Wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy)

This page is for discussion about the village pump only. You may want one of the village pump subpages above, or one of the links on the village pump main page. Irrelevant discussions will be moved or removed.

Daily pageviews of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Section sizes in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Section size for Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) (26 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	1,812	1,812
Notifying Wikiprojects and WP:CANVASS	71,227	71,227
"Failure to thrive"	49,830	89,524
Rethinking	38,686	38,686
Notable topics with advert/COI "failure to thrive" issues	1,008	1,008
Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification vote! How should we spend a billion dollars?	92	27,862
section break 1, charter topic	10,480	10,480
section break 2, charter topic	9,346	9,346
section break 3, charter topic	7,944	7,944
MOS on date format by country	14,094	14,094
How the understanding of due weight affects the application of NPOV	44,395	47,961
arbitrary break	3,566	3,566
Unnecessary delay in publishing articles translated for $$ by an NGO	56,249	57,315
arbitrary break (translated for $$)	1,006	1,006
Notes (translated for $$)	60	60
Policy on the fair use of photos of children who are only notable for their deaths	8,214	8,214
Policy against demands of proof of non-existence	15,658	15,658
Species notability	94,495	122,633
Arbitrary break 1	28,138	28,138
Another exemption to 3RR and 1RR	1,438	1,438
Notifying previous voters and WP:CANVASS	1,310	1,310
Not writing about yourself or someone/something you're close to	1,914	1,914
Wikiproject procedures for WP:NOTNEWS in reference to active storms	16,458	16,458
WP:OWN should be merged	8,336	8,336
How to use a master's thesis as a source	2,335	2,335
Nothing is forbidden	6,517	6,517
Total	494,608	494,608

« Archives, 1, 2

Request for advice

I believe I'm trying to do the right thing, but am willing to admit when I might be wrong on a subject.

Short summary:

User:Hammersoft started an RfC

Some people responded

User:Andrwsc pointed out there were sub-issues involved in a sub-bullet

I was involved in both series of discussions and, when I realized that a simple statement wasn't going to accurately summarize each of the related issues, I started another sub-bullet which touched on points in both the original RfC, the added section, and other related matters.

Now some people in the discussion feel that these sub-bullets do not belong in the RfC and have set them aside as separate bullets. However, I believe that changes the discussion (comments like "see above" and "what I said earlier" no longer make sense). Additionally, my comments directly relating to the RfC (see here) will also not be included in the discussion). This will only be made worse if the bots archive the discussion and it is further separated from the original comments.

I have tried to point out that this moving/re-bulleting of comments doesn't follow WP:TALK and I feel this is an attempt to exert ownership over a discussion. I have tried to discuss this with those who have done such a move:

With User:Camelbinky, my request for clarification was simply deleted with no explanation: [1]

With Hammersoft, I've had a series of discussions. It's hard to summarize or even show diffs as he keeps removing comments (this isn't any insinuation that he's done anything wrong, but simply a statement that it can be hard to follow), but I'll do my best: [2][3][4]

A conversation with Mr. Z-man seems to have hit the same brick wall as with Hammersoft, sans the profanity/accusations of impropriety.

I've tried a different way at doing this and I hope this meets everyone's approval: [5]. This still focuses the intent on the original RfC issues, but still leaves the rest as a footnote that will be appropriately archived with the rest of the discussion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. As I've said repeatedly, if you want to answer questions you have regarding trademarks and their usage here on Wikipedia, start your own RfC. Piggy backing your 7 questions onto the 2 questions asked by the RfC disrupts the RfC and severely muddles the picture. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't own it and cannot dictate what happens in the discussion or how later discussion evolves. It isn't your RfC.
I have no specific issue with splitting the discussion into components as they already had their own subheadings, but it should be done properly, as I've tried to explain to you but you've derisively/pejoratively dismissed as Wikilawyering.
In order to make this easier for you, please just pick what you'd like to have done and I will do all the work: 1. Put it back simply in the format it was originally in (not likely your pick, but I'll still leave it as an option) 2. Appropriately split it as annotated in WP:TALK.

Your basic intentions are fine, noble, and appropriate (appropriately headers for discussions). It's the application I have a problem with. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, just start your own RfC. All of this argumentation is pointless. Multiple people have disagreed with you on whether or not to include an extra "=" before/after the section header where it is split. The amount of noise generated over this vs. the two characters were talking about...the ratio has got to be 2,000:1 now. Enough. Leave it alone. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must have missed #3 (see above) where I explicitly mentioned the process that should have been followed from the beginning (which is my only major beef). You obviously reject the first listed option (again, your choice), so I have fixed it IAW WP:TALK. Previous edits were far more than just two characters, so let's not pretend like they never happened... — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, why is my name mentioned here, especially without contacting me? If I am a party to something then please contact me so I can defend myself. I deleted an unwanted unsolicited post on my talk page because 1- it was rude and obnoxious 2- I read it 3- I have no want to get involved with drama, it didnt mean enough to me to respond. I think I should be commended for not involving myself further instead of demonized for not responding. Deletion of posts on your talk page after you read them is allowed and is common practice, even certain admins do that. Please dont involve me in this drama, while I do think the sections should be separated I dont want my name involved as if I did something wrong. My edit was legitimate. Please strike the post with my name or better yet delete it altogether. Thank you.Camelbinky (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your name is mentioned because I attempted to contact you to clarify what you'd done. Instead of responding you deleted my message with no response. That is all I stated. I never said there was anything wrong with what you did, merely that nothing came out of my attempt at dispute resolution.

I do not need to contact you to state what I've done and the results of my actions.

There was nothing rude nor obnoxious in what I stated on your talk page. It was a statement of my take on the situation and a request for clarification since your edit summary gave no rationale other than "this is needed" and you didn't leave a note on the associated talk page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely irrelevant question

Does anyone know who originally came up with the name "village pump"? Cause I think it's brilliant. Equazcion (talk) 01:10, 30 Oct 2009 (UTC)

I can't say with absolute certainty. But it looks as though it was created by Ed Poor (talk · contribs) with this edit back on 29 July 2002. older ≠ wiser 01:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Language icon templates

Resolved

Does anyone know why we are using icon's here when Wikipedia:Accessibility and Flagcruft#Remember_accessibility_for_the_visually_impaired say we shouldn't forget our visually impaired readers? Shouldn't these provide alt text or just be text? Gnevin (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are just (formatted) text. They are not images. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they're poorly named and aren't really icons in the usual sense. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah ,sorry about that. They where appearing like icons to me yesterday or maybe I just didn't look properly, either way that answers my question Gnevin (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unequality shown in the enforcement of 3rr

There is at least one academic study of wikipedia which has stated that Wikipedia rules are unevenly enforced, but these conclusions appear only based on general observation.

Does anyone know if there are other academic studies which discuss the idea that wikipedia rules are regularly unequally enforced?
I think the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring noticeboard would be the most likely page to study.

Okip 12:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]