Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.
If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try the one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.

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

« Archives, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196

Channel lineups in Wikipedia

Why are we allowing channel lineups of any satellite or cable in Wikipedia, like List of AT&T U-verse channels, List of Dish Network channels (United States), and List of channels on Sky? Are they supposed to be alternative conveniences to channel lineups from mail, receivers, or official websites? Moreover, they always change. If we cannot ban them, then how are these lists increasing quality of Wikipedia? --George Ho (talk) 05:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed these from other boards, and I completely agree they are unnecessary. Because network channel lineups change all the time, as well as differences between regions, there is no hope for these articles to be relavent ever. We can link to the current lineup that is usually offered by the network provider, but we shouldn't be listing them ourselves. --MASEM (t) 05:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either I will ask one of my mentors to accept my deletion requests, or someone else must tag them as AFD. If these are not that simple, then we must make a policy against them in WP:NOT. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 06:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's already there under WP:NOTDIR - these are electronic program guides. --MASEM (t) 13:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Deletionism is an interesting view here and the articles suffer from great inattention. My review of sources indicates that changes in channel lineups are very frequently a subject for third-party media attention requisite for keeping the articles, but those sources are rarely incorporated in the article. Further, there are plenty of static sources for a historical review to be carried out. Encyclopedicity attaches to the list because it attaches to the changes. However, it appears the motivated pool of editors is primarily interested in forever syncing to what the official websites say "today", which prevents the necessary balance from appearing on the face of the article, leading to a prima facie case for deletionism. I am involved in a separate dispute on one of these articles and I don't mind if AFDs process but I think more time and discussion are needed than AFD typically allows. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know that when there are certain issues with certain channels not being available due to contract negotiations or other wankery, that does make news, but that's information that can be summarized on the provider's page. I have never seen significant coverage of other channel lineup changes. Even given that, WP:NOT specifically says we don't provide electronic program guides. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm AFD'ing the AT&T Uverse one as a test case. If that goes through, I'm proposing a secondary discussion to delete the others in that Category:Lists of television channels by company without AFD. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 33#NOTDIR include current channel listings from July 2010. After the AFDs, this discussion should be brought back to WT:NOT to make the Directory policy more explicit. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is closed as "deleted"; List of AT&T U-verse channels is deleted. I guess: other similar lists may be deleted, as well. --George Ho (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May we do something about other channel lineups right now? None of them are nominated for deletion, and we may face more revising, edit warring, pointless editing on long, complicated table, etc. --George Ho (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must withhold my embarassing comment; I didn't know that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination) is already done. --George Ho (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD was relisted a few or several days ago. --George Ho (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination) resulted as "delete". --George Ho (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky on the same basis as the arguments here and elsewhere doktorb _words^deeds 06:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2nd bundle of channel lineups. --George Ho (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky has been modified to include an expanded list of directly related articles. I'm just letting you know that this has happened so you may add or amend your comments in response. Many thanks, doktorb _words^deeds 03:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of Astro Channels is nominated for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 05:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I've created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of digital terrestrial television channels (UK) as a further extension of the current debate on channel listings on Wikipedia. Your input would be appreciated doktorb _words^deeds 17:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and now we've tripped from a good idea into taking completely the wrong lesson from this, as this UK list is a list of broadcast stations, not channel lineups for individual cable providers. See also the newly opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television stations in New York. postdlf (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question - why stop here? I've already sent a message to one of the individuals who is involved in the mass AfD's referring to UK radio articles: List of radio stations in the United Kingdom, Category:DAB ensemble, their related templates (Template:Digital radio in the United Kingdom) and articles too. What about every TV and radio channel article? We'd probably have to disband a number of media WikiProjects too, as their contributions would likely be at odd with the AfD's being submitted here. I fear these AfD's are driving people who write for media articles on Wikipedia off the website. I myself, are considering the idea of Wikiresigning. For everyone's information, I am the creator of Digital radio in the United Kingdom, a good article and several other media related articles. --tgheretford (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I started the first AFD on the AT&T Uverse listing, the line for me was the contents of the one specific catagory that was by provider. Nothing else. The line, effectively, is that those were lists for doing business with the provider, and lacks the idea of "enduring information". Lists that compile - without respect to provider - all broadcast stations within a country or similar region, are completely appropriate as there's no commercial intent there, and the media of a country can be considered an encyclopedic topic. I personally will fight AFDs that are against my original intent, as I do agree that we should have articles on individual stations (tv & radio) as well as lists appropriate for "media in nation X" discussions. --MASEM (t) 00:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nominations are based on media companies providing a directory of services which are not WP:USEFUL and violate WP:NOTDIR. Well, in the UK we had a directory, the IBA Television and Radio guide listing its channels. Today, it's user generated content from the likes of Wikia. The channel articles would in theory violate WP:NOTDIR on the basis of the aforementioned avenues. Not sure how someone would go around AfD'ing BBC One though (and I rather hope that never happens). Should that be the case, WikiProjects and task forces such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio/UK Radio, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations and related WikiProjects need to be taken to WP:MFD --tgheretford (talk) 09:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to further AfDs, I think there is now a clear consensus, not least because two unsuccessful AfDs which I started. I'd be willing to continue Masem's work of nominating channel line ups connected to provider lists, not geographic ones. doktorb _words^deeds 06:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about radio station lineups, like List of Sirius Satellite Radio stations? Unfortunately, I don't know what to do with non-notable individual satellite stations, like Martha Stewart Living Radio and Pop2K. *ugh* --George Ho (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they are non-notable AfD them, but I seriously doubt that they are, awful though they may be. Rich Farmbrough, 00:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Aren't they specific to Sirius's service, and/or produced by Sirius? Then it's a very different question from the cable lineups, which are each one of many companies carrying much the same stations that are not their own original assets or content. The only question then is whether there are enough individually notable stations in their service to merit indexing them separately from the main co. article. postdlf (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inadvertent canvassing

An editor sent all contributors to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups a note about a new AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Net channels. This is probably a bad idea as it perpetuates the viewpoint from one AfD to another - in this example the contributors to the more vigorously contested earlier AfDs were not notified. Nor incidentally was the key contributor to the article. Rich Farmbrough, 00:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Actresses categorization

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

Biographies
Wikipedia policies and guidelines

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Although it could be insignificant at first sight, the distinction between Category:Actors and Category:Actresses (the latter being a soft redirect currently) could be very useful and handy in Wikipedia, particularly in terms of navigation and accessibility (browsing the entire Category:Actors could be particularly inconvenient, when one needs a narrow subject for research purposes, for example Category:Norwegian actresses). The WP:Cat gender statement "separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed" does not give any reason for that. It's a case where the gender-neutral language seems to be unneccessary, if not troublesome in terms of WP:PRECISION. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender-neutral language suggests gender-neutral language only "where this can be done with clarity and precision", which is not the case. Linguistically, this is especially so when the person bears a unisex name, like Robin Tunney when it's unclear whether it's he or she. The articles about actresses consistently refer to each as "actress", not "actor" and we already have long-standing categories of women by occupation, that have male counterparts: Category:Priestesses, Category:Abbesses, Category:Nuns. Considering all that, I propose this motion to drop the restriction on actresses in WP:CATGRS so that we could restore Category:Actresses and foster all relevant subcats, like Category:Actresses by country. Brandmeister^talk 01:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a gender issue. Traditionally people who are actors who are women have been called actresses, but they have pointed out that no, they are just as much an actor as any male actor. Apteva (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the word "actress" is not an anachronism in English and is obviously neutral as it's neither an offensive word nor a word to avoid. As far as I know it's simply grammatically incorrect to call for instance Jessica Biel an "actor" instead of "actress". Brandmeister^talk 09:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not grammatically incorrect (at least not in standard UK English); the distinction was common in the past, but has now become a lot less clear-cut.

Women did not appear on stage in public in England until after the Restoration of 1660, following which the terms actor and actress were both used to describe female performers. Later, actor was often restricted to men, with actress as the usual term for women. Although actress remains in general use, actor is increasingly preferred for performers of both sexes as a gender-neutral term. [OED 3rd ed., 2010; note to "actress, n", sense 2a] Andrew Gray (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should not prefer some unclear trends over encyclopedic purposes and having double standards (like Category:Priestesses but not Category:Actresses) is odd. There is still Academy Award for Best Actress, as well as a dedicated Category:Film awards for lead actress (not actor). Many dictionaries themselves still have the entry "actress". Brandmeister^talk

Since this is on WP:CENT, I've tagged it as an RFC. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't categorize female actors separately from male ones, just as we don't categorize female singers separately from male ones. The fact that a different word happens to exist doesn't mean we have to use it in our categorization system. I would only categorize by sex in professions where being of one sex rather than the other is somehow exceptional for that profession. Victor Yus (talk) 11:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Victor, and add that Cat:Priestess is a good example of this, because no matter what the religion, the priesthood is almost always dominated by, if not exclusively restricted to, one gender. Diana was served by women, and Jupiter by men. Exceptions to this approach have historically been rare. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Screen Actors Guild, the very union which represents Hollywood actors, gives out the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role. If they want to call themselves female actors, why should we object? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we do categorize singers like that. Category:Female singers by nationality, Category:Male singers by nationality. --Brian the Editor (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just had to add at this point that we have seperate categories such as Category:American female singers. I even at one point made a nomination to get rid of such categories (but retain categories such as Category:American sopranos and Category:American tenors that while geneder specific, are also by voice type) the move was defeated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have enough problems fighting over what sexuality or religion someone is for categorization purposes. I don't think the benefits will outweigh the inevitable conflicts that will arise when it comes time to decide on an article about an actor of ambiguous gender. Gigs (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To all but the older editors like myself, "actress" is a quaint anachronism like "aviatrix", still maintained by certain fogies like the folks who broadcast the awards shows! --Orange Mike | Talk 02:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terms like poetess, authoress and comedienne were used when I was young and they have all fallen by the wayside and things did not fall apart when this happened. As others have mentioned above those in the profession have moved to gender neutral language. As to dictionaries these, especially the Merriam-Webster definition here [1] whose 1st example of usage in a sentence is "my sister went to drama school to become an actor". Other dictionaries here [2], here [3] and here [4] all of which use gender neutral definitions. This writing style guide [5] gives us another reliable source for us of the word actor for both genders. Documentaries like The Celluloid Closet and programs on The Biography Channel and TruTV identify men and women as actors. Although many acting awards retain the term actress the associations that present them have moved away from it as can be seen in the In Memorium segment of this last February's Academy Awards [6]. Our MoS has long had this section Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language and it applies to this discussion as it always has. MarnetteD | Talk 22:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification - Gender-neutral language is an Essay, and not a part of the MOS. Apteva (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality is an editing guideline and it specifically says "As another example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed, but a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest." Apteva (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those terms have, indeed, fallen by the wayside and I'm not averse to combining both categories into one. Still, a distinguishment between the two is still noted (the Academy Awards are a prime example), and a separate actresses category wouldn't be bad. Perhaps there could be "actor" and "actress" subcategories of one larger one, though I'm not sure what you'd name that larger cat. dci | TALK 02:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not look at the link I provided that showed that the Academy Awards listed men and women as Actors, including Jane Russell and Elizabeth Taylor, in the years In Memorium section? They may not have changed the name of the acting award - yet - but they have certainly acknowledged the gender neutral use of the term "Actor". MarnetteD | Talk 15:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that there are two different issues raised here. The more important issue is whether we should categorize actors by gender. Victor Yus, WhatamIdoing, and Apteva address this issue above, and while they give cogent arguments against gender categorization, I think that gender categorization would be useful and appropriate for the reasons noted by Brandmeister, Brian the Editor, and DCI2026. The less important question is whether we should revive usage of the word "actress": since "female actor" accomplishes the same goal without the perceived baggage of the traditional term, we should just go with "female actor" and "male actor" as subcats of "actor". Any "actors of ambiguous gender" can be handled by recourse to the sources (see, e.g. Jaye Davidson, Divine (performer), RuPaul, etc.) or in the unsolvable case left in the parent category.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Female actors" sounds fine to me, if there's going to be categories by gender (I'm not that big a believer in categories in the first place, so I'm also good with not having any distinction). I've heard elsewhere that the term "actress" is older usage in mainstream film and theater, and "actor" (for either gender) is preferred. "Actress" these days may be associated mostly with porn, not that I would know. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We really need to avoid genderization of categories except where absolutely necessary, for the same reason we don't have Category:Gay black liberal actors with a disability. This obsession with labeling people by something that can be discriminated against isn't particularly helpful. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 07:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite. When there is a reason for someone to need to find actors that happen to be female, there should be linked data tool-oriented methods to do so (e.g. DBpedia) - using categories for this kind of extremely basic metadata is not only crude in terms of sophistication but has the many unwanted side-effects of the kind discussed above. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like it or not actor/actress are not unisex roles, an actress plays women, an actor plays men. The cat is as specific/inflexible as category:Spanish male tennis players. As for English, try "the actress Marilyn Monroe" in Google Books, then try "the actor Marilyn Monroe". The current category labelling is not massively helpful, particularly with non-West-European names where looking at category:Thai actors won't be remotely clear to most readers, though List of Thai actors + List of Thai actresses fills the task. (Though I don't think this actor Marilyn Monroe issue is as silly as category:German conductors (music), to distinguish from German conductors (electrical), while we're mentioning unhelpful cat names..) In ictu oculi (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are at multiple productions which focus on males playing female roles and females playing male roles, for example Tootsie and Victor Victoria/Victor/Victoria (musical). In Shakespearean times there were no female actors and males played the female roles. It is certainly plausible that someone somewhere has put on a wig and played Marilyn Monroe, and that someone has cut their hair and played Cary Grant. Why does anyone care what someone's gender is? We have categories of golfers and female golfers and male and female tennis players, because there is a specific golf tour that prohibits males from participation and tennis tournaments prohibit females from playing in the mens tournament and males from playing in the females tournament (though Billie Jean King trounced an aging Bobbie Riggs). Wimbledon now pays identical purses for male and female winners. Anyone can play in the PGA, it just so happens that only one or two females have tried, and none have "made the cut" (Ms 59, Annika Sorenstam, came close). Apteva (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose reinstating the actress categories. I don't care much one way or another about whether the word actress is maintained in the relevant articles, but I see no real argument for why the two genders have to be sorted into two different categories. (If you want to maintain the word "actress", why not Category:Actors and actresses?) Victor Yus sums up my views. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this discussion at CfD. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have asked for that nomination to be withdrawn until this RFC has closed, per WP:MULTI's principle of keeping discussions centralised. Sadly, Lugnuts has declined my request. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I think the a lot of people are missing the real issue. I would say that actress is still used, but would be willing to go with "female actor". We have the article Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress among others which shows people still use the term and I was able to find lots of hits, including some from British newspapers in the last two-years with the google search "Actress picked for Lois Lane". However, it is also clear that actor will be used in gender neutral ways as well, so I am fine with either term. In general the roles people are given (although there are exceptions) corespond with their gender. I think it would work to divide out the actors by nationality categories into male and female sub-sections. There is such a high overlap between singers and actors, I really do not see how we justify dividing singers by gender and not dividing actors by gender, so I think we should divide actors by gender.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should either be merged into Category:Actors or moved to Category:Female actors. Personally I don't see the point of us categorizing every possible human topic by gender, but oh well. Kaldari (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just incase anyone still had a doubt, actress redirects to, yes you've guessed it - actor. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Split We split categories in fields where it is noteworthy to split. In the case of other celebrity fields like modeling or sports, it is so routine to segregate or talk about men separately from women that it would be absurd to not categorize them apart. Since female and male actors are so commonly spoken of separately (e.g. in awards ceremonies), it makes sense to follow that convention while categorizing them. And, as pointed out in the original proposal, this would be a convenient and reasonable scheme for navigation. I can easily imagine the value of sorting through female vocalists just like I could see the value in sorting through females who are actors/actresses. For my money, "actress" is in no way an anachronism and I find "actor" when applied to women jarring. This is purely anecdotal and I don't have any data on how common "actor" as a generic term is versus "actors" for males and "actresses" for females. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Split since we do this for singers, we should do it for actors as well. Actors roles are more determined by gender than those of singers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Ticker symbols in article leads and acting upon this essay as policy

In looking at a recent edit on my watch list, I saw this Wikipedia essay being quoted as policy. While it seems like something that instead should be put into the Manual of Style, something here in this series of edits by User:MZMcBride seems amiss. I would think it to be quite self-serving to create something that appears as an official policy on Wikipedia that you wrote yourself and then act upon that policy as something which has gained widespread consensus with a number of edits to different pages. I also note that this particular user also made a general help desk inquiry into this practice.

Basically I'm bringing this up to the greater Wikipedia community to decide if in fact this is something which should be cited as policy and if these edits by this particular user should stand or be reverted. For myself, I sort of think having the ticker symbols in the lead paragraph of an article to be appropriate even if there is a separate infobox, so I would find it appropriate to even revert these edits... but I'd like to get some general consensus on the issue first. This essay also needs to be reviewed regardless and perhaps if it is to be made policy to be merged into a more general policy document or added to the manual of style as appropriate.

Sometimes issues like this need to be done in this manner in the process of simply being bold, so I don't want to make this sound like this particular user is doing something awful and these are legitimate good faith edits. Still, they do need to be reviewed. --Robert Horning (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where was it cited as policy? Or where did you get an indication that it was a policy?

Can you explain why you feel article leads should contain a ticker symbol? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also this edit where this "policy" was cited as the rationale for the edit... or at least gives the impression that reverting this edit is contrary to policy. I am suggesting that such a "policy" is not necessarily something which has gained widespread consensus on Wikipedia yet, even if it may have additional supporters besides yourself. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You think using the word "per" indicates it's a policy? I'm a bit baffled by your interpretation of basic English.

Can you focus a bit on the substance of the issue? Why do you feel NASDAQ ticker symbols should be in the article lead sentence? Is this a common encyclopedic practice?

And broadly, do you think a policy is required to make article edits? Most of what you've written here in this section doesn't make any sense to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I think is odd here is that you made a page that seemed to be policy when in fact it isn't. You are playing a game here with this edit, as I know you are a long-time Wikipedia user who is trying to rationalize your actions as though this is normal to Wikipedia when in fact it isn't. Others before you have made systemic changes to Wikipedia in a similar kind of bold move, so this action by itself isn't unusual... just creating this page that seems to be oddly self-serving to justify your actions. I am posting here on the Village Pump because I think this sort of action deserves to get widespread attention from other Wikipedia participants and shouldn't fly under the radar. The substance of this issue is being addressed. Note also that I went out of my way to let you know that I posted this on the Village Pump... I just didn't think this was something that should have languished on user talk pages.

It sort of seems like you are offended that I'm bringing this to the attention of other users instead of letting this slide by in the shadows. --Robert Horning (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly offended by your actions in this section. You keep trying to suggest that I cited this as a policy, when I didn't and there's no evidence to suggest that I did. When you use phrases like "slide by in the shadows," I'm not sure how I'm not supposed to be offended. If I were trying to hide my actions, I don't think I would have created a separate page to explain them and then linked it in every edit summary (in capital letters, no less). Yes, I'm really lurking in the shadows trying to improve our articles. What's wrong with you, dude?

I don't have any problem with this being discussed on a village pump. When I first investigated this practice, I went to a very public forum to discuss it (the help desk).

Meanwhile, you still haven't discussed the substance of the issue, which leads me to believe that you don't really object to removing the ticker symbols from article leads. Could you please try to focus on the issue at hand? --MZMcBride (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are making it appear as though this is policy. For a new editor to Wikipedia, they would definitely think that because the quoted essay is in the Wikipedia namespace that in fact it is policy, even if it isn't necessarily tagged as such. This is the game that I see you are playing here and I think it is disingenuous for you to claim that "I didn't cite this as policy". If you wanted to make this policy, you should have gone through at least some sort of motion to come to consensus on the issue. At the very least, you (not other users) should have labeled this as an essay and not as a policy in the first place.

The real issue here is that this action is very arbitrary and can result in edit wars. I don't mind an edit war being turned instead into a flame war, as talk is cheap and doesn't impact the readers of these pages nearly as much. Still, I don't see why your "policy" or assertion that ticker symbols should not be in lead paragraphs is a compelling issue on Wikipedia. You don't like it, but that doesn't seem to be quite as compelling here. This is gaming the system, and I am calling you out on that principle here. Other users are taking the ball from here, but I did feel this needs more attention and not less. You are expressing anger at me because I shined a spotlight on this practice of yours. You are asking for substance on a non-substantive issue that really is just about style and aesthetics. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming the system by making edits to articles? And you've now suggested that any page in the Wikipedia namespace is policy? I'm at a loss as to how to respond to you because you've jumped so far from the ship.

As to the substance of this thread, you seem to have now admitted that there is none. I think I'm finished here. Please stop wasting my time. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure what MZM did might be considered arbitrary, but that's the spirit of WP:BRD. He never claimed it was policy, he merely used the word "per" to indicate that WP:TICKER was his rationale for doing so. Never did he say that rationale was backed up by other editors or the community, but people could see a bit longer reason than what would fit in the edit summary. Bringing it to the pump for better discussion is fine, but now you're arguing over the meta-issue of how he made a change, rather than the substance of his changes. Legoktm (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have no objection to this page being merged into the Manual of Style or to a discussion to gather (explicit) consensus. Personally, as outlined in the page I created, I think these ticker symbols in article leads are historical artifacts that can safely be removed in most cases. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with putting it into the MOS for two reasons. First I disagree and think that it is fine to duplicate the info in the infobox, but I would prefer to keep it where it is more easily seen - right next to the company name. Ditto for pronunciation. Secondly there already is way too much stuff in the MOS - it goes on to 70 subpages already. Apteva (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some kind of length limit you're concerned about running up against? I don't see how it's relevant how long the Manual of Style is. It's as long as it needs to be for a general-purpose encyclopedia that encompasses over four million articles.

Regarding the position of the ticker symbol, can you elaborate on why you think it makes sense to include a particular stock exchange's ticker symbol in the article's lead sentence? Is this a common practice for encyclopedias? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre. Create a page, no discussion, no indication that it is not a policy or guideline, create two links to it, and start using it as if it was policy. Apteva (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Err, where was it cited as policy? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tag as essay? Apteva (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the time being, I've stuck a {{notice}} on it, pointing people to this discussion. It's not an essay per se, but I don't know of a better way to describe it. Legoktm (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with what MZM did. We don't have the ISO 3166 codes for countries stated in the lead, just the infobox. Similarly, it doesn't make sense to have stock tickers in the lead when they fit in the infobox. Legoktm (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO anything in the infobox should be in the article as well. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but that doesn't mean it has to be in the lead section. Legoktm (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. For example, the Google article mentions the NASDAQ ticker symbol ("GOOG") in the body of the article, alongside a second ticker symbol ("GGQ1"). This seems much more appropriate to me. I'm not sure why others disagree, but maybe they'll expand on this soon. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSBOLDSYN hints at it, but only goes so far as to say that if it appears, then it should be bolded. I don't know that the broad stroke of a guideline is necessary here; some acronyms (ticker symbols) will make sense to add and some will not. For example, for the listed Research In Motion on WP:Ticker symbols in article leads, it makes sense to include the symbol as the symbol is just as often found in the context of stocks and trading as in general business or even non-business usage.

I would say that it is definitely the case that if the information appears in the infobox, then it should also appear somewhere in the article proper. The infobox serves a summary purpose at the least, and not an all-inclusive fact box. --Izno (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think declaring that all info in an infobox should also be in the article prose is just as bad as a blanket rule that info doesn't need to be in the article prose whenever it is in the infobox. It should always depend on the particular information in relation to the subject and the state of the article. Infoboxes often have data or dates that makes for awkward prose at best. Honestly, the need many editors have to overdetermine results by applying abstract, absolute rules in every instance is really a detriment to the project. Many things should be left to individual article editors to decide on a case by case basis, and different outcomes in different articles allows for experiments in form and style so we can see what works and what doesn't and make improvements and innovations. postdlf (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that what's in the infobox should be important enough to be in the article in the first place. If it's not important, why is it there? Doesn't have to be in the lead, no, but if the 'data or dates' aren't important enough to make prose out of, why are they important enough to be in the box? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Apple Inc.. Their address in the infobox is "Apple Campus, 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California, U.S.". Is that mentioned anywhere in the article? Nope. Is it still good information to have in the infobox? Sure. As Postdlf says, it's a bad idea to have such blanket policies or rules. Legoktm (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My $0.25... I have cited WP:NASDAQ as the basis for some of my edits. It's not policy and I don't need it to be policy in order for it to be a sound rationale for an edit. I would argue that a company web site URL is actually more likely to be clicked upon and a more desirable piece of information for most readers than the ticker symbol. Yet we smartly avoid putting domain names, external links, etc. in article introductions. So relegating the ticker symbol to a consistent place for all publicly traded companies is just as smart as relegating the (more useful) web site link into a consistent place at the top of the "External links" section. --Ds13 (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this going on as I watch a large number of company articles. Leaving aside the actual issue of whether tickers should be in leads - personally I think this is best left to the editors of the articles to judge - I do agree that an editor creating an essay and then linking to it in edit summaries to justify bulk edits across a large number of articles is not appropriate behaviour. Many less experience editors watching the article(s) will see the link and think that the removal is for some kind of official or semi official reason and will then be far less likely to challenge it. It will not cross their mind, as it might the more experienced/cynical of us, to check who has edited and created the essay, and realise that it was exactly the same editor who is using it as justification for their edits, and that the essay was only created a few days earlier. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I find this a trivial and mostly pointless discussion in terms of the actual placement of the stock ticker symbol, I do find this disturbing in terms of general behavior. I realize that many policies have been created in this fashion (that is how WP:FIVE originally started and now considered foundational to Wikipedia policies) but I think before you engage in a great many edits there should be some sort of consensus. Make a change to an article as a prototype, bring it up to some place like the Village Pump or to a Wikiproject discussion group, and if other editors agree with your concept then you can be bold and start making the changes more widespread.

Other examples where editors have made widespread changes like this across a large number of articles include infamous edit wars like changing dates from BCE to BC and back again or the whole kB vs. kiB controversy that rocked the Village Pump in years past. Wikipedia has weathered these kind of storms before when you had an aggressive editor applying a concept across a large number articles in a short period of time, but there does need to be a point where they are also called on the carpet to explain their actions and get other editors to be aware of what is going on. I certainly don't understand why I'm attacked or being said that I'm insulting simply because I'm trying to shine a light on this practice. I am also concerned about WP:CREEP when things like this happen too. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You view yourself as the Defender of the Wiki and it's kind of disgusting. You chose to dramatize the issue and you chose to try to stir up controversy rather than using an appropriate forum for discussion such as, y'know, the relevant talk page. If anyone's behavior needs a spotlight as an example of how not to act, it's yours. Nobody is attacking you for bringing up this discussion (though the fact that you feel that way only serves as further evidence of your self-martyrdom); people have raised legitimate concerns about your blatant dishonesty in this discussion (calling the page a policy, saying that it was cited as a policy, pretending as though it was done in a cloak and dagger manner, etc.), all of which have absolutely no evidence or basis in reality. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You wanted me to raise an issue on a talk page that was a redlink at the time I noticed the problem? Again, you seem to be very angry at me because I brought this to the attention of others. Absolutely nothing I have done here is contrary to Wikipedia policy or for that matter any different than dozens of other similar issues. Everything I've done here is out in the open and on public discussion pages that are frequently viewed and read by a wide number of editors. I also went to relevant Wikiprojects and notified users on those projects to pay attention to this issue. If you have any further issues, bring it up to ArbCom or at least point out specifically what I'm doing wrong. I am calling you on the carpet here though pointing out that this previous series of edits you were performing was misleading and I still insist that to somebody new to Wikipedia would have been construed as according to long standing policy even though it wasn't. The only disgusting thing I see here is that you got caught when you thought you could get away with something here. --Robert Horning (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I do agree that an editor creating an essay and then linking to it in edit summaries to justify bulk edits across a large number of articles is not appropriate behaviour." <-- This doesn't make any sense. The edit summary field is quite limited in the amount of text it can accomodate. Linking to a page that fully explains the edit and its rationale is surely better for less experienced users, isn't it? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the idea of doing mass edits based on an essay that hasn't had any consensus vetting that's the problem. Changes done en masse do really need to have community backing to avoid disruption. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not indifferent to that. About a month ago (on October 3), I made this exact change with a similar edit summary that linked to WP:NASDAQ to four high-profile articles: Apple Inc., Nokia, Adobe Systems, and Ericsson. I actually expected objections, but after four weeks, nobody had said a word about the changes. So I went ahead and edited a few dozen more articles. Then one person (Robert Horning) decided to make a big deal out of very minor changes and here we are. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Each are watched by quite a few, over 100, Apple right now over 900, but most are only looking for vandalism. An official sounding edit summary like per WP:XYZ is not as likely to be scrutinized. Sometimes change is good, sometimes not. In general people do not like change. They like to get used to things the way they are. The Amish have made a career of staying the same. And they just smile when our power goes out. Apple, by the way, got changed on Oct 3, replaced on Oct 20, removed on Oct 22, and restored on Oct 30. Do I detect a little bit of an edit war? Apteva (talk) 02:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ticker symbols in navboxes

Speaking of ticker symbols, I think the worse practice is the inclusion of external links, ticker symbols, and stock values in the bottom of company navboxes. See for example Template:Research In Motion. Should something be done about that? --Izno (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with having the symbols there, however I believe there should be only one link to nasdaq.com (or whatever) from the stock symbol on a single page (templates, infoboxes included). Legoktm (talk) 11:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I see no problem with repeating the same link in the text of the article on the company, the infobox, and a template at the bottom (which may be collapsed). The template is probably used on many pages that do not have the company infobox. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an advantage to linking it multiple times? ~~I see this as the same as not wiki-linking a word over and over again.~~ And if the article doesn't have an infobox, we can always modify the navbox to accept something like |link stocks=yes to accommodate those articles. Legoktm (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of OVERLINKing text multiple times typically excludes repetition in infoboxes, navboxes, citations, lists and tables. It's meant for readable prose. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

100% agree with Masem. Could not have said it better myself. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. Legoktm (talk) 10:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is in the habit of reading a financial newspaper, the ticker symbol is the most important part of the article, which is why it comes right after the company name. If someone is in the habit of reading general newspapers, and then mostly the comics pages, the ticker symbol is the least important part of the article, and if at all should appear in an info box. However, we do not get to decide who is going to be reading our articles, and need to make them useful to everyone. Is it that difficult to get past the pronunciation gobbly gook and the ticker symbol to get into the text of an article? I clearly do not see that we need a policy to tell us what to do - do whatever seems appropriate, for that article, and discuss any disputes at that articles talk page. But creating a page that says to do something, undiscussed, and only a month ago, and then citing that page as if it is policy, is clearly questionable. Apteva (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have Wikinews for news articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so I'm not sure why the practice of including NASDAQ ticker symbols in the first sentence of the article is acceptable. Can you elaborate?

And can you explain where this page was cited as a policy by anyone? --MZMcBride (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that the ticker symbol should not be used immediately after the first appearance as most news sites do, as there's no context for it. On the other hand, a statement in the lead, stating that "Microsoft is traded on the NASDAQ market under the "MSFT" ticker." may be appropriate if editors' feel the need for such, but it does feel out of place if you alos have that in the infobox. --MASEM (t) 18:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agreed. :-) This is what articles such as Google do, though in case of Google, it's not in the intro paragraphs. There's a separate section which includes the line "The company is now listed on the NASDAQ stock exchange under the ticker symbol GOOG and under the Frankfurt Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol GGQ1." --MZMcBride (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a sentence. It is the practice of every publicly traded company to have the ticker symbol right after the company name in the article about that company. No need to make any change to that practice. The reason why it is there is that it is useful. For someone who does not know why it is useful, that does not matter - it just is. Google was not a publicly traded company and the sentences about the stock symbol were added when it became publicly traded. Eventually those sentences will likely be removed and the ticker symbol simply added to after the company name, just like every other publicly traded company. Sentences are not needed. Ticker symbols are. Apteva (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So are you willing to help revert the hundreds of edits where MZMcBride has recently removed the ticker symbol template from the lead sentence, and cited his personal essay as the reason in the edit summary? UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A mass reversion right now is a bit hasty. In the spirit of WP:BRD, sure you can do it, but then you're just trying to make a point. There's no consensus either way right now, so its probably best to wait for a consensus to be determined, then act upon it. Legoktm (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even a mass reversion is simply the R part of BRD. But instead of doing that it is better to discuss with the editor(s) who is/are doing that, instead of just following them around like a street sweeper following a horse, and get them to help with the reversions. Apteva (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't believe there's any consensus for the inclusion of these ticker symbols in a general-purpose encyclopedia. In the discussion above, opinion seems to be split. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. But opinion being split also means there is no consensus for removing them from the lead sentence. They are, though, in fact, just like the scientific name of a species, or the pronunciation - gobbly gook for anyone not interested, but essential information for anyone who is interested. Apteva (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far I am only checking one ever 500 edits to Google, and find most often the ticker symbol has appeared both in the lead sentence and in the info box, but occasionally it has been removed from the lead sentence. This is how it appeared in 2007.[7] Apteva (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is 100% WRONG to say there is not consensus to include ticker templates in the lead sentence of articles on public companies. The many hundreds of articles that have these ticker templates in the lead sentence constitute incontrovertible evidence of this consensus. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Err, do the hundreds of public companies that do not include a ticker symbol in the article lead constitute evidence of consensus against this practice? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Examples: EarthLink, ECOtality, E-Trade, Einstein Bros. Bagels, etc. It looks to be about half and half. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So we missed some. Added page to MfD. Apteva (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Err, do the hundred of articles that do not have references or sources indicate that there is consensus against having references or sources in articles? All three of the public company articles that are featured articles have the exchange template in the lead sentence. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're here and now, so we should be discussing whether going forward it makes sense to include or omit the ticker symbol in the lead sentence of a company's lead. What exists presently or happened in the past, or the existence of the essay, doesn't matter. It should be decided (via an RFC?) and then appropriate actions taken to reflect that. If the consensus does say to ditch these ticker symbols, then we can promote the essay to guidance. If not, then we can delete the essay. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. It already has been decided, by the hundreds or even thousands of articles that do use it. What is appropriate, is to propose here, should we change that, and if even one editor objects, drop it. Apteva (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is sort of like proposing should we stop making the title bold, or should we move the references to before the see also section. No RfC is needed. Run the proposal up the flag pole, if it meets with an objection, drop it. Apteva (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, "if one editor opposes, drop it", is not how consensus works. I would say, without doing any numerical survey of what exists now, that it is likely the case that most articles on publically-traded companies include the ticker symbol right in the first lead sentence, but that doesn't invalidate the ability to propose a change, particularly one that is more style-guide-ish than content (since we know the ticker symbol is likely listed once more in the infobox). It is fair to RFC a propose to change that, and decide based on consensus, not on the fact one person opposes. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone suggested that readers with a financial bent would enjoy seeing the ticker symbol immediately after the company name. I agree, they probably would. I suggest that at least as many readers, likely many more, would appreciate the convenience of an external link directly to the company website. Clicking through to the company website must be a common pattern of behaviour when reading up on a company, even more so than checking current or historic stock prices. However, for good reason, we relegate those types of peripheral information elsewhere, beyond the intro sentence, BUT easily found in a standardized place (e.g. infobox for company financials, executives, ticker symbols, or top of the "External links" section in the case of the official home page). My position: Serve readers with special needs (e.g. an appetite for ticker symbols or external links) with a standardized place to find those tidbits without polluting the lead sentences. --Ds13 (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This would be far too big a change to decide with one, two, three, or even a dozen RfC's. It would be in my opinion, a disastrous change. We put company websites in the external links section, and in the info box. Not one or the other, but both. Ticker symbols are definitely not "for good reason" or relegated elsewhere, nor is a ticker symbol "peripheral information". They are primary information about a company, as primary as the name of the company. We do have a standardized place to put that primary, not tidbit, information - right after the company name, and there clearly is no reason to make any change. Apteva (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes the ticker link for a company is periphery information from an encyclopedic standpoint; the company's present and past performance is of little encyclopedic value unless it is specifically written and commented upon. For companies, we are here to write about what they do, how they were founded, their history, locations, management, products and services. If their stock performance is of note (as often the case for Apple, Microsoft, and recently Facebook), then that can be discussed in prose. But the here and now of what they are doing presently on the market is not enduring information, and thus is not immediately necessary to provide to the reader, and ergo the link is extraneous to most readers if right there after the company name. If we were a financial news site, heck yes it needs to be there, but that is not what we are. --MASEM (t) 23:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the primary use of a ticker symbol. The primary use is as a uniform link to information about the company. The performance is secondary. The ticker symbol might as well be the company name. But it is impossible to guess why each of the million people in the last 30 days looked at the article on Google[8] or what they were looking for. Hopefully they found it, no matter what it was. An "encyclopedic standpoint" is to provide information that would be useful. Hopefully we are doing that. If we were not, then few people would use WP. [If it is not broken, why fix it?] Apteva (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said this earlier above, but if you think the ticker symbol might be company name, why don't we similarly put the ISO 3166 codes for countries in the lead section or the ISO 639-1 code for languages in the lead section? Arguably those are even more well known than ticker symbols. At the bottom of it, it comes down to the question of are ticker symbols important and prominent enough to justify being put in the lead section, and does doing so enhance our reader's experience? I for one don't think so. Legoktm (talk) 10:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Google as the example, here is where the ticker links to, what you are claiming is "information about the company". None of that that is directly linked is encyclopedic information save perhaps the bottom 1/3rd, the "about the company" prose, which is what we at WP should be describing already. The only use of this information is for someone with financial interest on Google's current market performance. It is not encyclopedic information, which is more than just utility but looks to academic and educational value. Ticker information is appropriate to link to, but not so important to be linked in the first sentence. --MASEM (t) 11:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be clear that each of us is solely expressing our own personal belief as to how important the ticker symbol is. If the ISO code had been important it would have been located next to each country name. As WP evolved, no one thought it was and no one to my knowledge put it there. As WP evolved, everyone thought that the ticker symbol was important and put it next to the company name. It is my opinion that validates it as important. Instead of someone asking on the help desk, where should symbols go, and not getting an answer, and creating an official looking policy and suddenly using it for a justification for suddenly moving all of them and one or two people jumping on the band wagon and saying they are not important, how about just leaving it alone? Like I said, if it is not broken, why fix it? I do happen to know how ticker symbols are used, and no they are not clicked on as a link. Our links do provide some information, but it is the symbol that is important, just as important as the scientific name of a species. Please, just leave it alone. Apteva (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD. Legoktm (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, just because it was done in the past don't mean it is necessarily validation. Consensus can change. That said, I do agree that there is a problem when one creates an essay and then makes a large number of changes in a semi-policy-like manner without seeking consensus, but that's a behavioral issue.

We are here and now discussing the issue whether to include ticker symbols in the first sentence. What's happened in the past doesn't matter, though yes, there is an implicit argument that it was appearantly undocumented standard practice for WP in the past, and a near universal practice for any finance news site. That said, we are free to come to a different consensus (eg, not including them) if that is what we so chose. Remember, we're not wiping ticker symbols: they will be there in the infobox, possible navboxes, and if notable within the body prose. The question here is if they are that encyclopdic necessary to have as the second piece of information, after the company name, that an average reader sees. --MASEM (t) 13:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just want everyone to be aware of the gravitas of the issue. There are according to Bloomberg, 63,000 publicly traded companies. Say we have articles on 1/6th of them. That is 10,000 articles with ticker symbols, likely created by thousands of editors each of whom have an opinion on where the symbol should be located. It is simply not appropriate for a dozen editors to make decisions that affect a thousand. What is appropriate is for a thousand to affect a dozen. I can not say it often enough, the symbol is just like the scientific name of a species, and in my opinion, should be in the lead sentence. And how many articles on companies have I created? Maybe one at most, that I can think of, but I can assure everyone I made sure the ticker symbol was included in the lead sentence. Really, mucking around with where the ticker goes is not helpful. There actually are important issues to fix in Wikipedia. This is not one of them. Apteva (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Apteva. I strongly disagree with a statement of yours, above. You say: "It is simply not appropriate for a dozen editors to make decisions that affect a thousand. What is appropriate is for a thousand to affect a dozen." You just declared Wikipedia (and Internet publishing in general) "inappropriate". Dozens of editors make decisions that affect thousands all the time. It needs to happen that way. Heck, a single editor affects thousands with one well-written essay that will be followed (or not) based on its merit. Again, a good idea does not need to be official policy for dozens or thousands to follow it. --Ds13 (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ticker symbol is not like the scientific name of species, because not every company is publicly traded and has a ticker symbol, while every species is classified with a scientific name. Again, we're not saying that we never should include the ticker symbol, but it is being given far too much undue weight for an encyclopedic coverage (not financial) of a company when placed in the lead sentence like that. And Ds13 is correct on how consensus works on WP. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is publicly traded is important, and that is trivially indicated by including the ticker symbol. Some very large companies are privately held, and therefore there is no ticker symbol. Look I am not saying that someone comes up with a good idea and it affects everyone else. And even some of those brilliant ideas get shot down later as not that great. I am saying that if a thousand editors have been doing something one way, it is appropriate to have that be the deciding factor, not having an RfC and a dozen people deciding to change that all of a sudden, with no possibility of the thousands affected having any say in the matter. Readers is another issue. We now do have a feedback mechanism to help us learn what readers needs are. The last time I checked an article, there was maybe one feedback offered per thousand page views, so it is a very small sample. Here is a test. Put GM back into the lead sentence of the GM article and see if there are any reader feedback comments one way or the other in the next month. Apteva (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And again, that's not how consensus works. It changes with time. There's the influence of "oh, this article does it, so I should do it in this other article" factors, and on and on. The fact that tickers have been used in articles in the past is an argument for keeping them in place, but its not an irrefutable one that other, better arguments can override. This is how the encyclopedia improves with time. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, consensus on a particular practice can change with time. And yes, a change in consensus depends on a better argument. I have not heard a better argument. The only argument I have heard is "it is in the infobox, so we don't need it anywhere else." I dispute that. No one makes that argument with the company's website: it is in the infobox, and in an External links section at the bottom. Why? Because certain users expect to see the website in one place, or the other, or both. The same applies to the external exchange link: some users find it very useful, and expect to see it, in the lead sentence. Have I missed any other arguments? UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not needed in the lead if the infobox has that info already. Corn cheese (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The argument against its inclusion within the lead sentence is that our target audience as an encyclopedia is far different from the target audience of a financial news site. While we should assume that readers know about stock markets and trading, we should be assuming they are going an article on a company to learn about the history and purpose of a company; to these readers, the market and ticker abbreviate are a mishmash of letters. Further when a company is not publicly traded, there's no ticker symbol, at which point it may be confusing to this type of reader as to what the purpose is. There may be a small subset that are interested in the financial performance of the company and will want to see that, but they will also likely be able to flick their eyes to the right and see the ticker symbol in the infobox. I know the comparison has been made to the Latin names for species which are universally added after the common name, but this is the case where it is universal - if we are talking about a species of flora or fauna, there will be a latin name for it. It also serves as identifying the reader's on the right back if the latin name is used as a redirect to the common name. This doesn't apply to ticker symbols. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is completely unconvincing. If we talk about public companies, there will be ticker symbol. Public companies and species are the corresponding sets here. The fact that there is a larger non-corresponding set of organizations (all companies, all organizations, whatever) is irrelevant. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't like tickers (and info such as revenues and employee numbers) at the bottom of company navboxes, which I find messy and out of place, when I create a company navbox, and I've created quite a few, I always leave this out, but why on earth are we trying to impose this one way or another on the actual creators and editors of the templates? Can't the editors of the templates be left to make their own mind up, using the template talk page if necessary? It is hardly spoiling the consistent look of the site for some to have it and some not, since it is a small and unobtrusive difference. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the next time I hear "target audience" I am going to throw up. Our "target audience" is everyone who uses the Internet, bar none. We do not have a target audience. We write articles to be useful for absolutely 100% of all Internet users, from 3rd graders to those with three PhDs and everyone in between. Our target audience is someone who wants to find out what Hurricane Sandy is doing and someone who wants to find out what sand is. Our target audience is someone who wants to know if 2+2 is 4 or 5, and someone who knows quantum mechanics backwards and forwards but wants to find out something. We serve that audience by providing information, and the quicker and easier people can find that information the better. The GM article did have feedback from someone who was disappointed that they did not find out how the stock was performing. Okay, we can add that to the article. We had five people who wanted to find out who created algebra, plus one who wanted to know how algebra was brought to America. No can do on either, but we can and do provide a history. But many of the feedback requests we can add to articles to make them easier to use. </rant> Back to the salt mines. How many articles need to be reverted? Apteva (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing usernames and Harassment incoherent

WP:CHU says: Renames appear in the user rename log and requests are moved to the archives. This is done in the interest of transparency, and there are no exceptions The WP:OUTING part of WP:Harassment saysIt also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. I can't make this two things work together in my head, or even figure out what would actually constitute outing. A recent noticeboard discussion affirmed the that calling a user by their old username was unacceptable. But merely telling a wiki-saavy editor some changed usernames means they can, by searching the logs, figure out the old username in relatively short order. So if I say "editor X used to have a different username," have I just outed them?

A related issue is Rfa records for admins who have changed usernames since getting the bit. Does creating an Rfa redirect under their current name to the name under which they passed Rfa constitute outing?

Just for clarity, I'm talking about users who changed usernames by having a Bureaucrat do their Bureaucrat wiki-magic, not someone who started a new account via cleanstart. Nobody Ent 01:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only such case I'm aware of is the one we both participated in the discussion of, where the issue was not the old username but what the old username stood for. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were two. The earlier one was the user name itself. Nobody Ent 02:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it really depends on the situation. Using CHU does leave an audit trail, but calling attention to it is the same as any other form of outing. There are many ways of figuring out who someone is, I recall that we lost at least one good editor because they had been outed. The point is not how it can be done, but to avoid doing it. If an admin changes usernames it is somewhat academic to have a record of their RfA, and I would think it up to them if they wanted it easy to find or not. Whether they stay an admin is not dependent on how they became one. As a related issue, if someone with an apparent COI has a username that indicates that COI, is it outing to ask them if they are? For example if someone with a user name HillaryC edits the article Hillary Clinton? Apteva (talk) 04:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have found a legitimate contradiction between the two policies, and that WP:OUTING is in the wrong. There is a very good reason we log user name changes. Even with logging, repeated username changes can serve to mask a users real block log. I have some personal experience with this, in that a year or so ago I was involved in a discussion of an indef block for a certain user. People were looking at their log under their current name and commenting on how many blocks they had, which was somewhere around fifteen. After examining their log carefully I discovered they had been renamed four times and each of those accounts had its own block log, bringing the real number of previous blocks to almost forty. It was not outing, and nobody suggested it was, to bring this up. It is not outing to mention a users previous username. It may not always be the polite thing to do but it categorically is not outing. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed that language from OUTING. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wiki rewards for contributing to online content.

Last March I contributed "a quote" from a Leon Tolstoy novel. I don't see it as I open my file. Has it been omitted, or is the quote not visible to the user? rodneyjensen04 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodneyjensen04 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions may be viewed here. Did you contribute without an account? Also, where did you contribute it? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, sometimes articles and contributions are edited by others. Check the page history to see if it was removed. Apteva (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your account was created 28 March 2012 but it has not saved any edit before this question. New users sometimes misunderstand the interface and think they have saved, for example when clicking "Show preview". PrimeHunter (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI RfC

Of interest: An RfC on our COI guideline for editors with an "intractable" conflict of interest. -- Ocaasi^{t | c} 18:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delayed creation proposal

A proposal to prohibit edits to new U.S. election articles until November 7 was largely rejected. Apteva (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another U.S. Presidential Election and Wikipedia once again is being used as a political battleground. A problem with existing tools used to address this, such as AfD and DRV, is that their delay in reaching an actionable consensus allows article space to be used as a battleground while the discussion continues. It's not just the U.S Presidential election, but many elections all over the world result in Wikipedia being used as a battleground right before the election vote. To address this, we may want to look into creating another tool similar to speedy deletion, but instead merely delay creation of the article in article space until after the election. The criteria for delayed creation would give administrators broad consensus to, at their discretion, immediately remove certain pages or media from article space two weeks before the election date until after the election, where the article then would be automatically restored to article space. For example, if we had delayed creation in place now, the policy would allow admins to delete, userify, or otherwise temporarily remove from article space, certain US presidential election political topics created between October 24, 2012 through November 6, 2012 and have them automatically restored/returned to article space on Wednesday, November 7, 2012, one day after the US Presidential Election. An admin's decision to delay creation of an article by removal from article space could be reviewed at WP:DRV. Being an encyclopedia, an at most two week delay in creation of an article seems a reasonable exchange for lessening an ability to use Wikipedia as a political battleground during election season. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am having a hard time seeing the need to deal with this. I'd rather deal with people who abuse Wikipedia than to admit defeat and remove (what should be) decent articles from the article space merely because they attract the wrong sorts of people. Existing tools are more than adequate. --Jayron32 12:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This doesn't solve the problem it is intended to solve. Sure, right now, it means that US election topics would "blink" out until after the election, but the timing window is easily gamed for later events. Not to mention the nontrivial issues with even attempting to implement this. What are the criteria? It cannot be "anything election related", both because the project does not need layers of process specifically for US political events, and because some articles about current topics are legitimate. I cannot imagine any set of criteria that would receive widespread consensus. And, indeed, this proposed process is self-defeating; DRV is acknowledged as one of the loci of "delay" and debate, but DRV would have jurisdiction to review this sequestering as well. As Jayron notes, existing tools suffice. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose - Not only is this WP:CREEP as there are plenty of existing policies in place which prevent any abuses that this sort of policy change would address, but it also seems to be violating WP:CENSOR as well. There can (and may very well) be topics that come up at the last minute which are notable and otherwise do not justify anything in current deletion policy. I also fail to see why events in the USA should be singled out in such a way either. Delaying creation of an article for anything other than WP:CRYSTAL seems like a misplaced rationale. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The election-time "problem" I'm hearing is: 1) too much encyclopedic information gets added, and/or 2) a lot of non-encyclopedic gets added. Problem #1 cannot be solved; it's simply a fact that our lives as editors get harder when events like this take place. More encyclopedic information is good. Problem #2 is solved by using the existing consensus of sound WP policies to keep out non-encyclopedic or unduly-weighted or poorly-sourced or self-published or COI or newsy material. New policy not needed. --Ds13 (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even though I essentially just did what this proposes with my close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2012 (2nd nomination). In that case there was a consensus that despite the notability of the topic, the article we had on it was fatally flawed. I therefore deleted it and protected it from recreation until five days after the election. This sort of thing should only be done on a case-by-case basis and should not be standard procedure. As others have noted it would be easy for clever users to game it, exacerbating rather than resolving the issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a joke, right? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it was proposed in genuine good faith with the intent to improve WP, but it has basically no chance of ever being implemented and I would advise the proposer that there is no shame in acknowledging the WP:SNOW nature of the response so far and withdrawing it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC regarding CSD

For those who may be interested, there is an RfC regarding a potential new CSD criterion. The RfC can be found here, and please feel welcome to weigh in. AutomaticStrikeout 22:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Piped link to redirect vs. direct link

Policy (WP:NOTBROKEN) states that there is no need to pipe a link to avoid a redirect, and to leave the existing source as it is. I am trying to figure out how to address the reverse case where the link is piped to a redirect page and the unpiped link would have gone to the target directly.

As an example, which of these changes (if any) should be made? (Note: "Venus (planet)" is a redirect to "Venus".)

[[Venus (planet)|Venus]] → [[Venus]]

[[Venus (planet)|Venusian]] → [[Venus]]ian

[[Venus (planet)|Venerian]] → [[Venus|Venerian]]

If there is a specific policy? I could not find one. Thanks.Novangelis (talk) 02:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN reads: "[[redirect|target]] may be replaced with [[target]] if [[redirect]] is not a {{Redirect with possibilities}}." The specific example you give is probably a remnant from a bygone era (2006), when Venus (planet) was the name of the article. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It was staring right at me, and I completely missed it in the multiple negatives: an exception to a "do not", requiring the absence of a category. The only possible policy improvement I can think of is an explicit instruction to check the redirect for categories before making changes, and I'm not sure if that would be an improvement. Mostly, I need to increase my awareness of categories.Novangelis (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it would be nice if the categories added by {{Redirect with possibilities}} and related templates were not hidden for most readers. As it is, you need to edit the redirect or examine its history or have enabled the option in preferences to display hidden categories. older ≠ wiser 16:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement in article Jackie Brown (film)?

Hi, what's wrong with the article Jackie Brown (film)? In the section Plot, there is underlined link at words "money" which (if you roll your cursor on them) have advertisement to some pages www.ufxmarkets.com. I have tried other articles with word money in them, but they are normal. Why that? --213.155.255.148 (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that now it's everywhere. Just word money. Maybe fault on my side. --213.155.255.148 (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's just you. Something your browser is doing, or some kind of malware on your computer, because it's not part of the article page code. postdlf (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked up my Mozilla's supplements and it seems like some Yontoo was making all troubles. Now it's OK. --213.155.255.148 (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - What is the test for free-content? - Does Wikipedia respect foreign copyrights or only US law?

What is the common-sense test for free content on the free encyclopedia? Is it "US law only", or "the same as on Commons", or something else?

Request for Comment here

9carney (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't have a discussion of Wikipedia policy issue on an article talk page... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons requires that the free content be usable anywhere in the world, so content there must be free everywhere in the world. For en.wiki, we do allow free content that at minimum qualifies as such under US law (it may also be free in other countries, but US law freeness is required). --MASEM (t) 17:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Masem summed this up perfectly. No RfC should be needed unless you desire to change something. Ryan Vesey 17:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, I think. According to commons:Commons:Licensing, works are required to be free in the US and in "the source country of the work"; other countries aren't supposed to matter. OTOH, I don't know whether in practice something with no connection to a country such as Germany and public domain in any country that might be considered "the source country of the work" might not be deleted anyway, thanks to weird Commons politics. Anomie ⚔ 18:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the reason the Wikimedia Foundation has a lawyer is explicitly to cover this particular issue... not just for the WMF but Wikipedia as a project. If you are asking a legal question, I'd suggest that you either contact the WMF directly, or better yet seek your own legal counsel by hiring a lawyer who understands copyright laws in your location. In other words, talk pages and other articles on Wikipedia are not really places for legal advise.

This said, note that the Wikipedia servers themselves are located in Florida, and as such are subject to the laws of the State of Florida as well as the United States of America. Normally that just means you need to worry about federal law, but some state-level laws do apply too (harassment and some death threats might apply Florida law, for example). Copyright law is obviously U.S. law.

Note though if you are editing a Wikipedia article you can be legally liable for copyright violations both in whatever country you happen to be editing the article in, and in the country where you may hold citizenship. If you are a Saudi subject on vacation in Germany, you may have both Saudi, German, and American laws apply to what you edit in Wikipedia simultaneously. While it may be safe for an American to be adding some kinds of content, you might get in trouble if you are working on an article and you aren't an American citizen. Note this is one of the reasons why non-English Wikipedias have different rules for copyright, since often a majority of the participants may need to worry about copyright in another country in addition to American laws.

This issue has been debated to death on the Village Pump and elsewhere, so reopening an old discussion is real pointless. Note that even Wikimedia Commons does not really have a restriction on having content which must be legal in all countries, as there are nude images and content like a swastika or images of Mohammed or God that are illegal in some countries around the world. In theory almost anything could be considered illegal somewhere, or at least would make it impossible to run a project like Wikipedia if it had to be legal to use everywhere. Common sense is that we have a an encyclopedia that we want to write, so as long as content is added with permission of the person who created the content (images, music, even text in articles) or is generally free for anybody to reuse, you should be fine. Fair use is real tricky and is like going into a rabbit hole in terms of what is legitimate or not. According to U.S. law, fair use is only a legal defense where you are taking a gamble each time you end up in a court room and is subject to whatever whim a judge thinks at the time really is fair use or not... usually based upon legal precedence and issues like the 1st amendment. Wikipedia tends to try and stay on the safe side of these issues where ample legal precedent and shown them to be legal, like showing corporate logos in articles. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for handling citations imbedded in quoted text

An example

An excerpt quoted from an article by Robb and Heil runs as follows:

"Some philosophers (e.g., Davidson 1963; Mele 1992) insist that the very notion of psychological explanation turns on the intelligibility of mental causation."

In the bibliography of this article is found the information:

Davidson, D., 1963, “Actions, Reasons, and Causes”, Journal of Philosophy 60: 685-700. Reprinted in Davidson 1980, pp. 3-19.

- - - - – – – –, 1980, Essays on Actions and Events, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

The query arises as to whether it is appropriate to replace the reference (e.g., Davidson 1963; Mele 1992) in the quoted text with a footnote containing the bibliographic information, or whether it is preferable to leave the citation in the quotation as it is, and leave it up to the reader to seek out the original article and search its bibliography.

A subtlety of this question is the following: the authors' provided bibliography provides some information about the source, but typically a WP footnote contains more information, for example, in this case one might find:

Davidson, D. (1963). "Actions, Reasons, and Causes". Journal of Philosophy. 60 (23): 685–700. Reprinted in Davidson, D (2001). "Chapter 1: Actions, Reasons, and Causes". Essays on Actions and Events (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 3–19. ISBN 0199246270.

It should be noted that the WP footnote above refers to the second edition of the Oxford text, not the original edition cited by the authors.

The proposal

The proposal is that introducing links to on-line versions of sources is an aid to the reader to be encouraged, and a switch to more recent editions of works than those actually referred to is OK provided the updated source does not include serious modifications of the original text. Where some concern over content is warranted, the WP footnote can be supplemented with a caveat such as This is a later edition of the source cited in the original work, and has been somewhat revised (condensed) (supplemented), or some such disclaimers.

Is there an existing policy or guideline on this subject? If not, should one be drafted? Any comments? Brews ohare (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine any case where there's citations in a quote where the quote can either be stripped down or paraphrased as to still include the original citations as WP inlines within the text, and still citing the work for any remaining quotes or paraphrased info. Eg in the above, if the original is as you say, then it could be rewritten as "Robb and Heil [1] identified some philosophers [2],[3] that claim the 'very notion of psychological explanation turns on the intelligibility of mental causation'." The original quoted line is not one that needs to be repeated verbatim so manipulation to rephrase it as to make it easy to include all sources is fine. --MASEM (t) 17:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Masem: I believe you are suggesting in this instance that the quotation be avoided, and some paraphrase with footnotes be used instead. Thus, a direct quote like:

"Some philosophers (e.g., Davidson 1963; Mele 1992) insist that the very notion of psychological explanation turns on the intelligibility of mental causation."

should not be recast as:

"Some philosophers (e.g., [2], [3]) insist that the very notion of psychological explanation turns on the intelligibility of mental causation."

with WP versions of citations [2], [3]; but instead as (perhaps):

Robb & Heil have suggested[1] that according to some philosophers[2],[3] "the very notion of psychological explanation turns on the intelligibility of mental causation."

That seems to duck the issue of misrepresentation in this example, but in general a paraphrase seems to me more likely to introduce inadvertent distortion than going with the original full quotation using footnotes to the authors' sources. In addition, for a long quote, say a paragraph with several author's sources interspersed, breaking up the quote with circumlocutions becomes awkward. What is your objection to simply using the author's sources as WP footnotes? Brews ohare (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add a note:

"Some philosophers^{[Note 1]} insist that the very notion of psychological explanation turns on the intelligibility of mental causation."
— David Robb & John Hall

Notes

^ Davidson, D., 1963, “Actions, Reasons, and Causes”, Journal of Philosophy 60: 685-700. Reprinted in Davidson 1980, pp. 3-19.
----––––, 1980, Essays on Actions and Events, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Dcshank (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2012

Dcshank: Your proposal then is to simply use only the information provided in the original source as a WP footnote, and to avoid providing extra information such as isbn numbers, more recent editions, Google links to articles and books, and other items not provided by the original? Isn't that an unnecessary limitation, imposing extra work upon the reader? Brews ohare (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be using excessive long quotes, and I would again have a hard time imagine that if we are using a long quote that has several interspersed references that we cannot paraphrase (as we are allowed to do) as to keep the quoted sources' original sources in a manner to make it clear that the paraphrase is based what the main author said by pulling info from their quoted sources. My only problem is that putting WP cites inside a quote is disrupting the quote, and to leave the cites as is is unhelpful to the reader. You should nearly always be able to paraphrase around that problem. --MASEM (t) 18:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A plausible workaround is to footnote the quote itself and provide references to the cites there (possibly in a see also or somesuch). — Coren ^(talk) 19:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think putting WP footnotes within the quote is misleading. How about this: put a WP footnote at the end as in:

"Some philosophers (e.g., Davidson 1963; Mele 1992) insist that the very notion of psychological explanation turns on the intelligibility of mental causation."^[1]

or

"Some philosophers ... insist that the very notion of psychological explanation turns on the intelligibility of mental causation."^[1]

and have WP footnote #1 mention both the original citation (or ellipsized text) and the newer/fuller cite/link info. --Noleander (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noleander: To put your suggestion concretely, the example becomes:

"Some philosophers (e.g., Davidson 1963; Mele 1992) insist that the very notion of psychological explanation turns on the intelligibility of mental causation."^{[Notes 1]}
— Robb, David and Heil, John, "Mental Causation", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Notes

^ See, for example, Davidson, D. (1963). "Actions, Reasons, and Causes". Journal of Philosophy. 60 (23): 685–700. Reprinted in Davidson, D (2001). "Chapter 1: Actions, Reasons, and Causes". Essays on Actions and Events (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 3–19. ISBN 0199246270. and Mele, A. R. (1992). Springs of Action: Understanding Intentional Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 019507114X.

In this way there is no implication that the authors have endorsed this representation of their sources. Is this your suggestion? Brews ohare (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close, but not quite. Footnote #1 would also indicate (in fact, its primary purpose) the source of the quote itself. Its secondary purpose would be to provide details/links about the sources mentioned in the quote. For instance:

"Some philosophers (e.g., Davidson 1963; Mele 1992) insist that the very notion of psychological explanation turns on the intelligibility of mental causation."^{[Notes 1]}

Notes

^ Robb, David and Heil, John, "Mental Causation", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Robb & Heil are citing Davidson, D. (1963). "Actions, Reasons, and Causes". Journal of Philosophy. 60 (23): 685–700. Reprinted in Davidson, D (2001). "Chapter 1: Actions, Reasons, and Causes". Essays on Actions and Events (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 3–19. ISBN 0199246270. and Mele, A. R. (1992). Springs of Action: Understanding Intentional Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 019507114X.

--Noleander (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something should be done to indicate that the WP citations are not exactly those of the original authors. Perhaps this:

Versions of the sources cited by Robb & Heil are: Davidson, D. (1963). "Actions, Reasons, and Causes". Journal of Philosophy. 60 (23): 685–700. Reprinted in Davidson, D (2001). "Chapter 1: Actions, Reasons, and Causes". Essays on Actions and Events (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 3–19. ISBN 0199246270. and Mele, A. R. (1992). Springs of Action: Understanding Intentional Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 019507114X.

Is this any improvement? Brews ohare (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that looks good. My point was simply that the WP footnote should be at the end of the quote, not inside it. Within the WP footnote should be all info you want to present to the readers. If it gets lengthy, the footnote can be broken into multiple paragraphs. --Noleander (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noleander: Building upon your remarks, let's look at a more extended quotation and how that might be handled:

"Some philosophers (e.g., Davidson 1963; Mele 1992) insist that the very notion of psychological explanation turns on the intelligibility of mental causation. If your mind and its states, such as your beliefs and desires, were causally isolated from your bodily behavior, then what goes on in your mind could not explain what you do. (For contrary views, see Ginet 1990; Sehon 2005...)."

How would the WP footnotes be placed here? One could try this:

"Some philosophers (e.g., Davidson 1963; Mele 1992) insist that the very notion of psychological explanation turns on the intelligibility of mental causation."^{[R 1]} "If your mind and its states, such as your beliefs and desires, were causally isolated from your bodily behavior, then what goes on in your mind could not explain what you do. (For contrary views, see Ginet 1990; Sehon 2005...)." ^{[R 2]}^{[R 3]}
— Robb, David and Heil, John, "Mental Causation", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Notes

^ Versions of the sources cited by Robb & Heil are: Davidson, D. (1963). "Actions, Reasons, and Causes". Journal of Philosophy. 60 (23): 685–700. Reprinted in Davidson, D (2001). "Chapter 1: Actions, Reasons, and Causes". Essays on Actions and Events (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 3–19. ISBN 0199246270. and Mele, A. R. (1992). Springs of Action: Understanding Intentional Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 019507114X.
^ Versions of the sources cited by Robb & Heil are: Ginet, C. (1990). On Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 052138818X. and Sehon, S. (2005). Teleological Realism: Mind, Agency, and Explanation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 0262195356.
^ Quotation is from: Robb, David and Heil, John. Edward N. Zalta, ed (ed.). "Mental Causation". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2009 Edition). {{cite web}}: |editor= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

How does this look to you? Brews ohare (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revised proposal for handling citations imbedded in quoted text

As a result of comments provided above, here is the proposed guideline for handling references imbedded in quoted material:

Proposal

In quoted material with imbedded sources, it is helpful to the reader to supplement the reference in the quoted text with footnotes following the quotation containing extended bibliographic information using one or more of the customary Wikipedia templates such as Template:Cite book, Template:Cite journal, Template:Cite web.

An example

An excerpt quoted from an article by Robb and Heil runs as follows:

"Some philosophers (e.g., Davidson 1963; Mele 1992) insist that the very notion of psychological explanation turns on the intelligibility of mental causation. If your mind and its states, such as your beliefs and desires, were causally isolated from your bodily behavior, then what goes on in your mind could not explain what you do. (For contrary views, see Ginet 1990; Sehon 2005...)."^{[R 1]}
— Robb, David and Heil, John, "Mental Causation", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The WP footnotes are placed following this quoted text as follows:

"Some philosophers (e.g., Davidson 1963; Mele 1992) insist that the very notion of psychological explanation turns on the intelligibility of mental causation. If your mind and its states, such as your beliefs and desires, were causally isolated from your bodily behavior, then what goes on in your mind could not explain what you do. (For contrary views, see Ginet 1990; Sehon 2005...)."^{[R 1]}^{[R 2]} ^{[R 3]}
— Robb, David and Heil, John, "Mental Causation", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Notes

^ ^a ^b Quotation is from: Robb, David and Heil, John. Edward N. Zalta, ed (ed.). "Mental Causation". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2009 Edition). {{cite web}}: |editor= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Versions of the sources cited by Robb & Heil are: Davidson, D. (1963). "Actions, Reasons, and Causes". Journal of Philosophy. 60 (23): 685–700. Reprinted in Davidson, D (2001). "Chapter 1: Actions, Reasons, and Causes". Essays on Actions and Events (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 3–19. ISBN 0199246270. and Mele, A. R. (1992). Springs of Action: Understanding Intentional Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 019507114X.
^ Versions of the sources cited by Robb & Heil are: Ginet, C. (1990). On Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 052138818X. and Sehon, S. (2005). Teleological Realism: Mind, Agency, and Explanation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 0262195356.

Is there any comment regarding this revised proposal? Brews ohare (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Heil-1] Davidson, D., 1963, “Actions, Reasons, and Causes”, Journal of Philosophy 60: 685-700. Reprinted in Davidson 1980, pp. 3-19.
----––––, 1980, Essays on Actions and Events, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

[Heil-2] See, for example, Davidson, D. (1963). "Actions, Reasons, and Causes". Journal of Philosophy. 60 (23): 685–700. Reprinted in Davidson, D (2001). "Chapter 1: Actions, Reasons, and Causes". Essays on Actions and Events (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 3–19. ISBN 0199246270. and Mele, A. R. (1992). Springs of Action: Understanding Intentional Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 019507114X.

[Heil-3] Robb, David and Heil, John, "Mental Causation", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Robb & Heil are citing Davidson, D. (1963). "Actions, Reasons, and Causes". Journal of Philosophy. 60 (23): 685–700. Reprinted in Davidson, D (2001). "Chapter 1: Actions, Reasons, and Causes". Essays on Actions and Events (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 3–19. ISBN 0199246270. and Mele, A. R. (1992). Springs of Action: Understanding Intentional Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 019507114X.

[WP1-4] Versions of the sources cited by Robb & Heil are: Davidson, D. (1963). "Actions, Reasons, and Causes". Journal of Philosophy. 60 (23): 685–700. Reprinted in Davidson, D (2001). "Chapter 1: Actions, Reasons, and Causes". Essays on Actions and Events (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 3–19. ISBN 0199246270. and Mele, A. R. (1992). Springs of Action: Understanding Intentional Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 019507114X.

[WP2-5] Versions of the sources cited by Robb & Heil are: Ginet, C. (1990). On Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 052138818X. and Sehon, S. (2005). Teleological Realism: Mind, Agency, and Explanation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 0262195356.

[Robb-6] Quotation is from: Robb, David and Heil, John. Edward N. Zalta, ed (ed.). "Mental Causation". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2009 Edition). {{cite web}}: |editor= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[Robb-7] Quotation is from: Robb, David and Heil, John. Edward N. Zalta, ed (ed.). "Mental Causation". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2009 Edition). {{cite web}}: |editor= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[WP1-8] Versions of the sources cited by Robb & Heil are: Davidson, D. (1963). "Actions, Reasons, and Causes". Journal of Philosophy. 60 (23): 685–700. Reprinted in Davidson, D (2001). "Chapter 1: Actions, Reasons, and Causes". Essays on Actions and Events (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 3–19. ISBN 0199246270. and Mele, A. R. (1992). Springs of Action: Understanding Intentional Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 019507114X.

[WP2-9] Versions of the sources cited by Robb & Heil are: Ginet, C. (1990). On Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 052138818X. and Sehon, S. (2005). Teleological Realism: Mind, Agency, and Explanation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 0262195356.

[Note 1]

[Notes 1]

[Notes 1]

[R 1]

[R 2]

[R 3]

[R 1]

[R 2]

[R 3]