person, but is probably someone sympathetic to the original editor with a bit less tact. Jclemens (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not censored. Being precise and factually correct is far superior to being politically correct. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 00:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It reminds me of my language Danish where there has been successful PC campaigning to get people to say drivechair (Danish: kørestol) instead of rollchair (Danish: rullestol). It sounds more active to drive than to roll (it has never been called wheelchair in Danish). At least there is no significant difference in function in that case. I don't like systematic change to "uses a wheelchair" without consideration of the context. I wonder whether "wheelchair-bound" with 367 Wikipedia search hits will also be targeted by PC. Oh, after writing that sentence I see Schmirius is also doing that.[4] PrimeHunter (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Access Center offers Talking About Disability: A Guide to Using Appropriate Language which advocates these language changes. Also, Schmirius has not edited since this discussion was started less than a day ago, and he should be given a reasonable time to accept his invitation to respond here. -- Thinking of England (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

"Use a wheelchair" is clearly more precise than "wheelchair bound" or "confined to a wheelchair" in at least 99% of the cases - the users are not hogtied, locked, or criminally sentanced into the chair. In the specific example above, depeding on what the source actually says, the grammar of the rest of the sentence can be changed: "from 2000 he was not seen in public without using a wheelchair" or somesuch-- The Red Pen of Doom 03:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'd say that's a bit less precise since the earlier forms communicated that the wheel chair was necessary to the person's mobility, rather than something they merely used for any other purpose, hell a healthy actor could "use" a wheel chair for a part, or someone could merely need one for occasional assistance or when leaving surgery, or anything. I'm struggling to think of a better way to say it (I have a feeling that "Bob is dependent on a wheelchair" isn't an improvement.)"Bob requires a wheelchair for mobility"? "Bob relies on a wheel chair for mobility"? Abyssal (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Red Pen may be falsely conflating precision with accuracy. I would agree that "confined to a wheelchair" is not literally accurate, but that it is a figure of speech which is precise and well understood. It is also, because of its literal connotations, offensive to some. Perhaps the difficulty behind finding precise, terse replacements for figures of speech is that they carry meaning beyond their literal words. -- Thinking of England (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why we would not want to be literally accurate as well as factually acurate? -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Restricted to" eases some of the ugly imagery associated with "confined to." "For mobility" specifies the reason for the referred to wheelchair use. I think the language could use a refresh. It is not just about political correctness. I think there is a slight issue of perpetuating outdated and false impressions and stereotypes associated with disability. If we are quoting someone else's reference we quote it verbatim. Stephen Hawking is also restricted to using a wheelchair for mobility. Bus stop (talk) 11:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A noble goal, but I don't think "restricted to a wheelchair for mobility" is a well-recognized idiom in English. Powers T 12:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say "restricted to a wheelchair for mobility." Those two sentence fragments have to be separated. That could be "reliant on a wheelchair for mobility." That might also represent an improvement. Bus stop (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

And so the euphemism treadmill progresses. Soon "wheelchair user" will start to become stigmatized, too. Powers T 13:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not euphemism. It is perspective. One can chose the perspective of liberation or confinement. Bus stop (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger, thanks for this information. You actually changed my mind on this topic. It sounds like "uses a wheelchair" should be our generic text, and if we know more info (e.g. the person is "confined" to a wheelchair) our text should be, "he uses a wheelchair, and is unable to walk" or something. Our goal should be to present information, not perspectives. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 18:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 'perspective' should be NPOV, not necessarily one of empowerment or "liberation". 72.10.110.109 (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is "Fulltime Wheelchair user" commonly used anywhere? I've never heard it. I am not confined to a wheelchair, nor do I use one, but "fulltime [X] user" sounds vaguely critical and gossipy to my ear. I instantly try to imagine some sort of drug abuse, except with a wheelchair. Which puts my imagination in a weird place. 72.10.110.109 (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Fulltime" and "Part-time" are simply adjectives to disambiguate (if really necessary) the situation raised by some of the previous posts, where it would otherwise be incorrect to call an occasional user "wheelchair bound". The term is simply "wheelchair user". If we accept the claim by some that it is just an undesirable PC euphemism, by the same logic the terms "black" or "African American" are also merely undesirable PC euphemisms for "nigger". Roger (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That last is an inflammatory comparison. An equally inflammatory and unjust reply would be to ask how you would respond to an editor following NAMBLA speech guidelines and changing all references of pedophilia to "intergenerational relationship". More enlightening would be to consider how we would respond to an editor changing "atheists" to brights. Some might argue that a large fraction of the group do not identify with the new name, but the more important point is that it is not the common term used (although one goal of the Brights movement is to change this). Languages do change, and occasionally these changes are directed. For Wikipedia to be on the vanguard of nascent directed change is clearly POV. What we must consider in this case is if the new idiom (and yes, "uses a wheelchair" is an idiom if it implies "requires use of a wheelchair for mobility") is sufficiently entrenched in the language, if the old idiom has been sufficiently replaced, and, if they are both in common use, then does the new offer a suitable and desirable replacement for the old in all contexts. I don't know the answers and that is why I raised the question here. At this point I would say that the developing consensus I remarked upon earlier is no longer present. -- Thinking of England (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the comparison to be valid. People who use wheelchairs take offense at the term "wheelchair bound" just like black people are offended by "nigger" (notwithstanding its use by rap artists). Your "pedophilia" analogy is not equivalent because it refers to a crime that causes actual harm, to "whitewash" it is even more deeply offensive. Being black or paralysed is not at all comparable to being a pedophile. But that is a side issue, so lets leave it. The simple fact is that the term "wheelchair bound" is considered offensive by a significant proportion of affected people - it is not proper for WP to be gratuitously offensive. Roger (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just ran across this edit in Christopher Pike (Star Trek), where "confined" is about as accurate as you can get. One of the other editors and I compromised with "dependent on a wheelchair". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The logic given in the case of the Captain Pike thing is obviously false logic. It's entirely possible to be confined to something that enables you. There is no logical conflict. The conflict is entirely emotional. Pilots are said to be confined to their cockpits. Submariners are confined to their ships. In both cases confinement in one sense results in freedom and enablement in another. No one would complain about this usage. An astronaut on EVA is probably the least confined human in the universe, but it's entirely appropriate to describe him or her as "confined to their suit".
(That's not to say that it might not still be offensive, of course. But any claim that the word "confined" is technically incorrect because of a perceived contradiction, is an incorrect argument.) APL (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with "dependent on a wheelchair" or "wheelchair dependent". Roger (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That phrase does have the advantage of not being an idiom -- of standing on its literal meaning -- and also of being as terse as what it is being proposed to replace. -- Thinking of England (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One can say exactly the same of "wheelchair user" or "uses a wheelchair". Roger (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Wheelchair dependent" at least has the advantage of successfully communicating that the subject requires a wheelchair and is not simply using one for who knows what unspecified reasons. It's not required to speak in idioms. APL (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers and the AP seem to routinely use "wheelchair bound", "wheelchair user" seems to be almost exclusively a self-label. Perhaps in the future "wheelchair bound" will be considered as offensive has "negro", but that obviously hasn't happened yet.
While WP shouldn't be intentionally offensive, is appropriate for Wikipedia to be "leading" this revolution in nomenclature? Should WP be used as a champion for the oppressed? I hate to see Wikipedia being used as a driving vehicle for a societal change, even a minor one like this. APL (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has to do with the spin put on the locution. Bus stop (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Locution just means 'word choice'. This certainly is a discussion about word choice, but how does that specifically related to what I just said? To briefly put it in your terms I argued that Wikipedia should not make a conscious effort to "spin its locution" away from commonly accepted styles used by the majority of print media, towards a style favored only by a small minority. Then I implied, but didn't quite say, that making this sort of change before the major media outlets, was a form of minor POV pushing. ("Spin pushing?") APL (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to argue. I think each editor speaks in his/her own language, even if it is all English. No two editors are going to come up with the same language to express a thought. If it is obvious that a quote has to be used, then that is going to determine the particular word construction, or locution. But we are just going to write as we choose, and if someone challenges our particular phrasing, that will be a little disagreement that will be somehow resolved. I think there is a limit to how productively and extensively something can be argued in the abstract. After awhile the participants are no longer focussed on anything. Each writer will write with their own language, and I think there is a point beyond which it becomes impossible to nail down language any further. Bus stop (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That it is a "Self label" is an interestiong observation. The WP:BLP rules require us to adhere strictly to "self labels" for things like religion and ethnicity of a subject, why not also apply it to disability? Roger (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but, for example, Pike never self-identified as anything. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP seem to require it to be evaluated on a case by case basis. (Which is sort of what Bus Stop is saying above, I think.) If someone is known to self-identify with or prefer some certain term, then using that term seems to be indicated. Otherwise, I guess the next best would be to use the wording used by the cited source. (Especially important in cases of folk who are no longer LPs.)
This line of reasoning would probably wind up with a lot of articles using the more positive, but less familiar phrasing. However, it would seem to speak strongly against going through and changing the articles wholesale on general principal. (Which is what started this conversation.)
I wonder how that applies to Captain Pike. APL (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I have tampered with the threading and post order to restore what I believe is the intended flow for this conversation.

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

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

There is an understandable recalcitrance toward modifying articles in a fashion that seem to put a euphamistic spin on things. While the intent in this particular case is noble enough on its face (attempting to use a term/phrase that is more acceptable toward those with disabilities) there is a certain amount of validity to the "slippery slope" argument; how far are we willing to go in altering our language to placate a certain group? I am personally somewhat ambivalent toward the distinction between "uses a wheelchair" and "confined to a wheelchair", but the systematic replacing of the latter with the former smacks of political correctness for its own sake, with no benefit in terms of encyclopedic content. Ultimately it is a POV issue. Shereth 21:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Uses a wheelchair" is not a euphemism. It is clear, straightforward, descriptive, standard English. It is certainly not POV. I don't think POV actually comes into this, but if it did, "confined to" is more POV than "uses". I don't use a wheelchair, and I guess not particularly empathetic, so I'm not offended by "confined", but I can accept that someone who does use one might be. Since they are replacing one crystal clear phrasing with another crystal clear phrasing, and doing slightly less harm in the process, what actual harm is accrued if someone wants to systematically reword every instance in the Encyclopedia? Rather than worry about slippery slopes, I'd be inclined to wait until someone proposes something that is actually even remotely unreasonable before resisting. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no inherent harm in it, but again, there is no benefit in terms of encyclopedic content. I apologize for being less than clear - I don't believe that the phrase "uses a wheelchair" is POV, what I was alluding to is that it is ultimately a subjective question as to whether or not "uses a wheelchair" is better than "confined to a wheelchair". The improvement (or harm) in making this change is inherently subjective, and I believe therein lies the resistence. People like to see a solid, objective rationale behind systematic changes, simply because it becomes increasingly difficult to "draw the line" down the road. Hence the slippery slope. Shereth 22:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK, sorry, I thought you were saying changing to "uses a wheelchair" was a POV issue. I see the point of what you're saying as a general comment on the general idea of systematic changes, but in this particular case I'd be inclined to let it lie; for one thing, I'm willing to defer to those actually affected by the term, and in any case, following the dictum "choose your battles". Still, I think I see your point now. Cheers, --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that "confined to a wheelchair" is, in pretty well all cases, inaccurate language, as I'm sure that there are very few wheelchair users who don't get out of the chair and into bed to sleep (with or without help), but "uses a wheelchair" is a gross understatement as a description of people who need a wheelchair to get around - plenty of people use wheelchairs temporarily or occasionally without it being a defining part of their lives. The wording for each case needs to be decided according to the subject and the context, and will usually be something between the two phrases in question such as "needs a wheelchair for mobility", but I disagree with any formulaic editing that doesn't consider each subject as an individual. I must also point out that this sort of "political correctness" often does a disservice to the people being written or spoken about. I suffer from a chronic illness and cringe every time that I hear a health care practitioner say that I "have" the condition rather than "suffer" from it, or refers to me as a "service user" rather than a "patient". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5,000,000 files!

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

So, what was the 5,000,000th?--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 22:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Commons:Main Page, it was File:Kjøbenhavnsposten 28 nov 1838 side 1.jpg. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)There's a press release here: wmuk:Press releases/Wikimedia Commons 5 million files, but this thread on Commons is probably more descriptive in some areas. :-) The (suspected) 5,000,000th file is File:Kjøbenhavnsposten 28 nov 1838 side 1.jpg. Killiondude (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation mark on Wikipedia

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

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

  • Actually, according to the manual of style, the former is correct.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 22:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curly quotes = kill with fire. Basically because it might lead people to use them in templates, which of course, will break them. –xenotalk 22:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to mention they're a pain in the ass to type. MediaWiki is not Microsoft Word. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While they are different in the editing box, for me at least (I use the default skin so far as I know, and FF3.5) it shows up as normal quotes in the text. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curly quotes are a Microsoft Word invention. Before Microsoft all characters used were part of the ASCII or EBCDIC character set. Straight quotes are not only what Wikipedia has standardized on, but they're a lot easier to type (" is on all QWERTY keyboards, whereas non-PC machines may or may not have a way to type curly quotes).

    Note that Wikipedia does use curly quotes when a quotation template is used. It's fairly easy to find examples of this. --Tim Sabin (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • And I've always found those excessive. I'm not sold on the benefits of {{quote}} versus plain old blockquote, nevertheless {{Cquote}}. Seems like users of Cquote are the same ones with rotating doodads in their signatures who refuse to believe that a cleaner layout is easier on both the readers and editors having to figure out the markup in the editing window. - BanyanTree 04:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm saddened to find that our articles on quotation mark and quotation mark glyphs are not good enough to correct the quite large errors in the above. Curly quotation marks — i.e. inverted commas — pre-date the existence of Microsoft by at least a couple of centuries. Uncle G (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may look at any book or newspaper and I am sure there will be typographic quotation marks. It’s just the standard… it’s professional. I think the problem discussed should be how to repare the wrong qoutes in all this articles – if repare them at all – and how to make further writing with such quotes more user friendly. sl:Lagos 95.176.210.105 (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Printed and electronic media are different, and Wikipedia is rarely read in printed form. The place to suggest a change to curly quotes would be Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style but an archive search there shows wide support for straight quotes. I also support that. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you not see the "Breaking templates" and "Pain in ass to type" above? Both of them are true! I can do straight quotes right here, but with curly quotes, I literally have to go into word, and copy them in.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 11:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed something. The curly quotes appear differently on different computers. Or, even at different times on the same computer! (Yesterday, at work, they appeared curly; today at work they appeared straight.) Another good reason not to switch. --Tim Sabin (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is already a lot said about this, and I am not sure if it is worth adding another déjà vu topic.

Although, I disagree about printed vs electronic document. In both cases it’s just text! (And printed text was once digitally written as well.) Maybe you meant that it’s not displayed: yes, for some users, but not majority and amount is decreasing (specifically, for users with ClearType turned off there is no difference between "" and “” – but ClearType is on by default in newer versions of Windows (Vista, 7) and in some newer browsers (IE 7 and above), which means with upgrading difference in appereance is slowly improving.)

Also I don’t think there was wide support for straight qoutes, there was no consensus at all. But I did’ read everything.

BTW, you can click on insert characters and get curly quotes – still, user interface could be done much better in this case. And would templates really be a problem? sl:Lagos 95.176.160.143 (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until keyboards come with keys for opening and closing quotation marks (both single and double), inserting curly quotes will never be as quick or as easy as typing straight ones is. It is an issue not nearly important enough to warrant hoop-jumping on the part of editors. Powers T 15:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there is obviously no interest in this. Just a final thought: despite inconvenience in editing & writing – which could be improved, IMO – using typographic quotation marks is standard in printed texts and is a sign of professionalism on web pages. For example, Britannica Online uses this kind of qoutes. WP stays in amateur camp this time… :-( sl:Lagos 95.176.222.232 (talk) 07:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I'd like to request a general moratorium on the use of the phrase "is not notable". That's a value judgment about the subject of an article, and can have BLP implications. "Does not show evidence of notability" is a value judgment about the article itself, and is appropriate in deletion discussions and elsewhere.

Thank you. We now return you to your regularly scheduled ranting. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to read User:Stifle/Don't say non-notable. MuZemike 17:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to request a general moratorium on the use of the phrase "is not notable". You might as well ask for a moratorium on people saying "it's cruft" and "fuck" because it's just not happening... --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed. Saying something "is not notable" is very different from an article not showing evidence of notability. The latter is about content, and can be remedied. For example, if our article on Einstein just said "Einstein was a man who was smart" and had no sources, it would show no evidence of notability, while the subject is indeed notable. The former implies that the subject of the article does not meet our guidelines for inclusion. It is not a comment on the subject (re: BLP) but rather our inclusion criteria. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 17:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the fuck not?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For advice on what is appropriate in deletion discussions, see User:Uncle G/On notability#Giving rationales at AFD. Uncle G (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Class of articles valid?

Should articles of the type "<sportsperson> with <team> in <year>" or <sportsperson> in <championship series> in <year>" (for example, Michael Jordan in the NBA Playoffs in 1991 or Manny Ramirez in the World Series of 2004 be an acceptable class of articles? A test case has arisen. Your opinions welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those seem somewhat spurious comparisons; as several editors (including myself) have noted in the AfD the Australian team during the 1948 'Invincibles' tour of England and its members have received vastly more coverage in reliable sources than would be expected of just about any other team in any other series (as demonstrated by no less than four of the articles which are up for deletion being FA class and most of the remainder being well on the way to FA status). No-one in the AfD has proposed that combinations of individual players in individual series are inherently notable. Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Centralized discussion is available at the AfD that away. It is not my intent to fork discussion. Please consider moving your comments there. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can discuss it here a a general case not specifically focusing on those article only. So that a policy or consensus should be developed for such cases.--yousaf465' 16:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps. But to avoid forking discussion, I think it best we wait until the AfD closes. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly living people

There are a number of biographical articles which have birth dates recorded, but no death dates. This is presumably because once they had their moments of fame (for example, in competitive sport) they retired and faded in the background. People (i.e. reliable sources) lost track, and so we have no idea of whether they are alive or not. Now, the list here is a fairly long one, but, for obvious reasons, we need only concern ourselves with those born 1900 or after. Obviously, it's preferable to have a dead person marked as living (with all the added precautions that entails) than the assumption that a living person is dead. So do we add Category:Living people to all of them? Where (in terms of birth date) should be draw the line? - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 13:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This runs into a conflict between WP:V and common sense. Someone born in 1880 is pretty much guaranteed to be dead by 2009. But if it's not verifiable, it's not verifiable. I would suggest splitting the 'possibly living' category into 'possibly living' and 'presumed dead' with a cutoff of 100 years. → ROUX ₪ 13:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, pre-1887 are already de facto presumed dead and can be automatically (no human interaction required) tagged with "Year of death missing". - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 13:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I really don't see the need for anything to change.. → ROUX ₪ 13:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well the decision (as I see it) is whether we want BLP-things (unreferenced variation, warning on talk page, edit notice) to apply to those people born after 1887 where no death has been established. At the moment, human assessment is necessary for Category:Possibly living people (or Living people) to be applied which (given the size of the task) is a bit clunky. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 13:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having some thousands people falsely reported as alive in a project that covers 700k+ articles is not that bad. We have 20-25k biography articles unsorted yet. This should be our first aim. Tomorrow I am updating Wikipedia:Uncategorized biographies of living people/BLPPotential. Of course we have Category:Biography articles without living parameter as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move of "denial of the Armenian Genocide" to "Armenian genocide dispute" and merge in "recognition of the Armenian Genocide

It would help if editors other than the "usual suspects" were to get involved in the debate on whether to move "denial of the Armenian Genocide" to "Armenian genocide dispute" and merge in "recognition of the Armenian Genocide" -- PBS (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to help here, saying Support the merger, but whatever my position, I have no particular involvement in the "dispute" which is actually a controversy raised by those who deny there was a genocide. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
announce on the wikiproject for Armenia and turkey. Ikip (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colour coding in Wikipedia

I have just watched this video which seems to suggest that content in Wikipedia articles is now colour coded in terms of its reliability (based upon contributor history etc). However, I can't see any such colour coding. I have created an account and am now using the Beta version, and even performed a small edit myself but cannot see any colour coding. Is this feature now in place, or is it just planned? If it is in place, how do I use it, please? Spin Dryer (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It had not yet been deployed and the coloring will not be displayed by default (though there will be a tab to access it). Further details: WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-08-31/In_the_news (see WikiTrust). --Cybercobra (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Spin Dryer (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standardisation on Infobox settlement

It seems that the people maintaining {{Infobox settlement}} have a declared aim of standardising all regional settlement-related infoboxes on their model; i.e. use of IS should be mandatory worldwide and region-specific infoboxes should be deprecated and deleted. To that end, a series of templates have been listed for deletion at TfD (see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 6#Template:Infobox Australian Place for the largest discussion).

The proponents of such standardisation seem to think the benefits of standardisation are self-evident (I am not yet convinced) but even if standardisation is the way to go, deleting templates and only then coming to grips with the migration process etc. seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse. It is a recipe for chaos, at least in the short term.

I do not think anyone is, was or will suggest deleting one of these types of templates before migrating it. In fact migration is part of the deletion process. Rich Farmbrough, 14:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I suggest speedily closing the current settlement infobox TfDs and then creating a centralised discussion about the benefits or otherwise of standardisation, followed by development of a rational migration plan should consensus determine that a move is necessary. To my mind, this will generate a better end result than processing each template through TfD and will avoid generating mountains of work for those editors having to deal with the unintended consequences of a hasty deletion. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I think the benefits of "standardization" and "maintenance" are far over stated, but agree this is a much bigger issue than TfD should have to deal with. Articles can be updated with different templates without changes being forced on them by unrelated editors deleting in-use templates. It seems as if editors are trying to slip this under the radar and delete templates en mass, creating huge amounts of work for other editors without consulting them. I so far haven't seen notices posted to Wikiprojects, let alone the usual "This template has been proposed for deletion" integrated into the template itself.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 05:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not entirely true, the people standardising the templates are the ones doing the work to change them, often using AWB or a bot, they certainly do not leave any extra work lying about for project members to have to deal with.. Himalayan 10:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the process takes place without any consultation with the editors who actually work with the relevant articles? While that is consistent with the manner in which you have taken the debate forward to date, it is also a recipe for disaster. Believe it or not there is some useful expertise at the regional WikiProjects, if you actually take the time to ask them for advice and assistance. Why you want to disregard their input is beyond me. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think there is a false philosophical assumption that because we are a global encyclopaedia, therefore all content must be globally consistent. We live in a diverse world with cultures, languages, customs, histories, terrain, political traditions and local oddities all playing their role in keeping it that way. There is no reason why Wikipedia cannot reflect this whilst still being appropriate to a global audience. I'm also concerned at the manner in which the group here has been operating - it is similar to other examples I have seen in entirely unrelated areas (eg CfD, the diacritics disputes, etc) where a small group decide they know better than anyone else, that obtaining feedback is simply a hindrance to achieving their goals, and that Wikipedia policy can therefore be completely ignored in the pursuance of some "greater good" and everyone should just do exactly as they say. The fact that there's no obvious migration process in mind and that several useful fields and links would be sacrificed by such changes is a good enough reason to step back and think what is best for our community as a whole. Orderinchaos 07:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am thirding this, just because no one else has commented here. I'll save further comment for a centralised discussion. Donama (talk) 08:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note WP:ENGVAR works quite well and on the same basis that local solutions to local problems are most often better than attempts to dictate from above. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support standarisation. This is the english wikipedia. Since we can do more of that with {{Infobox settlement}}, I don't understand why not. TfD's arebases on the fact that these templates are covered by a standard one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but what is the benefit in standardisation? Standardisation for its own sake seems pointless to me. I am willing to listen if someone is willing to point out why a global template is better than a tailored local template but no one seems to want to make that argument. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consistancy and simplification above anything. I think having a single template for settlements aids the notion of the "free encyclopedia that anybody can edit". Editors become accustomed to editing the standard template which is used for most countries on here, then when they come across a completely differently built one it is a whole new learning curve. I for instance wanted to add a location map to Alice Springs but because I was unfamiliar with the template I couldn't. We do live in a diverse world but that is where english wikipedia tries to unite the masses to produce a consistant, high quality encyclopedia. I for one believe we should strive for similar articles to have a similar format and layout and referencing from whatever country, sorry you disagree. Himalayan 10:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've used {{Infobox settlement}} in a few American articles and I've found it a lot harder to use then {{Infobox Australian Place}} which I found to be far easier to use (Once you read the Doc). Also there is a reason why articles use local language (eg. American, British, Australian english), use of metric or imperial but I could go on so I see no need to use one template for all. Bidgee (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency where functionality is lost is not a positive step. There is nothing simple about Infobox Settlement. It contains generic fields for which the purpose is not immediately clear as the documentation is particularly lacking. Contrast this with IAP where the documentation is extensive and the purpose of appropriately named fields within the template is immediately clear. As I indicated at the TfD, IAP includes automatic categorisation, linking and conversions which would be lost with IS. Try actually reading the documentation for IAP instead of just making assumptions that this or that doesn't exist, as you have done, and actually using the template and you'll see why a built for purpose template is much better than a generic bloated template that tries to be all things to everything. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Generally in IT, standardisation results in either loss of flexibility or increased complexity. This is a rather nice example of the latter - while I agree that it will improve consistency, it is at the cost of simplicity. For example, in the Settlement infobox, we need to specify both that postcode type and the postcode - that's two lines to enter data that could have been entered in one on a less generic template. Similarly, to enter the state for a given town, you need to fill in subdivision_type and subdivision_name, not just a more specific "state" field. The result is an infobox with over 90 fields, many of which are explaining data that is to follow or which is cover data that is going to be irrelevant for large regions. Personally, while I can see the case for standardisation, and it is a very nice template, I'd be pushing for some standard practices across existing infoboxes, rather than replacing them with a more generic and more complex alternative. Or using it as teh basis for more narrowly designed templates. - Bilby (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but the vast majority of people who have commented on this are not seeing things from a global perspective, they are seeing it from an Australian point of view. You are all accustomed to how the Aussie template works but editors outside the Australian project who may want to contribute independently may find it harder to learn a whole new system. It is the same with how you see the standard template as how I see the Aussie template. It is not what each of us are accustomed to, this is why there is a conflict of interest. Himalayan 10:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look if you had of started a discussion with the Australian's they would be happy to explain why the Australian Places template is needed, Your comments on nationality isn't helping and really is bad faith to the community as a whole. Edits on and article creation on places on Australia are done by new users and IP's all the time and I'm yet to see a large number of them having issues using the Australian template system, So why fix something if it's not broken (and it not broken). Bidgee (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying that Australian editors are incapable of seeing a wider view. That is nonsense, you have failed to make your argument and want to dismiss all objections to your proposal as parochial. How about actually taking their objections seriously. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mattinbgn. Standardization for it's own sake has very little benefit when it comes to cultural differences, which this issue clearly includes. This whole proposal seems ill-conceved, including the fact that I don't rember seeing anything about it being posted on WP:VPR (which, for a change that would affect a huge cross section of the English Wikipedia, I would think would be a bare minimum standard to meet for any proposal). I guess I could/should go and say something at all of the TfD's (yet another structural failing of the proposal, using multiples TfD's), but I don't really see the point. I seriously doubt that any admin would go through with a deletion anyway, but someone who has already posted to them should point to this discussion.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 13:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has now closed the TfD, suggesting that (hopefully calmer) discussion might continue on the {{Infobox Australian Place}}'s talk page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, those promoting the standardization are going about it completely backwards. First, the interchangeability of the templates should be clearly demonstrated and second the project(s) that use the templates should be engaged to produce a consensus supporting the switchover. Neither has happened -- initiating the discussion by nominating a template for deletion is almost certain to provoke greater opposition than if the topic were first broached on a project page and clearly delineated the advantages. Furthermore, as others have discussed above and elsewhere, the philosophical approach of one-size-fit-all is deeply problematic in it that usually either results loss of features or in greater complexity (i.e., a higher obstacle for usability). older ≠ wiser 14:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working hard to reduce the number of redundant infoboxes about places (and people, but that's another story). What I've tried to do (and I didn't nominate {{Infobox Australian Place}}, nor did I know in advance that it was to be nominated) is to concentrate on those closest to {{Infobox settlement}}, particularly those with low usage, and work towards the more diverse, in order that we can determine the balance-point (if there is one) at which such mergers are no longer sensible. Of course I might do things differently with hindsight, but to label me as a bully and accuse me of mendacious plotting, as others have done, is not only wholly unacceptable, but clearly stark, staring bonkers. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if your comment is a response to mine -- I did not label you as a bully or accuse you of mendacious plotting. My point is that the approach taken to standardization is all wrong for a few reasons. First, many users of these templates do not have the templates themselves on their watchlists and do not necessarily pay very close attention to the nitty-gritty details of how the templates are constructed. Second, it is rhetorically a bad strategy for those persons who use a template to first become engaged in a discussion about that template when it is framed as a discussion about deletion. That is almost certain to provoke opposition that might have been avoided if the users were engaged more directly, by say, through the wikiprojects that use the templates. older ≠ wiser 16:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and I think that's what's happening. When we over at WikiProject:Universities nominated a navbox for deletion, we put a notice directly into the template, and posted on the affected pages. That's step III according to WP:TFD, and I don't feel it's at all been followed. Andy et al, either you are lazy or you are too afraid of the opinions of other editors. Neither is an excuse for why you did not to attempt to engage Wikipedians on the proposed changes to the articles you wish to drastically change. TFD says "it is considered civil to notify the creator and main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template." There are ways of doing what you propose to do, but I humbly suggest that we go about it a much different way, where you are more interested in broad community input. Otherwise you will continue to anger established users like myself.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 17:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)"[reply]
You are in breach of both AGF and WP:NPA. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, you are acting contrary to the suggestions on how to go about deletions, and if we're discussing policy, I'm going to call you out on it. I don't like getting this upset over a little thing, but you need to work on how you interact with editors. Throwing out accusations of not following policy is an example and belies the question. And you have nominated a number of other templates in the last three days. I will suggest that for the future, we might post a notice of the intention first on template's talk page, and allow some time to pass before bringing it to TfD.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 17:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upset or not, there is no excuse for your fallacious ad hominem accusations. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't follow printed directions. Show me where you notified the creators of these templates you nominated at TfD and I'll recant. Again, deletion pages are not the place to bring concerns first.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 18:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My use of the words as others have done was deliberate; and I will remind you again that I did not nominate this template for deletion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bilby is quite correct that standardisation can result in loss of flexibility, or increased complexity. Nonetheless it also brings benefits, not the least of which is that it reduces the divergence between the templates, so that things which are common remain the same. I have proposed elsewhere that for these situations there are solutions better than either an infobox for every national flavour or one huge infobox with a thousand parameters (bearing in mind that infoboxes have a tendency to attract crufty parameters anyway). The two main possibilities I was thinking of are plug in templates as used by {{Infobox album}} I think, and meta-templates where the parameters are passed through local templates utilising the generic fields in a specific way "subdivision name1= commune / subdivision1 = " so to the end user (editor not template hacker) it appears as if it's a custom template, but the style, layout, microformats, maintenance categorisation etc. are consistent. However I have come across two more models:-

  • {{Geobox}}es2: these seem to parse efficiently using the default parameter to drive variations viz: {{Geobox | River | name = ....
  • {{Infobox officeholder}}: this uses a whole bunch of redirects but the key is the skeleton templates for the different roles. This I have suggested elsewhere, but seeing it in action is good. (They could even be subst-only templates themselves to save all that cutting and pasting!)

Summary: It is not an "either one F.O. big template or many small ones" debate, or at least it shuold not be.

Rich Farmbrough, 14:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Don't worry I've withdrawn the nomination and I now hope we can work together to sort the mapping issue out. See my comments to User:Orderinchaos for what my intentions actually are/were. Himalayan 14:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rich Farmbrough, and I think the alternatives proposed are well worth exploring. I've argued for standardisation on some (non-wiki) projects, just as I've argued against it. In this case I think there's room for discussion. But, as it stands, the proposal being made (which isn't the case for the Australian Infobox any more, but still holds for others) was to replace a relativly simple specific-purpose infobox with a more complex but standard generic one. Under those situations, standardisation isn't enough of an argument - a case needs to be made about whether or not there are better models, the total cost of making the change, and what the benefits of standardisation are. :) As an aside, this isn't really about the Australian Infobox, so much as the current process with Infobox Settlement, so closing the TfD helps, but further discussion may be worth doing anyway. - Bilby (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The TfDs I've raised have' been to determine whether "a case [exists] about whether or not there are better models", etc.. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that was the intent, and I have no doubt that the nominations were in good faith, and many are probably warranted. That said, it seems like it may not be best to use TfD to explore options. - Bilby (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself only I am only too happy to listen to options for better integrating the look and feel of IAP with IS (or even an outright merge) if that is what is wanted by the community. However, from the nomination, through to the discussion and beyond, the proponents of deleting IAP have gone out of their way to ensure that there was no local support for the change. If the proponents of standardising on IS are serious about what they want to do, they might start by taking a bit more of a humble approach and engaging with the users of the templates first, taking the time to answer their questions and perhaps developing a model that has a bit of local support. Listing at TfD as a first step does nothing except alienate the very people the proponents of standardisation should be trying to bring on side. Dismissing their concerns as parochialism or GETOFFMYLAWN will only get these people further offside. Not everyone has the same understanding of how complex templates work or even how TfD is supposed to work and some time spent explaining this before listing at TfD would be well spent. I realise a policy of engagement will take more time than simply trying to ram through discussion at TfD but it might actually get a better result.

I am not convinced that the use of IS everywhere is a good thing. We use multiple versions of infoboxes for people rather than a generic version. I see no reason why a similar approach should not be used with settlements. The "Soviet Tyre Factory" approach to infoboxes seems to me to be a poor idea. Widespread use of IS in areas where there is little use or technical support for a specific box seems to me to be a good idea. However, in cases such as Australia, UK, France etc. etc. where the specific box is widely used and is reasonably well maintained, it seems to me to be preferable to keep them reasonably independent of IS. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SVG conversion request for external files.

Can anyone convert these two .ai files into SVG format? I don't know how to do it:

If done, please replace File:KT logo.jpg and File:Olleh KT.jpg on the article KT (telecommunication company) with the SVG files. JSH-alive talk • cont • mail 14:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll probably get the best results at WP:Graphic Lab/Image workshop. hmwitht 15:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&oldid=312478116"