This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 5 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Discussions older than 5 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These discussions will be kept archived for 9 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 9 days the discussion can only be found through the page history.
My editing on articles on "Jacques Pluss" and "National Socialist Movement (USA)."
I noted that my recent editing on both of the articles above was removed. It was decided that I seemed to be using the articles to publish my own websites or blogs. New information was contained in those sources, but I do respect Wikipedia's decision, do not wish to contest your removal of my editing, and I thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Dr. Jacques PLUSS.
I am sure this must have been discussed at sometime (many times?) before, but should blind tagging of articles be allowed. Shouldn't there be a policy enforcing explanation on the talk page if you are tagging articles with the broad maintenance templates like {{NPOV}}, {{cleanup}} etc. It is very irritating to visit articles with such tags and then try to figure out what really is wrong. If there is no explanation accompanying the tag, then I feel we should be able to as blindly revert the tag, without it being called edit warring. The onus to explain should lie on the person tagging the article. -- Lost(talk)05:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases, as with {{sources}} or even with a lot of cases with {{npov}} and {{cleanup}} it is quite obvious by looking at the article where the problem lies. Also, edit summaries should be sufficient; if people are editing the article, they should fix the problem and if no one is editing the article the edit summary will remain at the top of the history; though, it doesn't always work that way. —Centrx→talk • 05:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not always obvious especially if one puts the tag at the top of an article without an edit summary. The least the taggers could do is put the tag at the appropriate section with an appropriate edit summary. What does this edit explain? If you see the history of the article, there are a series of such edits -- Lost(talk)05:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The good faith assumption is that the people putting the tags really have a reason to be concerned. Contact them on their talk page and ask them politely why they keep adding such tags. However, repeated attempts to add such tags to an article, when other editors have made good faith attempts to request a reasonable explanation, and no explanation has been provided, could point to point making or could also be obvious triple revert violations. If the editor in question is being deliberately disruptive, and has been warned repeatedly as such, then report them at Administrator intervention. However, make sure that the editor has been politely ASKED for justifications, and then repeatedly WARNED. We need due process before accusations of bad-faith disruptions should be made. --Jayron3206:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jayron. Earlier today I added a WP:WEASEL tag to the article on the Bahamian politician Perry Christie because of some very obvious weaseling and POV pushing, e.g. ...many people understand that the Christie government has acted wisely, even though sometimes being very deliberate in their decision making. I also marked the relevant areas with a {{citation needed}} tag, and edit-summarised that change. The reason I used a tag rather than actually improving the article was because I really don't know enough about Perry Christie to rewrite the relevant statements. I think I acted correctly. Walton monarchist8910:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anything more than an occasional 'citation needed' tag makes the article look TERRIBLE to the reader - when some random person comes along and sticks one of these on the article without saying why on the Talk page - I look to see if it's obvious why it's there and if it's not, I leave a note on the talk page asking for clarification and delete the template with a "rv: See Talk" in the edit summary. There is no purpose to having the banner there if the article's editors don't know what the problem is. If the tagger can't fix the problem themselves, they should at least have the manners to explain the problem on the talk page...and be prepared to come back and discuss it further if need be. I've seen situations where tags are essentially no better than vandalism - but it's hard to tell if no other information is present. It's all very well saying "Contact the tagger via their talk page" - but it might be another week before they reply (if they reply) - and it could be another week after that before you get back to reading their reply....in the meantime, the article has been looking terrible for weeks! SteveBaker22:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tags asking for sources or citations are pretty self-explanatory. After that, it gets much murkier. In any case, why not assume good faith on the part of the existing editors: If the problem seen by the tagger were obvious to everyone who has edited the article, the article probably wouldn't have that problem. Also, a lot of tags go unaddressed for months, so one doesn't know who left the tag. I have mentioned this on the project page for the {{limited geographic scope}} tag, because there is often legitimate room for disagreement. If a piece of medical equipment is little used outside of the richest countries, how does one increase geographic scope? By reducing the article to a stub until the rest of the world catches up? (Don't laugh -- I had someone actually suggest as much.) If the concerned editor can't be bothered to do more than tag and run, then frankly, I don't take the criticism very seriously. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The least one could do is watch the page after tagging. That way, the tagger can reply when someone finally gets around to asking, "What's the problem with xxx? What do we need to do to fix it?" Instead a batch of editors who don't see the problem tend to stare one another in the face. Maybe the problem was addressed months ago and the tag left? Eventually, someone is bold and untags the article. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never put an npov or pov tag on an article without explaining on the Talk page. That's a sure-fire way of getting your tag removed without anything being changed. User:Zoe|(talk)19:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know that many of you are editors, but imagine for a moment that you are an encyclopedia user in need of information of some sort. You open up your Encyclopaedia Britannica and find the article related to your question, only to be confronted with an imposing box reading "This article may not be written from a neutral point of view" or "This article may require cleanup".
Maintenance tags may be useful in drawing the attention of editors to articles that could indeed use some improvement. But they are fundamentally disrespectful toward the reader. In particular:
They may unjustly cast aspersions on the facts contained in the article
Their absence from an article may create an undeserved confidence in the article's contents
They are fundamentally an opinion, often of just one person
They may discourage people from improving the article (it is easier to just leave a tag)
They have indefinite life spans with no obvious criteria for removal
They are ugly
But this is not just an appeal to be selective in your use of tags. I implore you to be aggressive in your deletion of the darn things (within Wikipedia rules, of course). From what I observe, a tag is usually left by a single individual (often robotically assisted), with no corresponding discussion on the talk page, even if the tag promises one. These should be deleted immediately. Some are in the wrong place, perhaps at the top of the article though they only apply to one section. Some are vanity tags, some are exceptionally ugly, some are just silly. Nearly all belong on the discussion page, not in the article itself.
Please don't delete "spoiler" tags, as these do serve a purpose to the reader. And I don't object to the "This is a stub" tag if it is placed discretely at the bottom. But please help me fight the proliferation of these opinion tags. They were placed there by one person. They can be deleted by one person, and perhaps you are that person.
Non-latin characters in titles
The specific gaffe in question is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lǐ (李) (surname). The argument is that the names are actually different but are pronounced the same in English. However, there are several people arguing to seperate the articles because each of the names are unique (which they are, they have no conflation except what conversion to English gives them.) This technically violates Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and although this is bad for the reader, any other alternative is worse. So I'm posing the question here: is it worth the unreadability for English readers? My gut says that it is not. ColourBurst05:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The names (of which there might be two, three, four, five, or even more completely different surnames per English spelling, such as "Li") are distinguished by Chinese character as well as by tone (high, rising, low-rising, and falling) -- although some have the exact same pronunciation and tone (though different characters). Badagnani09:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation seems in order here. We have an ambiguity, and thus need to solve it with a disambiguation page perhaps. The source of the ambiguity is unique, in that it is in translation that the ambiguity shows up, but it is a real problem. I woudl recommend setting up a disambiguation for Li (surname) to each of the different chinese characters that COULD be translated as Li in english. --Jayron3206:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a reasonable exception. The idea of using Latin characters is primarily to stop people from moving such articles as Bejing to whatever the Chinese characters for that would be. (Radiant) 09:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
are there any latin transliterations that make a distinction? if so then theese are probablly preferable (english speakers are going to find it hard to remember chineese characters) Plugwash15:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are (in some non-Mandarin Chinese languages/romanizations, these are spelled and pronounced differently), but they'd violate some other convention of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (namely, that Mandarin Chinese is to be used in all Chinese articles except people names, and only if they're known by English speakers by some other name). ColourBurst17:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Romanization system that uses different spellings for different tones, but it is quite unwieldy and known by few people. Ludahai23:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have to assume that English language readers are not going to type some chinese character or other into the search box and click "Go". So putting that into the name of the article isn't going to help people to find it directly - instead it will utterly guarantee that they'll stand NO chance of typing in the correct article title. If the reader types in just 'Li' then they must arrive at a disambiguation page no matter what - it's the only way they'll stand a chance of finding the correct article. The other time it matters is when you link to the article - then you can use the [[XXX|YYY]] to put in whatever clarification is justified in the 'YYY' part - so we don't need the chinese character in the title for that reason either.
OK - so I can find no compelling reason why we should use these characters. However, there are several compelling reason why we should not' allow this:
As an English speaker and keyboard user, I can't type in that chinese character (because I have no clue how to type that exact splotch or even which one it is) - which makes it hard for me to make links to that article.
The pronunciation reason is bogus. As an English speaker, it's really unlikely that I could either pronounce or describe that chinese character - so I can't possibly tell a friend over the phone "Hey - look at the Wikipedia article on Li (????)". However, if the title was Li (actor) or Li (guitar player) or something then there would be no problem.
Do you literally mean non-English, or just non-Latin? As I have recently learned to my dismay, and discussed in another place where this same issue arose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#English_Wikipedia.27s_policy_towards_using_of_Chinese_characters_in_title), at least some "Latin" characters that are used in other languages, but not English, have found their way into titles on English Wikipedia. Moreover, there does not seem to be any policy against it. Hence we have such article titles as Stanisław Lem (note the stroke in what would otherwise be an "l", and Piñata. That tilde over the "n" in "piñata" is not simply a diacritical mark, which (I think) would be bad enough, but rather connotes a whole separate letter (Ñ) in the Spanish alphabet. Apparently now this is also a letter in the English alphabet, at least on Wikipedia. I don't think it's a good idea. As Jimbo Wales stated on his talk page (see "here" link above), this "Li" issue with the Chinese character presents a different and very unique issue. Unfortunately however, it does not represent a new phenomenon -- characters from outside the English alphabet have already been making their way into article titles. 6SJ700:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The use non-English characters in the titles (and more so elsewhere where redirects are of no avail) cause enough problems with hiding of information from reasonable searches and the like. It is totally unacceptable to have characters that are not some varant of the Latin alphabet characters in the article names. Gene Nygaard08:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Links to lyrics sites
I posed a question at Talk:Lonely_Girl when a link I added was removed for link spam. Someone replied with "...editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception...Sites that violate the copyrights of others" and that sites with song lyrics violate this. The reason I added some links to lyrics is because there are many pages with links to these sites. Specifically, here are a few searched I conducted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I assume these should be removed? Scott 13:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The policy in question is Wikipedia:Copyrights, which (surprisingly to me, who is unfamiliar with Floridian law) bars us from linking to sites that break copyright themselves. It's fundamentally important that we comply with our copyright policy, regardless of whether we like it or not - otherwise WP could be shut down. I imagine that unless it is clear from a site that it reproduces lyrics with permission, we should assume that it does not have that permission. jguk13:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly a copyright violation. Despite the prevalence of lyrics websites (and I hate to say, but I have used them for personal use myself, when say, learning a song on the guitar) they are all clear copyvios. You cannot get around a rule by letting someone else break it. Thus, since we cannot reproduce entire song lyrics here (except for short quotes for review purposes; that is fair use), we cannot also direct others to sites that do the same. The fact that lots of wikipedia articles are breaking the rules does not make it right. They should all be fixed post haste and any found in the future should also be fixed. --Jayron3220:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK fair enough. I'll start removing some; if others can do the same that would be cool.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Svivian (talk • contribs)
Links to lyrics that are copyright violations are obviously a bad idea, but lyrics on official sites (if a band posts their own lyrics) and lyrics of public domain songs would be fine. --Milo H Minderbinder16:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are articles on shopping centers allowed on Wikipedia?
Hello all. I have been a Wikipedian for a couple of years now, and have edited many existing articles on local shopping centers in Phoenix, Arizona, where I live; and the San Francisco area, where I am originally from. Two of the articles on Phoenix malls were speedy deleted yesterday, citing lack of notability. The argument from the admin was that shopping malls in and of themselves are not appropriately notable since there are few scholarly "reliable secondary sources" available to support the text of each article (outside of local newspaper articles); and therefore such articles fall under the category of directory listings, which I have come to understand are not allowed on Wikipedia at all.
My argument in favor of inclusion would include the following assertions:
1. Shopping centers are a topic of great general local interest.
2. Shopping centers are critical in many ways to local economies. Neighborhoods (especially in the heavily suburban western United States) live and die based on the opening, closing, health, or lack thereof, of any one mall.
3. Shopping centers are notable examples of local architecture - at the very least, they generate debate on architectural merit.
4. Shopping centers are community gathering places and have become the modern "town square", making them relevant from a social and cultural standpoint.
As I stated on WP:DRV, it sounds like Wikipedia is moving towards eliminating ALL individual articles on shopping centers as they do not fit notability requirements as stated. If the articles I have questioned are deleted (and the consensus is currently leaning towards endorsement for deletion), the same must be done to about 75% of the rest, in the interest of fairness. If that is the case there could be hundreds of articles so targeted.
Can an official policy be formulated and publicly stated on the relevance, appropriateness, and/or notability of individual articles on shopping centers? If they are not allowed, that should be explicitly stated somewhere on an official policy page accessible to all editors.
Furthermore, is there a place where major announcements of page deletions and other policy implementation are made to all editors?
And lastly, can editors have the option to relocate such articles to other wikis or other resources on the Internet that may be a more appropriate home?
While I have not yet read the DRV, there is a general and a specific concern. The general concern about any topic is whether an article can be written from the neutral point of view. In order to do that, we require sources independent of the topic and its proponents. If the only sources for a topic are a combination of self-published material and relatively trivial and/or routine news coverage (the annual Black Friday stories on the TV news), then there is no way to write an NPOV article.
With commercial ventures, the specific concern is that Wikipedia not be turned into a venue for advertising, and specifically to raise a Google ranking. There is the further awareness that a commercial establishment will employ advertising and press releases to raise its profile, so many editors try to be vigilent to identify puff pieces and unedited press releases.
Now, some malls are unquestionably notable, just as some companies are unquestionably notable. The Mall of America is at least as famous as many small cities. Suburban Square is considered by some to be the first mall, and so might be a good candidate for an article. On the other hand, I can't think why anyone who doesn't live within twenty miles of the place would care about 99% of the malls in the U.S., and that includes the ones at which I shop.
Your point about "fairness" is a bit off-the-mark. Each mall needs to be evaluated on its own merits, and since Wikipedia is not an advertisement, covering one mall does not mean that we have to cover all similarly-situated malls. There will always be marginal cases, and there is no way to ensure consistency across all of them. Moreover, consensus can change, so you will always find some inconsistency, because articles are written at different times. Robert A.West (Talk) 12:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the excellent criterion requiring the subject's relevance outside itself were generally applied, Wikipedia would be lightened of much less-than-marginal cruft. --Wetman13:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LOCAL is a useful guideline here. I would agree that many of these deserve coverage, but in most cases the potential for expansion is severely limited; merging into a more general article (or better, initially placing the information in a more general article) is often the best solution. -- Visviva15:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What impact has the mall had beyond its own community? A routine shopping outlet full of nearly franchise and chain stores would not merit conclusion, but there could be exceptions. The original Sherman_Oaks_Galleria was in several films and a hit song. DurovaCharge!16:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. It sounds like many of the individual articles that exist on malls may indeed be targets for eventual deletion in the future, if the guidelines I have learned about are to be applied on a case-by-case basis. I can tell you right now that several other similar articles to the ones I submitted to DRV, including a few more I have made edits to, do not pass the test. Perhaps this is the impetus for me to investigate alternative places on the Internet, maybe through Wikia, that might serve as a more useful home for this information, which I maintain has a high degree of validity. Please be assured that it is not my intention to come on Wikipedia and knowingly violate rules. Any suggestions on alternate places to go, if you know of any, would be of interest.--Msr69er17:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My own opinion is that some malls are notable, but that doesn't mean that all of them are. A mall should be evaluated as any other business per WP:CORP. If it is genuinely notable, meaning that it's had non-trivial mentions in the news, or had a scholarly book written about it, or meets other listed qualifications, and if references which can be used to verify the information are listed in the article, then I can see keeping a Wikipedia article about it. If, however, an article has little information except, "This is a big mall in Cleveland", and there are no references aside from the mall's own website, then the article, in my opinion, should be nominated for deletion. I'd also point out that I've been seeing many new articles show up that seem to be being created by real estate developers who are using Wikipedia to promote a property which is up for sale. Per the request from the Wikimedia Foundation[1], we should be aggressive about getting rid of this kind of spam. --Elonka19:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did many of the recent mall deletions end up being a combination of Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles + possible G11(spam)? In my case (Gurnee Mills), that's what it ended up being (there was a spammer who was peripherally involved in the article, turning it into a borderline G11 even though it wasn't necessarily G11 for most of its life; plus it had the forementioned no-sources issue, something we haven't yet been deleting articles for). It just would have been nice to have been given the 5 or 14-day warning to look around for sources before it was deleted. I've managed to find a few, and once I find one or two more, I'll recreate it from scratch. *shrug* Whatever. --Interiot20:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Submit a deletion review for Gurnee Mills; I agree, that was a perfectly valid article that shouldn't have been speedily deleted (I always check the history of a G11 article before deleting; 42 edits from numerous articles means it isn't a single-purpose article, and at worst, should be sent through AfD). Make sure to drop me a line if you submit a DR. EVula// talk // ☯ //21:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that there is a somewhat uneven coverage of shopping malls in Wikipedia. In particular, there are not articles for some of the largest malls in the world. I was somewhat surprised by this, given the importance of malls in commerce worldwide. There is also a variety of scholarly investigation of malls, and the evolution of their appearance over the years. I think frankly there should be an organized attempt to rectify this situation.--Filll19:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Malls don't completely fit into the mold of WP:CORP. Yes, they are almost always private, but they have, in many cases, replaced traditional downtown business districts. Furthermore, despite being private, they are generally open to the public, and are used for get-togethers. Many also have completely public spaces, often as a result of a tax agreement. For example, they might house a county's library or have meeting space that is rentable to the public. I thus don't see them as purely fitting into WP:CORP. -newkait-c22:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My comment: wikipedia is not a city guide. Someone might develop an interest in "gas
stations with friendly attendants", and start listing them on Wikipedia. There has to
be some standard of appropriateness. Richiar17:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Afd's-Tfd's-Cfd's
I've recently engaged in a couple of template-for-deletion and category-for-deletion exercises. I won't go into what they were, but on both occasions, the subjects clearly did not meet WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV policy in any way. This was shown to be the case by more experienced users in the debate. However, enough of what I would describe as tendentious or misguided users were in support of these templates and categories to kick up a cloud of sand. It would seem to me that the closing admins took one look at the handful of keep votes, judged the subjects "no consensus" and these were kept. My questions are, how seriously does a closing admin take policy when considering votes for deletion compared simply to counting votes? And why would a "no consensus" automatically mean keep? Wouldn't it be wise to consider a "no consensus" to mean delete, particularly in the case of controversial templates that will likely inflame disputes?
Another way of putting this is, if enough goons voted to keep a category called, say, "People who smell", would that lead to a keep on the basis of "no consensus"? --Zleitzen17:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally the closing admin is supposed to look at the arguments presented rather than the simple Keep vs Delete counts. If you don't like the final decision you could ask the closing admin why they made the decision they made, they might answer your question. As for why a "no consensus" in a XFD would result in a keep, the idea is to make it difficult to actually delete things from Wikipedia. If it weren't difficult than encyclopedic topics that were controversial would suddenly find themselves up for XFD and deleted. On the flip side, if a WP:DRV is created a "no consensus" would result in the topic not being recreated in Wikipedia. --Bobblehead17:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I too was of the belief that admins were supposed to look at the arguments. In the case of an article, it is the responsibilty of an editor to ensure an edit meets WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV or it will likely be deleted. However, in the Xfd's, it seems to work the other way round. The onus seems to be on the editors who wish to delete the material to gain universal agreement. If this is not forthcoming, which is unlikely due to a few votes by tendentious or naive editors, then we are left with a "no consensus" decision which keeps categories etc regardless of how much they violate the basic tenets. There seems to be a conflict between adhering to policy and adhering to consensus (or lack of in this case). With a lonely admin making the final call. --Zleitzen17:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the application of the onus being on the submitter to delete an entire topic is rightly placed. An XFD is more a discussion of why the topic should be deleted, rather than why the topic should be kept. If the content of the topic violates the three pillars, then the discussion can be done via the topic's talk page or via the dispute resolution process. If consensus is there to remove content that violates the three pillars, then it can be removed and if certain editors become tendentious, they can be sent through the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing process.--Bobblehead18:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
if enough goons voted to keep a category called, say, "People who smell", would that lead to a keep -- yes, but then if you go the other way then all it takes is for someone to nominate (say) Mathematics and 'enough goons' to vote to dump it and we have to get rid of it because there isn't a consensus to keep it! In the event of a dispute, we have to favor keeping things to dumping things or a few idiots can dump valuable data. Having a bunch of crap pages (which nobody in their right mind is going to link to or to search for) has very little negative impact on the encyclopedia...compared to great articles being dumped by an annoying few. SteveBaker00:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, that's not how xFDs work (or, at least, are supposed to work). Consensus/majority vote is not the be-all and end-all of a closing admin's decision. The admin needs to take into consideration the merits of the various arguments. If everybody said, "Keep it, it's cool", and one person said, "But there are no sources", that one exception should prevail. User:Zoe|(talk)19:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Admins are supposed to weigh the arguments, precedent and policy, and not just count "votes". As Wikipedia grows this will be more and more important. If xFD's are closed by "vote" counting there will be more and more gaming of the system. If people realize that one well stated argument can trump dozens of impassioned "votes" people will put more effort into discussion. This is the only way to counter vote spamming, and restore civility. More about this here. -- Samuel Wantman09:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is an element of the question, however, that is not really being addressed, and that is - when an admin is dealing with this process, does s/he take actual policy into account at all? Many, many AfDs (for example) involve a lot of users arguing for a keep with no basis in policy and ignoring very clear and valid arguments that point out policy violations. Yet I rarely see an admin delete an article per policy when there is a "consensus" to keep it. Wikipedia may be built on consensus, but there are policies in place to ensure that a "consensus" of 15 people out of the 2.5million users can't preserve an article like List of fictional rooms.--Dmz506:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a role for closer's judgment, but there is also a role for humility. I've seen admins err in the opposite direction in closing AfDs, and simply decide that they like one set of arguments better than another, when the discussion shows that numerous editors have come to very different thoughtful conclusions. Or they invent whole new arguments that weren't aired in the actual discussion at all -- as when an article on a Chinese college was recently deleted for failing to meet WP:N, a non-policy which no one had even broached in the discussion. -- Visviva15:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable sources on Talk pages
Here is the scenario:
An editor proposes some content he wishes to include on the main page and cites sources (a online self-published book) to support his opinion. The consensus opinion during the discussion is that the sources are not reliable and the content non-mainstream, and therefore the content should not be included on the main-page.
The question now is:
Should this discussion be deleted from the talk page in order not to give undue credence to the minority POV ?
Should only the minority unsupported POV be deleted from the talk pages?
Should only the non-reliable sources cited by the original editor be deleted from the talk pages so as to not give the free-hits to the cited website ?
Should the discussion, including the citations, be left as is for future records ?
Is there any Wikipedia policy covering this scenario ? Just to clarify : (1) there is no dispute on the unreliability of the cited sources, (2) the original proposal was not plain vandalism, although it could possibly be advertisement for the cited sources.
The above scenario is not completely hypothetical. It arose on the Hindusim talk page. (Complete disclosure: I was one of the parties involved) My interest though is to understand the general wikipedia approach to this issue and not in that particular instance. Abecedare 04:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Note : I edited my post to number the 4 options for easy reference Abecedare05:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would trust WP editors to make up their own minds. I believe we try not to delete any "Discussion" page content unless removing vandalism. Badagnani05:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the user wishes to place it on the talk page, fine. For admission to article it must meet WP:RS for sure. The discussion should be kept, no reason not to. In conclusion, keep on talk delete from article-space.BakamanBakatalk05:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Yes, if the links pop-up on the main page, and the links do not meet WP:RS, then move them to the talk page, write a sentence on why they are unreliable, and then delete from main page. I know you deleted them, I'm just saying hypothetically, of course. 3 & 4 seem to be the right thing to do.BakamanBakatalk15:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There has to be some soul-searching. What's the call of conscience? Are the intentions good? No policy can exist on hypothecation. Isn't righteousness intended while taking benefit of Wikipedia policy? Is the inclusion of links Abecedare strived meet the criteria of righteousness? Do we go by interpreting words of Wikipedia policy or objectives? I wish Abecedare that you look for the call of your conscience, is your act noble? swadhyayee05:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I, uhm, agree... or something? Are you just telling us to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, or are you getting at something else? (I'm not sure what providing accurate information to our readers has to do with the criteria of righteousness...) --tjstrftalk05:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
imo removal of talk page discussions that aren't blatant vandalism is not generally a good idea. Links in the talk page are nofollowed so won't effect search engines and the discussion of why we chose not to include the content will also be there for human visitors to see so i don't see a problem. Plugwash05:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (favor 4). It is important to keep the discussion on the talk page, so that the next time somebody comes up with the idea of citing this unreliable source, they can read the previous discussion and save everybody lots of time. I hope that someone will undo the deletion which appears to have already occured in this case. Matchups14:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Talk page discussion, unless obvious vandalism, obvious off-topic spamming, or in violation of WP:BLP or similar, should always be kept. In particular, "free hits" or potential Google pagerank influence is not a useful critera for Wikipedia to adopt.--Stephan Schulz14:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page discussion should be kept intact as much as possible. A one-sided POV is not sufficient for removing talk page discussions. Not using appropriate references that meet Wikipedia standards are not sufficient for removal from a talk page either. If a talk page were a copyright violation, slanderous to others, vandalistic giberish or violated policy regarding biographies of living persons, then there could possibly be a reason for editing or removing an entry. If it were obvious commercial spam, rather than a valid discussion and statement of a view on a topic, that might qualify too. Atom13:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A discussion may be removed when considered vandalism or, may be - though I'm not sure - by the user who posted it. Any other deletion of discussions should be considered vandalism in itself. These discussions builds the community, generates policies and generally keeps the banner of freedom flying for the free encyclopedia. I hope Abecedare would agree to that. - Aditya Kabir17:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Use of vernacular scripts in India bio articles - 1
This is a request for some direction regarding the use of vernacular scripts in some India related articles. There have been numerous on-going disputes in articles such as Vidya Balan, Rabindranath Tagore, Jana Gana ManaBollywood and dozens others. These disputes are based on which scripts to use and even on which order they should appear. The use of these script in my opinion does not add any value. This is an English language encyclopedia. If the scripts are initially intended to provide pronunciation tips, then they are not needed as the reader able to read the scripts already know how to pronounce them. Rather these scripts are used to label someone's ethnicity, leading to regional and linguistic chauvinism. I think there needs to be a policy drawn up to encourage discontinuing these scripts unless they fulfil some useful function in the article. - Parthitalk/contribs05:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This question has previously been raised on the policy pages (by me). The problem continues. One user in particular is incensed by the use of Nastaliq script to write names. He believes that this indicates an origin in an Urdu-speaking (and thus probably Muslim) community and should function only as an ethnic/religious marker. Some editors add script, then he removes it.
The result of previous deliberation here was that no enforcement of tolerance was possible until we had a general policy. I think I've got a possible general policy. If we need a pronunciation guide, we use IPA. If we are quoting a written work, such as a Sanskrit or Arabic text, we can use the script, as is often done in scholarly discourse. Otherwise. non-Roman script is not to be used with names, proper nouns, etc. However, we CAN put such scripts, or foreign versions of the words or names, in teeny type in a box at the bottom of the article, IF there exists an article on the same subject in the Wiki in that language. So a name in Devanagari script would link to an article in the Hindi Wikipedia. There is no requirement to make such scripts, and such links, visible, but it can be done if editors wish. Since the criterion is existence of an article, the scripts cannot be used as covert ethnic/religious tags. If more than one script is used to write the language, then all scripts can be given (if supplied) and they are NOT to be deleted by adherents of rival scripts. (Not just Devanagari and Nastaliq here, but PROC and Taiwanese versions of Chinese script, etc.) Comments? Zora07:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Script should be in the language of the state that person originates from. Urdu should only be used for a mulsim indian or a pak.--D-Boy07:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is another problem here: not all "Muslim" Indians speak Urdu. For example, those from West Bengal are very unlikely to speak Urdu as their mother tongue. Similarly, not all Pakistanis speak Urdu as their mother tongue (yes, it's their national language, but not the native language of the majority). --Ragib07:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Urdu is no way connected to being a muslim or a pakistani.In Indian biographies, Urdu script should be added only if his/her mother tongue is urdu .-Bharatveer 07:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Bharatveer07:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If we are talking about a Tamil Muslim like Abdul Kalaam (say), then an Urdu script is inappropriate because his native language is Tamil (Tamil Muslims even read the Koran in Tamil, not Arabic).It's about native Language. A Pakistani may not have Urdu as a mother tongue either, as he could be a Sindhi or Punjabi or Pashtu, in which case both Urdu and Sindhi/Punjabi/Pushtu would be appropriate. Urdu as the national language of Pakistan and Sindhi/Punjabi/Pushtu are the regional languages (dunno is Pakistan uses the term "Mother Tongue" in any legal context, probably not).An Indian would have his/her name in both Hindi and the native script, whatever that is, whether Urdu, Marathi, Gujarati, Sindhi, Bengali, Telegu, Malayalam, or whatever. The Hindi needs to be there on account of it being the national language, and the mother tongue (officially regarded as such) would also be there. Only official mother tongues must be recognized. I do not know what is the position of Pakistan government regarding non-Urdu languages, so am speculating about them. I can be certain about India, obviously.Hkelkar07:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I doubt if there will be country specific policies. At best, we should work on this at WP:MOS or come to an agreement at Wikipedia:WikiProject India. As this is unique to India related articles, more relevant input is likely to be found there. — Lost(talk)07:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know she speaks a particular language or not? Her father is of Bengali ethnic origin, and mother is Marathi, but does that mean she speaks either of these languages? I'm not saying she speaks or doesn't speak any of these languages, but how do we know which one is considered to be her "native" language here? --Ragib08:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we do know that she Bengali and that she's part of mukerjee clan. I think the script is appropiate for that situation. An article say like SRK or even Big B would be appropiate for Urdu. Big B's father was an urdu writer.--D-Boy08:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a problem, because you can't be sure that; just because her father is Bengali, she speaks the language (unless there is info as such). I mean, we should not deduct these things about someone's native language. Jawed Karim's father is Bangladeshi, but he doesn't list Bengali as his native tongue. --Ragib08:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Bengali would be appropiate in that article since he is of bangladeshi descent. If ethinicity and religion are going to get in the way of things such as this, than we should just have it as English...especially for bollywood stars.--D-Boy08:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that this is not just a problem limited to India-related articles. I am spending much less time on Islam-related articles, but there's a trend there for people to add non-Roman scripts with abandon. It starts with Arabic, someone adds Persian, someone else adds Turkish, etc. There are indeed persistent problems related to Abbasid-era luminaries, with Arabs and Iranians scuffling over who gets to claim the luminary for bragging rights, but those tend to be waged over specific statements re ethnicity. Scripts aren't being used, as some editors here would have us do, as ethnic-religious markers.
The problem is that many people are unclassifiable. Insisting on classification WITHIN a nation-state strikes me as utterly bizarre. Zora09:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not bizarre. It's completely logical. What's bizarre is having the urdu there. Especially, say when a person is blatently bengali! As for the Islam related articles, I don't get involved there. We had one user threaten another one from there on the phone! What we are discussing as to do with Indic articles, not islamic ones.--D-Boy18:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The solution is merely keeping the scripts from their ethnicity (vidya balan - tamil/ malayalam), this policy has worked on all the Category:Bengali people (due to the hard effort of WP Bengal) articles. Wikilink to other articles. As for Big B, I usually wouldnt support nastaliq, but his dad was a famous urdu poet, and Big B was more than likely raised learning urdu.BakamanBakatalk15:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we label someone's ethnicity? This will only lead to unproductive disputes and edit wars on the various articles. If the vernacular scripts are not there only to provide information on the subjects ethnicity, then they are NOT needed. - Parthitalk/contribs18:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy if it was just english on the bollywood articles, hindi movies, and indian entertainer bios. Everything else usually isn't a problem except for maybe the punjab situation. But how will you enforce such a policy? Will editors follow it? We have no manual of style on this. Will this apply to chinese, japanese, korean, arabic...and so on. They have scripts for all their articles.--D-Boy02:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second Parthi's idea that all vernacular scripts be removed. They don't serve any purpose really. I was thinking about this for a long time. If the purpose was to deliver the pronunciation to local readers, then there are 20 odd Scheduled languages in India, and thousands in the world. This is English Wikipedia. Pronunciation can be given thru IPA, if needed. If a link is needed for similar article in other languages, that is what the inter-language links on the sidebar are for. May be we can go into a straw poll regarding this. This stuff needs a cleanup and will significantly reduce the unnecessary indic name translation on English Wikipedia and the edit wars that come with it. -- Chez (Discuss / Email)00:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion and the one at Talk:Vidya Balan are leaning towards removing these scripts. If we can draw up a policy for India related articles to disallow vernacular scripts for new articles, we can retrospectively edit the hundreds of Bollywood and India bio articles over a period of time. The main intent of this discussion is to reach an agreement on the use of the vernacular scripts. The consensus seems to point to not using these scripts. Please correct me if I'm wrong - Parthitalk/contribs19:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Parthi, from my understanding, those participating in this discussion support removing Indic scripts from Indian Biography articles, not Bollywood film and song and other India-related articles. Correct? Thanks, AnupamTalk19:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that there is no need for the non-roman scripts in any of the articles in an English language encyclopedia unless they convey some unique information not conveyable otherwise. Hence the scripts will have to go in all artiles. Before tackling the world at large, let us tackle something closer to our home. If we can draw up a policy for India related articles, WP:MOS can be influenced to impact all other articles aswell. IMO these scripts add no additional information and have been a source of endless point scoring and linguistic and regional rivalry. - Parthitalk/contribs20:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I am opposed to this policy. I can understand the ethnicity issue with Biography-related articles, but not with clear-cut issues. In regards to Bollywood films and songs: Several Bollywood film covers that utilize Indian scripts give the two standard registers of Hindustani: Hindi and Urdu. You can take a look at some of these film covers: Image:Awaaraposter.jpg, Image:Waqt 1965 film poster.JPG, Image:Sholayposter2.jpg, Image:Padosan film poster.jpg, etc. I have provided a few here for you all. However there are many more. Please also see these references: Bollywood for the Skeptical and What is Bollywood?. Both references metion the use of Urdu and Hindi in Bollywood songs and films. Despite my giving of these references, it is quite clear that film titles are presented in both Hindi and Urdu. In the Saare Jahan Se Achcha article, Bakasuprman and Mahawiki supported keeping the Hindi script on an Urdu song article for the same reason. That is why Wikipedia articles employ one article for many topics relating to Hindi/Urdu/Hindustani (i.e. Hindi-Urdu grammar, Uddin and Begum Urdu-Hindustani Romanization, Hindustani orthography, Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu) word etymology, etc.) Hindi/Urdu/Hindustani, which has been established as one language by many. For example many sources such as infoplease, Tigerx, and several others classify them together when giving populations statistics of speakers. Not to mention, linguists count them together as one language. I do not see any point in excising Indic scripts from song and film articles when the argument to keep them has been well buttressed. In addition, there are many editors (from looking at the Bollywood talk discussion) that would support this argument, including DaGizza, Dieresis, Ragib, and Basawala. Many of these editors do not have their opinions represented here. As of now there are a plethora of editors who add both the Devanagari and Perso-Arabic scripts to film articles, including myself, Devilitself, and Basawala. To remove these scripts from relevant articles would invalidate the countless hours that we have put forth in scripting these articles. In addition, I highly doubt that the rest of Wikipedia will follow suit in removing scripts from other articles. They are an important part in defining human civilization. Thanks for your time and understanding. I am looking forward to hearing your valuable responses. Shanti, AnupamTalk20:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Resetting indent) I think there are advantages in having the native script in many cases. For example, Rabindranath Tagore's name is written in Bengali language (his native one) as রবীন্দ্রনাথ ঠাকুর, which is pronounced as Robindronaath Thhakur. So, the native script and its transliteration is definitely necessary here. In many cases, the "English" language versions of these names sound a lot different from the actual name.
The only problem with having several scripts is that, often there are disagreements over what the native language is (even sillier, what the order of these scripts should be!!). That's a different issue from this, and the solution is not to remove all scripts, but to set up a policy of selecting scripts. As an analogy, look into the country articles ... almost all of them have the names of the country written in the official/native language. Thanks. --Ragib20:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you Ragib. And I strongly disagree with Parthi. Even among readers of English Wikipedia, I'm convinced there are more people able to read Indian scripts than people able to read IPA perfectly. And there are people who aren't sure how to pronounce these names but can read Devanagari script or whatever (I'm one of them). So Indian scripts are definitely useful. However I agree that IPA adds (not replaces) information and that we should avoid having all Indian scripts used for all India related articles. BernardM21:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ragib and BernardM, I agree with you too. For Bollywood films and songs, however, two scripts is the alotted maximum. The de facto policy there has always beeen as follows: that if someone adds Devanagari, thats okay. If someone adds Perso-Arabic, that's okay too. Neither script is required, but when they are added, they should not be deleted. However, since biographies entail numerous other issues, including mother tongue, ehtnicity, etc., a policy/agreement is needed. The way I always looked at it in the past was that the only reason actors and actresses are famous is through Bollywood. As a result, I've always supported keeping the Hindustani scripts (plus any other relevant ones). I can understand why this might be contentious though. Thanks, AnupamTalk21:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Aupam's comments, as far as the Bollywood articles are concerned, if the movie posters contain the relevant scripts why would you need to include them in the article? The audience if they are ethnic Indian, they already know how the movie name is pronounced. If they can't read the two or three scripts then the scripts are of no use to them anyway. Ragib's example about the Tagore article is exactly the same category. Bengalis already know how to pronounce his name. Non Bengalis can read a transliteration or the IPA to find out. IMO these scripts provide no additional information to the majority of Wikipedia users. We seem to think these articles are only read by Indians, which is probably not true. In response BernardM, there are millions of Indian (probably a majority of them) who can't read Devanagri. Thanks - Parthitalk/contribs21:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all most biography pages of people, whose native language's script wasn't the Roman alphabet, have the names of the person written in the native script. Example: Aristotle (Greek: Ἀριστοτέλης Aristotélēs), Plato (Greek: Πλάτων, Plátōn, "wide, broad-shouldered"), Archimedes (Greek: Ἀρχιμήδης), etc. It definitely helps to add to my knowledge what the actual script looks like. The same IPA pronunciation can be written using several different ways. For example, Iajuddin Ahmed's name is actually written in Bengali as ইয়াজউদ্দিন আহম্মদ, and NOT ইয়াজুদ্দিন আহমেদ, even though both versions have the same pronunciation (and hence, IPA notation). So, the IPA notations are not complete replacements for the scripts. As I said earlier, the root cause of the contention here is not having scripts (which almost all bios have without any problems, after all it's just a few more bytes), but people edit warring over what scripts should/shouldn't be in the article. Solution to a headache is not getting rid of the head, rather to find out the cause of the ache, and solve it. So, here, a policy on the script is the solution, rather than the removal of scripts. Also, this involves thousands and thousands of bio articles here, and therefore "consensus" can't be achieved by only 4-5 people. Thanks. --Ragib22:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely Ragib. Sometimes adding yet another script adds ethymological information. Another example is Kajol's name : काजोल is the Devanagari transliteration of কাজল, not the same spelling in an other script. In this case giving both Devanagari and Bengali makes perfect sense. I think Indian scripts should be provided when there are relevant, this relevance being defined by a debate (somewhere else than here probably). BernardM22:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for the problem with IPA - I agree that IPA is useful for pronounciation, but not for spelling. This is why I propose that we use ITRANS as well as IPA when writing the name. The advantage of ITRANS is that the spelling can be backed out for any Indic script. Using the example of Kajol, the IPA and ITRANS spelling, together completely define how her name should be written or pronounced.Gamesmaster G-923:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't always do. And Kajol is precisely a perfect example. The spellings of काजोल and কাজল are not the same, their ITRANS representation is not the same : the first one is kaajol and the second one kaajal. BernardM00:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we can't reach a binding consensus here, but atleast we have succeeded in getting people to think about it. Personally, I think any information is good information. My only concern is the fruitless edit wars that seem to happen to a lot of these articles. If we can come up with a policy and get it voted on in Wikipedia:WikiProject India. - Parthitalk/contribs22:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only time when vernacular scripts should be included is when a name or phrase is explicitly written in that language, and no other - for example, Sanskri mottos for Indian Institutions, or the official name of a country. Individual names are not language specific. Gamesmaster G-923:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Names are quite often language specific, I mean, written differently in different languages and scripts. Rabindranath Tagore is a perfect example ... in English, his name is written as Rabindranath Tagore which is NOT how it is written and pronounced in Bengali (রবীন্দ্রনাথ ঠাকুর Robindronaath Thhakur). We should keep in mind that, the names are originally in the native script, and only later written/transliterated in English (i.e. the official one is the native language one, not the English one). Another example is Michael Madhusudan Dutt, which is the English version of মাইকেল মধুসূদন দত্ত (Bengali), which actually is pronounced like Maikel Modhusudon Datto. Even more, note that the same name would be pronounced differently in a different Indian language, for example, Hindi/Sanskrit (which would have pronounced "Madhu" as "maadhu" instead of Bengali pronunciation "Modhu"). So, by dumping the original script, we lose the original information, and instead add different/often incorrect info about the name. Therefore, no need to remove original script. Thanks. --Ragib00:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Names often happen to have an actual meaning in their original language. And of course looking for or guessing this meaning is easier when you know how the word is spelt. For example কাজল means kohl in Bengali, while the Devanagari transliteration loses this meaning because of a purely phonetic interpretation. However काजोल is how it's written in all Hindi media so both scripts should be indicated. BernardM02:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English-language Wikipedia. We should give the standard English pronunciation(s). If the name is pronounced differently in a different language, certainly that can be handled by my suggestion that we have a box at the BOTTOM of the article with links to the same subject in other wikis, with the name given in the script or scripts used in that Wiki. Anyone who can read that script can read the name.
I do not like the current habit of putting all the different scripts at the top of the article, as it puts a full stop to reading. It's gibberish to anyone who can't read those scripts, which is MOST of our readers. Would you give a speech that started with two words in English and then a 5-minute peroration in a language unknown to the audience? Zora01:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized; if people are so gung-ho to add scripts, and can't add them unless there's a matching article in another wiki, they're going to have a good reason to write that article if there isn't one. Proposed policy might be of great benefit to the non-English wikis. Zora01:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My only beef is putting urdu where it's not supposed to be there. This is basically a core issue. It's firestarter. You can put the urdu on the a bengali movie star but if you put devangari on Sindh article, there's hell to pay. Bengali seems fine. No problems or when person is not mutli-ethic there seem to be no problem.--D-Boy03:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Namaste D-Boy! I don't know if I've talked to you directly before but I just wanted to say thanks for your contributions and remarks. From my comments, I hope you understand why the Urdu script is relevant to Bollywood film and song articles. It seems like there is still a debate on what scripts to include in Indian Biography articles. There realy shouldn't be a problem with the Devanagari script on the Sindh article. Like Hindustani, Sindhi is written in both the Perso-Arabic and Devanagri scripts. I once added the Devanagari to the article as well. Thanks! AnupamTalk04:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The last two comments above illustrate precisely the type of problems with the use of these scripts. Language such as 'fire-starter' and 'hell to pay' is what is causing the unproductive edit wars in the bio and Bollywood articles. More reason why we need to get rid of these pesky scripts! - Parthitalk/contribs04:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Get rid of all of them, and get rid of the senseless quibbling about something that adds nothing of any real value to the articles. Gene Nygaard09:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Use of vernacular scripts in India bio articles - 2
I strongly agree with Parthi. This is the English-language Wikipedia. The native scripts can be used in special cases such as Satyameva Jayate. But using native scripts for every article (including Bollywood films is unnecessary). It only leads to stupid linguistic wars between Indian editors, and makes the intro look cluttered. In my personal opinion, all Indic scripts (except some cases such as Satyameva Jayate) should be removed. I wonder if we can have a poll/survey to solve this problem. utcursch | talk05:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must note here again: it is not the case that articles are being stuffed with non-English text. Rather, ONLY having the person's name in his/her native script is being questioned. (That's only two or three words at most). Next, the only dispute to arise here are *a few* bio articles. It would be wrong to remove script from thousands of biography articles just because of the edit dispute between a handful of users. I also want to note that Indian biography articles are not something *so special* that a different policy will apply to them. The same policy needs to apply to ALL biography articles, and again, it is totally wrong to remove the useful native language version of the names, *only* because of edit war in Bollywood related articles. Solutions to this problem should be to get a better policy at deciding what the script of choice would be (which is the point of disgreement here), rather than complete removal of native language names. Thanks. --Ragib06:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not just an India-bio problem. As I said previously, I'm starting to see scripts multiply in Islam-related articles. Look at the start of Mecca, for instance. Someone adds Arabic, someone else adds Persian, someone else adds Turkish ... As for the suggestion that we just need a policy to decide what the one "script of choice" will be -- that doesn't seem to me to be possible. I'm arguing, not for REMOVING the scripts, but moving them to a box where they don't interrupt the article, and having as criteria not ethnic group, religion, or nationality (all of which will involve us in vicious internicine conflicts), but the existence of an article in the matching wiki. Ragib, this will mean that editors can't add Bengali script unless there's a matching article in the Bengali wiki. They'll have to write an article! Wouldn't that be fine? Zora06:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that sounds ok to me. What I understand of your proposal is that, the scripts are to be removed from the header to a box somewhere else in the page. Fine by me. As long as the name in the native script is there, it should be fine. BTW, isn't it something to be discussed in WP_Biography rather than here? --Ragib06:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. it's a stupid idea. The Bengali articles usually have no conflict or fierce edit wars over scripts. Plus, there will never a concensus to go all english and no scripts on wikipedia unless you get ton bots to remove them. Will the chinese like it if their script is removed from an edit war that has nothing to do with time. What about the Russians and the Greeks? I don't think so.--D-Boy18:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the Mecca example shows, this goes beyond biography. As soon as one script gets added to an article, people who feel that THEIR language is being excluded start adding their scripts. We need a policy that applies to all articles. As said above, there would be exceptions for quoting texts. It's standard in scholarship to quote a text in the original so that those who can read it can check the translation. Perhaps we'd also need exceptions for dead languages that don't have wikis? Are there any dead languages for which WP supports a script but doesn't have a wiki? We have Latin and Sanskrit WPs, but not a Hittite or Sumerian one ... though, gee, the idea of a Sumerian wiki is immediately appealing :) Zora07:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth is there turkish and farsi for an article such as Mecca? Islam was started by an arab in arabia. The sacred language the quran is arabic which is supposedly the truest way to read the scripture. Urdu shouldn't even be there. Maybe on articles such as Sufism they would have their native language from where it started.--D-Boy18:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've said lot about this before and many people here know my views. So
my 2 cents/some quick points -
Vernacular scripts to be avoided as far as possible.
Sneaking in Hindi/Devanagari script into every possible 'India-related' article is reprehensible.
Bollywood movies are Hindi movies, atleast thats the "official" line(Posters arent 'official', certifications by the 'official' censor body displayed at the start of every movie are). So Urdu script is superfluous on Bollywood articles.
Vernacular script can be used where the ethnicity is beyond question. For e.g., for Chola tamil script is understandable and for Maratha Empire Marathi script is understandable, Jana Gana Mana is a Bengali song, so Bengali script is justified etc.,. But even if there is a semblance of confusion or dispute, I would support NOT using the controversial scripts.(Note: On JGM for e.g., Bengali is beyond question, it is the Hindi script that is controversial. So Bengali script should be allowed and Hindi thrown out.)
Now, I know, that above examples cannot be used to generalise, so if the consensus is that vernacular scripts be banned altogether, I would support such a decision. Atleast that should stop people pushing Hindi on all India-related articles ridiculously in the garb of 'patriotism' or pushing 'Hindi' in the garb of 'Devanagari' on Sanskrit/Hindu related articles and such other random BS. Sarvagnya19:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And what historic indic article that are located in pakistan? What scripts would we be able to add one those? Devangari? What about article like Sindh?--D-Boy21:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you meant "what about". Can you tell me why on earth we need Devanagari on Sindh? Devanagari is 'nothing' as far as Sindh is concerned. The only scripts justified on Sindh is the Sindhi script(first and foremost) and thenmay be... may be just Urdu script because, I believe Urdu is the national lang of Pak(even then, I am not sure that is a good enough reason). Sarvagnya22:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good, you may note that Hindi is one of two official central government languages in India (the other is english, which falls outside this discussion). Therefore, Hindi should be on every India related page. Of course using a logical argument like this makes me a "POV-pushing nationalist", "Hindutva bigot", "whitewasher" in the eyes of more than one user.BakamanBakatalk03:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good, you may also note that Official language != National language. India has no national language. And it is for a reason that the govt., has chosen to call it merely 'official' language and not 'national' language. And did u notice the may be.... maybe just in my above message? And in any case, if it ever came to a vote, I'd never vote for using it on the concerned country's pages and you know it. It is as ridiculous as, say, plastering an image of the peacock and the tiger on every Indian wildlife page simply because they are the national animals. huh. Sarvagnya06:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand why these scripts are so necessary here in English Wikipedia. Editors putting theirs views on Bollywood songs and film names suggest that it is for exact pronunciation. If it is mentioned only for accurate pronunciation, what purpose does it serve if most users can't read that script? I can't read and understand any script other than English, Tamil and basic Hindi. I can't understand if Rabindranath Tagore is pronounced as such or otherwise in Bengali. So are many other scripts for many other situations. If accurate pronunciation is to be specified, let us use standard IPA. I think every one can learn a single pronunciation format (if needed) than 100 other scripts from all parts of the world. This situation may seem specific to articles related to Indian languages as of now, but this is Wikipedia-wide issue. As mentioned above, local scripts do nothing more than appearing as gibberish to non-local readers. Believe me, people don't care much about exact pronunciation because of their inherent incapability to pronounce other languages so well. No matter how we try, foreign language speakers can nowhere be close to pronunciation level of native speakers. So let us just get rid of those scripts completely! -- Chez (Discuss / Email)04:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, people should start inserting all kinds of scripts in all the articles -- that'll expose readers to all kinds of writing systems. This is simply unnecessary. It doesn't serve any purpose and leads to stupid edit wars among overly fanatic linguistic patriots. I'm not opposed to vernacular scripts because of edit wars. I'm opposed to them because I feel they do not serve any purpose (except in cases such as Satyameva Jayate). They also make an article less readable. Look for example, at the intro of Rajnikanth article. The Marathi/Kannada/Tamil scripts are not there to make the article useful, they are present simply because of fanatic Marathi/Kannada/Tamil linguistic patriots. Why do we need a person's name in his/her native script (Indian or otherwise)? Why do we need a place's name in the native script? This is English Wikipedia. User:Chezhiyan has pointed out rightly -- they're certainly not useful for pronunciation. If people are willing to learn, they'll learn IPA instead. Like Zora has suggested, we need a policy on this. I think it will be nice to put different proposals and then have a voting (like Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign/Final draft vote). utcursch | talk08:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Utcursch, that's a useful link. I think I can write up my policy proposal, but coming up with a sample infobox will challenge my feeble coding skills. Anyone willing to work with me on designing an infobox template? I think the other proposals have been to eliminate all scripts (no infobox) and to keep one script, which is to be the script most closely associated with the subject of the article (how "most closely associated" is determined should be defined, otherwise the edit wars will continue). Is there anyone at all in favor of the present policy -- anyone can put any script anywhere and then we have an edit war? Zora18:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is important to Vladir putin's name in Russian or Mao Zedong's name in CHinese by that same logic? Or have Mecca in Arabic? If you're going to go all english, then you should do it for eery single article. Also you should write your policy at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Indic-related articles), if you're going to make one. Maybe people should have input on it and a concensus should be reached. Voting is not what wikipedia is about. Also, the Koreans have a really good infobox for their hangul scripts.--D-Boy18:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My 0.02 pence.... Firstly i couldnt care less if scripts are there or not. I'd support removal of vernacular scripts ONLY if all non-English scripts are removed simultaneously. Indian articles shouldnt be held to different standards. Re:Bollywood it is really idiotic to add Urdu to Bollywood articles ad hoc, more so for Bollowood bios (Kajol article for example had Urdu but no Marathi!). Unless the said movie uses stresses on Urdu (as understood in post-1947 context) i see no point in adding urdu script to articles like say Lage Raho.
File:England flag large.pngअमेय आर्यन DaBroodey18:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd propose removing all scripts to an infobox. Your declaration that no change should be allowed unless all articles can amended simultaneously ignores reality: we can't amend a substantial portion of 1.5 million articles simultaneously. It's going to take time to educate editors to use the infobox for new articles and to revise the old ones. If the proposal to use an infobox passes, let's first have a period just for moving scripts; we don't apply the criterion (is there an article in the matching wiki) immediately. However, unmatched scripts should show up as red links. We have a year during which any scripts can be added to the infobox and none deleted. At the end of that year, we start deleting the redlinked ones. We should give ample time for editors to create matching articles. Zora19:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favour of moving all scripts from the lead to an infobox placed at the bottom of the article. This will certainly improve the readability of the article. However these silly ethnic edit wars will continue in the infobox area. Parthitalk/contribs21:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see the need for an additional infobox. I think most of us agree that the scripts add nothing significant to an article, especially for the millions who don't read that script. I say, just get rid of them altogether. IPA/ITRANS is all we need. Gamesmaster G-923:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, this discussion has gone on for ages. I think we should attempt to reach a consensus now. It would help if everyone wrote down their exact position on the issue in one line. Gamesmaster G-923:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it within the rules of the "game" for Dangerous-Boy to be posting messages on the talk pages of people whom he believes might support him, asking them to come vote here? See:
It is generally poor etiquette to notify only your side of the argument (which I'm not saying you're doing), even if they were all involved in the discussion. It tends to skew consensus in a certain direction. If you feel the need to canvas you should hit the proponents for all sides of the disagreement or make a single post on an article that they all are involved in. Rampant vote stacking can be considered a disruption and can get you an involuntary wikibreak. --Bobblehead02:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes for (only) the native script, in the lead or at least somewhere else in the page. (lead/box/wherever). Hindu stuff (unless purely non-Sanskrit) always in Nagari, and bios in the person's ethnicity.BakamanBakatalk03:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes for (only) the native script (the language in which the word or its native equivalent is most often used). For example, if its "Krishna", the term should be in sanskrit, and if its "thambi", the language should be tamil; for acchan, the language should be malayalam and so on. If its going to be more than one script, my vote is "no" ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs)14:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes for native script, and relevant scripts after consensus. In the case of Badal Roy (a musician from Bangladesh), the inclusion of such allows, in a "Rosetta Stone"-like manner, one to know the native spelling and to search for websites and photos about the person on websites in the original language or (especially helpful in the absence of a comparable interwiki article in that language). Putting the name in native script in a box to the right side would be a fine idea. This is already standard for East Asian articles (see Jin Hi Kim for an example). Badagnani17:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes for native script and relevant scripts. I'm not opposed to the idea of putting it in a box. And I'm not against using IPA as well (not instead). BernardM21:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes native scripts MUST be kept. This is relevant information for an encyclopedia. See the guidelines I have attempted to devise at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) for when to use what. The work on this has stalled because of other commitments, but someone's welcome to restart it! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk15:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes for native script, and relevant scripts after consensus. The Rabindranath example in the previous section convinced me sufficiently although I think in such cases there's also a scope to include both native script and IPA so that those like myself who can't read the native script get some idea of the missing point. While this is the English wikipedia, this appears to be something which adds considerably to the value of the article to many readers and we already do it for Eastern European articles (which I can understand the script for). Orderinchaos7817:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No vernacular scripts, whether in biography or any other pages. It serves no purpose (refer this) and can prove a fertile source of many types of dispute, as we have seen in a dozen cases in just these past few days. IPA is more than sufficient, if pronounciation is such a concern. ImpuMozhi03:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think we should vote on this as an India-only issue because as people said it affects Chinese and all other languages. I think we should make a proper proposal like somebody suggested and discuss it in the context of all languages and scripts. It is unfair to have different rules for India and different rules for other countries. Also I don't understand why you say we should use ITRANS. I think ISO 15919 or IAST are the proper things to use. Nobody uses ITRANS in serious articles outside email or places where you only can use ASCII. -- Ponnampalam01:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to not have read the entire discussion and place my opinion. Probably the problem is due to abuse of regional scripts. Anything that is good and helpful would not be objected by any except by ill-motivated editor. My feeling is 1) Any regional script should be allowed within limits. 2) With Muslim's Jihad movement, there remains a scope of continuous abuse of a policy so there must be a body of editors/admins to monitor. If, the official body finds abuse of policy, the members should have tools to change and protect the page. 3) My feeling is use of national language in limits will be advantageous. 4) I disagree that since other encyclopedias do not use regional scripts, Wikipedia should also not use the same. 5) The policy not to include regional language would also be abused by objecting to necessary inclusions. 6) The grievances are going to remain, instead why not have a body who would concentrate in preventing abuse particularly between hostile societies? Pl. bear with me, if I am wrong. swadhyayee05:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I feel this voting is being done in a hurry. This issue spans a large variety of articles. We should first make an effort to atleast broadly classify articles and then vote for each type one at a time. Bios certainly are a different class from say geography/history related articles. I dont see any harm using native scripts on articles like, say, Chola, Hoysala etc.,. There is no scope for any disputes on these articles. The disputes are really mostly on the articles where Hindi-pushers want Hindi scripts or the Hindi-pushers themselves run into Urdu-script supporters. On bios, I support using the script with which the person is most widely associated. Rajnikanth for example, should have only Tamil because that is what he's most widely seen as being associated with. Hindu/Sanskrit articles belong equally to whole of India and historically(until fairly recently), devanagari was never the script for Sanskrit. So, on these articles, we should just do with IPA. More later. Sarvagnya06:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Comment: And yet, if the pro-vernacular people have their way, then Rajnikanth would have his name written in Devanagri because his ethnicity is Marathi. Then someone else will add Kannada because he lived in Bangalore. And lets not forget the Hindi-fundamentalist who believe that Indian=Hindi. I have no doubts that people will indulge in non-stop linguistic one-upmanship. Gamesmaster G-907:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Completely agree with Utcursch. That's why I haven't "voted." The call for a poll was premature, was interpreted as being a binding YES or NO vote (but YES or NO on what?), and has already led to electioneering. Part of the murkiness here is that the script issue is a cover for yet another, even broader and more divisive issue: the use of Wikipedia for national/ethnic/religious tagging. The placing of a script seems to be interpreted by many of the editors here as a claim that the scripted person/thing/whatever "belongs" to the group symbolized by the script. IMHO, we need to stamp down hard on this use of non-Roman scripts as gang signs, equivalent to spray-painting "[insert name of group here] rulez!" on public spaces. Zora16:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Comment - When I asked for everyone to state their position in one line, I didn't intend for it to be a vote. I had hoped that this would help list out all the points for and against in a neat way. Unfortunately, people are just copy-pasting each other's positions. Gamesmaster G-920:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAnother vote! you have got to be kidding. I told you in the beginning not to make a vote about this! It's not the way of wikipedia. Even utcursh stated voting is evil. yet Parthi went ahead and did it anyway. The policy for the yes votes are pretty consistant. Also, you'll never get rid of all the chinese, all the russian, all the arabic scripts and so on. I'd really like to see you try to get rid of the arabic scripts because the muslim guild will fight you until the bitter end about such an issue.--D-Boy18:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Use of vernacular scripts in India bio articles - 3
Now that the voting issue has been discussed to find that there was really no voting involved, or even it was there was no point in it, I hope that the original discussion can resume again. As far as I can deduce it was on vernacular scripts being used in India bio articles without a guideline and often to reflect personal opinions about political correctness. Therefore, I only deemed it right to restart it under a new heading, the third one (the discussion above was getting too long to edit comfortably anyways). Well, now pitching my two cents in:
Vernacular scripts in India bio articles may be completely pointless in the English version of WP, especially when IPA pronounciations are being provided (not always too precisely though, someone needs to check them).
The only relevant use of vernacular scripts may be associated with Mandarin. Romanization of all the nuances of the Mandarin script is beyond hope, even IPA falls short on that (at least the grasp of IPA for almost all the cases). You may check the above discussion (I hope to have some Manadrin-speaking Wikipedians to comment on this).
All other vernacular scripts, espacially in Indian bio articles may be removed.
If those scripts are allowed to stay, there may be guidelines to keep out of trouble:
Use only the scripts that reflect the subject's ethnic origin, and may be the subject's language of operation (thus a Tamil poet writing in Urdu may have both scripts).
Keep theses relevant scripts only if it implies an article in the WP written in that particular script (may be it should be linked to that other version WP as well, as a policy).
Religion and politics should be kept particularly out of consideration (I'd rather propose a ban on any bigot or zealot who presses those points, but that's only my personal opinion)
Post Script. Many users have used differences in pronounciation in different Indian languages (like kaajol and kaajal) to extent of saying IPA is no match for these difference. Well, I hope we all can learn to pronounce Rimbaud's name correctly in his native toungue. Come on, guys, is this an encyclopedia or a dictionary? If you have problems pronouncing Kajal's name, please, make use of the Wiktionary. - Aditya Kabir17:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Post Post Script (I can't stop myself from commenting, it seems). Here's more of my money broken down into two cent increments:
If someone wants to find out what the name looks like in vernacular script, please, visit the WP version in appropriate script, there should be link on that very page. If someone really cares about "people who like to look at names of notable people in vernacular scripts even if they can't read it" he/she should come forward and create an entry, at least a stub, on the subject in the version of WP in that script.
Using Greek scripts may be ruled out. For God's sake, more people reads Hindi than Greek. What are we trying to prove by providing Greek spellings?
The Kalarippayattu infobox may be useful for a non biographical subject restricted to use in a couple of scripts. Try imagining the same case for a Miss India who represnts all of India.
Would someone, please, explain the রবীন্দ্রনাথ ঠাকুর argument (try figuring out what that, written in Bengali script, means if you're not familiar with the script) or the काजोल (that's in Hindi script, hahaha) argument? I feel there are interesting points there, but can't figure it out.
I would like to know what articles I've edited have disappeared. I know Kate's tool used to do this job. But may be for privacy reasons, it no longer works. I understand privacy is important, but I just want to know only myself's deleted edits. I always suddenly found some of my edits disappear and nobody (the one who deleted it) tells me before. Special:Contributions without a username specified is not used at this time, so how about make this special page show the current users' full edit history including deleted ones? I've submitted a request at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8017 . Yao Ziyuan10:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please give us specific examples. You should check out wikipedia's guidelines for speedy deletion and wikipedia's guidelines for proposed deletions and wikipedia's articles for deletion discusions. Of the 3, only speedy deletion generally happens without your knowledges. PRODS and AFDS (the other 2 deletion methods) all leave tags on the page for a minimum of 5 days, meaning that you should have the opportunity to correct them. Speedy Deletes are done only in a very narrowly defined set of examples. Please read the speedy deletion guidelines I put above; even speedy deletes generally take a day or so to happen, so as long as you check into Wikipedia once every few days, you should find them and be able to stop or comment on the. In addition, you can contact the admin that deleted your article, or you can request a deletion review to overturn any deletion. Hope that helps... Again, please give us specific examples of the articles you found deleted, so we can comment perhaps on why they were? --Jayron3218:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would be helpful for deleted edits to show up in a user's contribution history, not just so users can see for themselves, but without that contribution history visible talk page warnings are often inexplicable and vandalism histories undocumented. How possible is it to implement this change? Postdlf18:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the problem with that is in deciding what constitutes a 'deleted edit'. A literal revert of the article might be easy to detect - but if someone deletes an entire paragraph except for a couple of words - then writes an entire new paragraph using those words in a completely different way - then they effectively deleted your edit - but it would be hard for automated software to figure out the difference between that and a simple typo/spelling/grammar correction. Personally, I think setting up your preferences so that every article you edit is automatically watched - then patrolling your 'my watchlist' is the best you can do. SteveBaker19:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, by "deleted edits" I mean edits that are made to articles that are subsequently deleted. When an article is deleted, none of the edits made to that article show up in user contribution histories. Postdlf19:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the edits should necessarily be visible (except to admins), but it would be quite helpful to know that they existed. --Improv21:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The content of the edits themselves shouldn't be visible to everyone, but the fact that the edits were made should be. Think of all the times you delete nonsense such as profanity or an attack page and treat it as a "test" due to the user's lack of prior contributions, when the deleted history would show that it's actually persistent, reposted vandalism? Postdlf00:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per Postdlf's comment, I agree that the contents of deleted edits shouldn't be visible to everyone. In fact, I'd go one further and suggest that the other details of the deleted edits should remain hidden except from admins—one of the most common reasons for deletion of a page revision is that it contains personal information or gross libels; sometimes that information is in the edit summary, or even in a deliberately offensive username.
If we could have something that pops up on an editors Special:Contributions page when an admin visits, that would be ideal. Right now when I visit an article that has deleted revisions in its history, I see a View or restore 3 deleted edits? message above the rest of the article's history. I'd be thrilled to have something similar that appeared (to admins) on editors' Contributions pages: View this editor's 168 deleted edits... or similar. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, this is the email that used to be linked from River(Kate)'s archived-contributions counter. Now that we have oversight though, I've been wondering if there's a chance that deleted edit summaries, etc. might be visible again, on-wiki? --Interiot02:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the edit summaries should be available, but it does seem like it would be worthwhile to see a placeholder in a user's contribution history for deleted edits that listed the date, the page and minor edit flag. —Doug Belltalk19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think no information (other than perhaps the number of deleted edits) should be available to non-admins, but the whole information (pages and edit summaries) should be available to admins so a block or unblock decision can be based on all of the user's contributions, not just those that happen to be easily accessible. Having to note the names of all bad pages created by an editor somewhere for later review is work that should be better done by software. Kusma(討論)12:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have an article on my watch list with an incorrect name and is now deleted. It appears a vandal had edited the article and then moved it to a nonsensical name -- therefore the article was probably speedily deleted without proper checking. I don't know know what the page was originally about, since the history is now gone, and my watchlist is too large to remember every article individually. This is a loophole in the system, and allows vandals to get legitimate articles deleted without editors of those articles noticing until it's too late (deleted articles don't appear on my watchlist changes, so I never noticed the deletion). falsedef11:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I recently had a page deleted within 3 days of creation. It was Heywood-Wakefield, a major business force in furniture in the 19th and early 20th C., particularly in wicker and rattan. They are no longer in business, and consequently somewhat invisible on the interenet outside of antique dealers, etc. I created a stub because I was aware of its existence and historical importance. I anticipated those with more knowledge than I would flesh it out. I thought this was the WP community's goal - group knowledge. I think I detect a move toward only allowing articles that are mostly complete when created, with references satisfactory to an admin who may be unaware of the article's significance because it doesn't exist in the "internet age". I don't know how to find the person who removed it, and can't rebut the removal. Wake03:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about the issue of newly discovered, or highly inaccessible species for which the only available images are copyrighted ones taken by nongovernment scientists, explorers, journalists, etc. I don't actually know how common this is a problem, but it's a frequent hypothetical raised in fair use discussions. As only the expression contained within a photograph is copyrighted, but not the information it provides about the species' appearance, I wonder if it is possible to instead create a drawn illustration of the animal that can source its information to such a photograph, but that does not constitute a derivative of it because it does not use any copyrighted expressive elements (i.e., does not use the composition and angle, etc. of the photograph). A body outline "template" (in the visual sense, not the Wikipedia sense) may be possible to create for usage whenever the species' form is of a general type, such that all that would be necessary would be the filling in of coloration or other superficial structures to show that species' particular varations from the general type. The only problem I see with this is ensuring the accuracy of the illustration, and ensuring that it is not such an extrapolation from the photographs as to constitute OR; I guess this would depend upon how informative the available photographs are. Thoughts? Postdlf15:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC) (note: this was cross-posted to Wikipedia talk:Fair use)[reply]
There's always the occasional slip, but I can't think of any consistent way to correctly violate those. As an example, maybe, but then you're reachin for WP:POINT. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 19:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:: That's not a "violation" of AGF - that's a simple common sense approach and an aspect of the actual policy that says AGF does not apply if the evidence presented means that policy does not apply. That's like saying reverting the same vandalism (for example "Famous person likes anal sex with dogs") 5 times in a row is a violation of 3RR. --Charlesknight19:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. It merely means what it says. Good faith is a rebuttable presumption. You only need to assume it, if it hasn't been rebutted. Gene Nygaard09:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am back commenting on policy/guidelines regarding articles on individual shopping centers. I posted some comments on the talk page of WP:CORP arguing for a policy to be set for such articles. Using guidelines from several different places, alone, as guidance on the part of editors and admins seems too vague for a subject that is so controversial. In my opinion a policy needs to be developed that acknowledges the inherent notability of the individual mall (in many but not all cases) on cultural, social and economic grounds, yet prevents spam and abuse of Wikipedia. I'm repeating some of these comments here.
In the interest of preventing advertising, part of the policy should state that a minimum number of outside non-trivial reliable sources (maybe 3-5) be used in a mall article, and that sources from the mall owner/developer be limited to an external links section, not a "references" section. The article should follow a suggested standardized format in which there is some discussion of the mall's cultural, social and economic impact on the local market area, as supported by these outside sources. Newspapers and magazine articles count as reliable secondary sources based on my understanding of the guidelines for notability.
Any mall article not meeting these standards should be candidates for the AfD process, but not speedy deleted unless, after careful review of the page and its history, intent can clearly be deduced to spam, advertise, vandalize or otherwise committ major violations of policy. In the case of a speedy delete, the article should be immediately placed in DRV by the deleting admin and the last editor notified on his/her talk page and given a chance to argue his/her case and/or rewrite/resubmit the article. If the article is not so argued within a set amount of days the delete is made permanent. If an unrelated editor recreates the page, a tag should be placed on the page saying the page was deleted and will be gone within 72 hours, with the new editor given a chance to argue the case on the talk page of the article itself. If speedied, repeat the automatic appeal process as just described.
I am not an admin and this proposal may not be workable, but I'm trying my best to generate a solution to this dilemma since it seems to be a recurring issue. Does this sound like a good start? Would it be better as an addendum to WP:CORP?--Msr69er22:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The mall deletions that happened recently were mainly of sub-stub articles that weren't well-referenced. Though I think one could take issue with some of them being deleted, if the articles had had a couple of sources, and had been clearly more than a list of stores, then it would have been much less likely that they would have been deleted.
Again, I'm not saying that articles that are lacking necessarily deserve to be deleted (though it's being considered, see Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles). However, I've seen borderline articles go from everyone voting delete in an AfD to everyone voting keep once someone added a number of independent reliable sources to the article.
Along the same lines, I don't think the mall deletions meant to state that the specific malls weren't notable enough... simply that the existing text didn't provide much encyclopedic content, and it wouldn't be the end of the world if the text were rewritten at a later point with more encyclopedic content and more sources. --Interiot00:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is discussion at WP:MALL as to what guidelines should be used for retaining articles about shopping malls. There is also discussion of putting them under WP:LOCAL. Edison21:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is Wikipedia User friendly?
Personally, and I'm fairly new around here, I don't think it is. Ever tried to put together a piece of furniture made in China? Or your once-a-year tax return yourself? Or filed something in court as a pro se? Or invested on Wall Street without help? Or built a house? Some are well explained and some are not. Wiki is not. Whenever a procedure is explained by a professional (an admin - hereinafter "pro"), they are the last people to explain highly complex convention to newbies. They helped write the rules, and stay fresh most every day. The newbies get to check something out once in a while, and have to re-educate themselves every time.
Wiki rules: It should not be necessary to spend hours searching for something. My examples: I needed to find out why a subject wasn't accepting a link. I couldn't find the answer, until a pro figured it out; the page heading used the wrong apostrophe. Another example: I wanted to use a tag to move an article to merge into another. I needed to quickly find the right tag. But "tags" are listed as "templates". I needed to find the right listing of sample tags. Took me an hour of re-education to find out don't "move" without permission, but "merge into" is OK. And why are "discussion" sections on the article page ALWAYS referred to as "talk", when the term talk is used in other ways? Why not just say to use the discussion page, since that is what it is called? And what is a "dab", still don't know, haven't looked? And when I have a question, why can't I click on something that will let me search for the answer the way I can search for an article? Am I just to be treated as dumb, and then be patronized by a pro who will give me an answer, pointing out by inference that I haven't checked carefully to see it wasn't answered somewhere in several help and editing pages?
Please don't get me wrong. I am second to none in my admiration of Wikipedia, what it does and what it can do. I would like to think that the culture will spread through the world and make it a better place. Especially I like the NPOV mandate, a concept foreign to all human nature, yet a sine qua non if the human race is to survive beyond the next generation. It can be taught and learned. At the moment Wikipedia is off-putting to inquirers and it needn't be. It is so much more than an Encyclopedia, although I suspect that there are pros who disagree and I think that the founder would agree.
So, I propose that a newby help page be devised for newcomers, and for vets short of time for review every day. No, it is not the current "simplified cheat sheet" in its present form, because it would be much longer, and hold a multitude of sections with every type of listed example. It would be full of cross references and would be kept all in one place. And it would be devised by non pros, evaluated by non-pros, but with the help of pros. Another possibility is that the current cheat sheet be filled with blue links to lists of examples, and the lists would be blue linked to explanations. I would bet that it will be the first place most people will go. Oh sure, I will be told that somewhere it's already being done, a project page perhaps, and I didn't notice. JohnClarknew 23:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:New contributors' help page links to various places new users can get questions answered quickly. Personally, I find IRC to be a great place to get quick answers.
"Dab" is a disambiguation page. Sometimes it's used in edit summaries to indicate that an ambiguous link is being fixed. Wikipedia:Edit summary legend lists other terms that are often seen in edit summaries.
I've pondered the "discussion"/"talk" issue before... I assume it comes down to the fact that namespaces should be as short as possible, especially "Talk", because it gets tacked onto everything (eg. "Category talk:", "Wikipedia talk:", "Template talk:", ...) On the other hand, it's not really for random forum-like chit-chat, it's for discussion of improvement of the article, so the external face gets the word "discussion". That's what I assume, anyway.
Generally, if you need help, just ask somebody. It's true that there are a ton of things to learn, so it makes it difficult to point to a single page that will answer all your questions. --Interiot00:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are a lot of inconvenient "conventions" that have grown up over time. The tag that says "discussion" does indeed lead to discussions - but it's called "talk" by most users because that's what it always used to be called before it was decided that "discussion" was more friendly. Sadly - the result of trying to make something more friendly and less confusing actually made matters worse! That's a real problem in lots of areas. It took me forever to realise that an edit summary "dab" meant "disambiguate" - there is nothing in Wikipedia software that makes things be that way - it's just a common convention that saves people a lot of typing. Most of the problems you list are not due to Wikipedia policies - or the software behind MediaWiki - they are simply due to the fact that there are about 10,000 human beings here - and when humans get together like that they invent jargon - develop unspoken rules - that just how people are. Attempting to document those quirks, conventions, recommendations, policies and downright RULES is an ongoing process - but like everything else around here, that's a community effort too. Whilst it would be highly desirable to fix it somehow, that's a hard problem because we have to fix humans - and we don't know how to do that! It's also a moving target. Having said that, we're all adaptable - and a vast majority of contributors rapidly adapt and 'fit in'. Take heart in the fact that a couple of million articles have been written despite the quirks and weirdnesses. SteveBaker03:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few well-placed redirects should help solve the tag issue you described and some others. The problem is that a lot of new users fail to look for information in the right place and if we don't know where they are looking instead, we can't make sure they are shown to the right spot. - Mgm|(talk)10:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that seems particularly silly to me is that there are a bunch of templates that say things like "Please see the relevant discussion on this article's [[...|talk page]]". If "discussion" is the public name of the thing, why don't they all say "discussion page"? Actually I think the only place it's called a "discussion" page is the link to it from the article. 207.176.159.9010:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I remember how long it took me to figure out how templates worked! I wouldn't have known to search for template, I was just seeing curly brackets and wondering what on earth I was supposed to be doing if I found a mistake. I also didn't sign contributions for a month, and then was manually typing a nick and date, because the section telling one how to do so is located well below the bottom of the edit page. Strangely, once I figured out a few things though, it all fell into place and now I talk with people regularly, know many of the WP: shortlinks and policies and the like, etc. Orderinchaos7817:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think an index might help, though of course it could end up being just one more possible place to look among many. As far as I know, there isn't such a thing (there are directories, but that's more limited). I have a draft at User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia, for anyone interested, and of course if something like this already exists (or has been attempted and dropped), information on that would be much appreciated. John Broughton | Talk23:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find rules
I'm trying to put together an argument to get a page undeleted. Scanning other, similar arguments, I see others citing rules Wikipedia has concerning the posting of articles that are very specific, i.e. "Rule #6 on articles about musicians." Where do I find these more specific rules?
Paperman29900:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability is not a Policy; it is just a guideline, and a disputed one at that; it may well go back to being an essay or proposal due to lack of consensus. The only notability policy is the inclusion by name in WP:DEL of a small number of topical notability guidelines as actionable deletion criteria. The vast majority of things listed in Category:Wikipedia notability criteria are not actionable deletion criteria. Many are not even guidelines yet. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ10:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though it's important to point out that notability is used so much in AfD's that the Washington Post (a very prominent newspaper) has written about it. [9] The piece mentions "notability" 13 times. Whether or not it's policy, it's an extensively used concept right now, and worth knowing about if someone is wanting to know why a specific article might or might not be deleted. --Interiot10:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, there is a complex maze of Wikipedia policies. Probably, all you need to keep in mind is that articles must be verifiable in reliable published souces. If there are highly reliable sources on a subject, there should be no problem keeping an article on it. Unless it is a copyright infringement. —Centrx→talk • 09:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or it's on a company and the wrong person sees it and you forgot to explicitly put "x is a NOTABLE corporation" in the first sentence. --tjstrftalk10:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a newbie I do agree that Wikipedia is a bit of a maze. As a matter of ettiquette, when a new user appears confused, I wish people would make a habbit of pointing them to pages like WP:POLICY instead of specific policies. When people quote specific policies -- especially when they're advocating deletion -- the natural reaction is to feel attacked.--Dgray xplane00:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Optimum size of film synopsis
I'd like to know if there is an acceptable optimum size for a film synopsis. I've noted that *most* are OK; say, a few paragraphs long, but some are almost as long as the original screenplay, with lots of basically irrelevant details! Any opinions please?
--Robert Fraser01:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong opinions. Long synopses are bad. They're impossible to read and frequently confusing. They're written by editors who have done no research beyond watching the movie and don't understand that articles are written to be READ. I have now spent years trying to prune Bollywood synopses and have in return reaped a rich harvest of revert wars and angry talk page messages. "Attack my boring prose and you're attacking ME!" A general policy re synopses of films, plays, novels, etc. would be useful in curbing editor garrulity.
Perhaps a guideline such as: synopses not to exceed one screen's worth of material? You should not have to scroll to read? What is that in words? Zora01:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Limiting the synopses to a single screen is problematic because of the difference in screen size. My largest monitor lets me view most articles on a single page and most of our longest articles on 3 pages (It's like, 1800xsomething) while my old laptop can only do 800x640 and needs to scroll for anything longer than a stub. --tjstrftalk02:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Three comments. 1) To Zora: Editors should be directed to WP:OWN. If they continue to revert the edits without reasonable justfication beyond "This is my article, you may not touch it", report to WP:ANI or other venues for triple revert violations. Also, if their original synposes are unreferenced, then you can delete them without prejudice as violating WP:V. 2) Extensive synopses can be seen as original research. A film synopsis here should be referenced to a source INDEPENDANT OF THE FILM. As such, we can only reference synopses done by reliable, third party sources. Long synopses which only reference the film itself can be removed with justification via WP:OR, WP:V or WP:NN. 3) Wikipedia's Manual of Style sets a practical upper limit for articles at 32 kB. Synopses can be pared down so the whole article is under 32 kB. I am under the unqualified opinion that a synopsis should be no longer than the rest of the article combined. If the synopsis is more than ~50% of the article, it should be reduced. --Jayron3206:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron's point 2 is key. Alot of "synopses" do fall into the realm of original research especially with the excessive details and fancruft. Most reliable sources (like movie reviews and write ups) are written under there own style and length guideline (because they ARE meant to be read) and if you are citing one of those reliable sources then you already have a limit to how long the synopsis will be. If we are strict about asking for referencing then you will have an internal helping hand to limit the length of those sections. Agne20:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing isn't necessary in a plot synopsis, since the original work serves as the primary source. As long as the synopsis just summarizes the work and doesn't draw any conclusions, they can be written by wp editors and don't need to be brought in from elsewhere. Style and length guidelines are the key. --Milo H Minderbinder20:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A practical observation: Articles on pop culture tend to attract a lot of fan-stuff, and hence tend to grow over time. Suggest you write a short plot synopsis and also provide a "details" section (whatever you choose to call it). Edit the plot section rigorously. Allow fans some slack in the "details" part. Occasionally someone will come along and take out the trash. Meanwhile the user (who just wants information) will have a nice short plot summary. Gaohoyt19:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User Edison gave me a suggestion for notability guidelines for shopping centers based on one he knows of, WP:CONG, for religious congregations. I used that as a template to write Wikipedia:Notability (shopping malls), based on Edison's direct suggestion, and added some of my ideas and referenced WP:NOT, WP:CORP, WP:NOTE and WP:RS. Thanks, Edison and I hope this is a good next step in the shopping mall discussion. I look forward to everyone's ideas, edits, rewrites and comments.--Msr69er01:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I am going to raise with this is the same one I have raised with the numerous other individualised notability guidelines: Malls do not have special issues that cannot be resolved via the Primary Notability Guideline(multiple, nontrivial references from reliable sources). Several mall AfDs have been handled poorly IMHO (such as mass-listing all malls rather than individually listing those that fail the PNC). However, there does not appear to be a "special problem" that makes shopping malls inherently harder to apply the PNC too. Either reliable sources (and newspapers ARE RELIABLE SOURCES) exist from which we can populate the article with verifiable, non-trivial facts, or they don't. If we can't get notable information from reliable sources, it fauls the PNC, and thus should be deleted, even if it is a mall. The places where guidelines exist that extend notability beyond the PNC (such as WP:CORP) contain secondary criteria ONLY in very narrowly defined areas, and ONLY to address a specific-problem which cannot be adequately solved by the PNC. I see no compelling evidence that malls are special in any way vis-a-vis their notability, and so I see no reason why the guideline should not contain one criteria only: A shopping mall is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the mall itself. Period. Full stop. If it does not meet this criteria, we have no means to expand the article, and thus it must be deleted. --Jayron3205:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add to that previous comment that I have seen quite a few mall AfD debates (and I started a couple) where defenders come in and say "Aha! Sources have been found, see new improvements on the article". Most often these sources turn out to be local news article stating either "Yesterday, a man got arrested in the X shopping mall", "Yesterday, Santa Claus arrived at shopping mall X" or "Starbucks opens in shopping mall X". I think it's important to realize that these are not the kind of sources we are looking for as they have absolutely no relation to the content of the articles. As we all know, the content is always "Shopping mall X is at the corner of Maple & Elmwood and has a JC Penney". That makes us the Yellow Pages and, deservedly so, a laughing stock as an encyclopedia. Pascal.Tesson06:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent points, but none of these are problems unique to malls. Trivial information still cannot be used to establish notability. It still doesn't speak to any special necessity to this (or any of the other NUMEROUS) individualized guidelines. The PNC still squashes these sources, and can still be used to refute these sources as trivial. --Jayron3206:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for using the PNC for malls as well as most other things. I just want to point out that the keep argument used in most AfDs is the "malls are inherently notable" blanket. "Notability" as is (or should be) used in AfD debates is not a measure of the worthiness of malls as institutions in a community but the confirmed or at the very least suspected existence of meaningful reliable sources supporting the content. And if the only meaningful verifiable content we have is a list of stores then this should go per WP:NOT. Pascal.Tesson06:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And those comments should meet with the response: "Nothing is inherently notable. If you wish to prove notability, provide sources per WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NN. Otherwise, I think we are in complete agreement. --Jayron3206:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there are things that are inherently notable: US presidents, Olympic Games, etc, etc. The key point is whether there's enough information available to make a solid article. There are still people who have no clue what type of information belongs in an article, so a guideline that explains it, as notability guidelines tend to do, would be quite helpful. - Mgm|(talk)10:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they a US president is only notable because all 43 of them have each been the subject of multiple references in reliable, third-party sources. All 15 gajillion shopping malls are not subject to the same level of coverage, thus all 15 gajillion shopping malls are not inherently notable. Nothing is. Notability test are ALWAYS to be applied to EVERY article on a case-by-case basis by READING the article, and DOING RESEARCH to establish if a VERIFIABLE, NON-TRIVIAL article can be written about the subject. If it can, it is notable. But the fact that any one article can pass this test does not transfer such quality to any other article merely by sharing some arbitrary commonality, like they are both about shopping malls. Notability is Not a Blanket.
Malls are not quite the same as corporations; they are venues where corporations rent space for stores. It is like trying to judge concert halls under guidelines for bands. A possible specific guideline for malls would be, for instance, to find an industry organization defining a regional mall as onwe with 1,000,000 square feet of leasable space, and using that to avoid endless debate over a smaller mall having an article if it has no other historic or architectural claim to fame. They do not quite fit in as local places WP:LOCAL either, since they may draw from a large area. A guideline lets the debating get done and perhaps a consensus arrived at in one forum rather than be repeated starting fresh in 1000 AfDs. I like to have some bright-line guides to quickly allow me to decide whether an article should be kept or deleted, so more time can be spent researching the borderine cases. Same for schools, professors, etc. Edison21:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Malls are not quite the same as corporations or places of local interest, but they're close enough. We shouldn't create guidelines with this narrowly specific application. I'd suggest a subheading in WP:CORP and/or WP:LOCAL. (Radiant) 11:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of a subheading. I see the problems with having a million notability guidelines, but it's very helpful to have specific guidelines for topics whose notability is often debated in this manner. Just like we have WP:BAND and the db-band speedy, not because they *couldn't* be done with WP:N and db-nn, but because it's a topic that comes up so often that it's worth having guidelines for. Malls seem, for whatever bizarre reason, to be in that category, so I can see how it would be helpful to have something specific written down. Perel03:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Elimination of Fair Use Rationale in Promotional Photos of Living People
So, it's been talked about, hinted at, and finally, appears to have happened -- a group of editors have decided that there should be NO "fair use" rationale for promotional photos of living people.
The short version: If an image is a press hand-out or other "for media use" image, and it depicts a living person, the image is deemed to be "unfree" (the horror!) and replaceable with a "free" image, usually one from a Flikr stream (and usually, an image without the subject's approval). Several hundred of these images have been deleted over the past week; many, without following the proper guidelines for image deletion.
Of course, there are a large number of people who feel this course of action is perhaps emphasizing the wrong word in the Wikipedia goal to "create a free encyclopedia" - valuing the "free" far more than the "encyclopedia." And, I have to say, I'm one of them -- If a promotional photo is distributed for wide media re-use, with the approval of the subject, photographer, and copyright holder, and the image is sourced and tagged appropriately, who am I to say the photo is not "copy-left" enough for Wikipedia? Instead, the previously sensible fair use criteria would seem to allow for such images, but the wording on this policy has been tweaked and shaved so as to be basically nonsensical, and entirely impracticable.
Please note: I am aware of Jimbo's feelings on this, and would encourage editors to refrain from the tired "But Jimbo says..." posting that even now, some editor is composing. I am more interested in OTHER EDITORS feelings about this. Should Wikipedia replace all professional promotional media images with images such as this? :Image:Kristen Bell.jpg Or should we hit the wayback machine a bit, and allow sensible fair use of copyrighted promotional photographs, such as was done until this most recent spasm of anti-promophoto editing?
Jenolen11:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree with you more. A press photo is by law 100% usable for any purpose here on Wikipedia. and should not present an issue for us. It is nutty to think otherwise.--BenBurch14:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The massive deletion campaign that has gone on in recent weeks, eliminating thousands of properly tagged promotional photos (many of which are irreplaceable) is seriously damaging our project. The use of horrible photos such as the one you present above supports your argument that such personalities may wish to have no association with our encyclopedia after seeing such an image of themselves here. Badagnani14:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have lost at least 32 images in the past week as well, not to mention countless hours of work both creating and defending the images. In many cases said images were obtained directly from the artists themselves, and involve persons from around the globe who don't walk into major public forums. In my case, the rule applied has been nearly universal - if the person is alive, your press or promo photo gets deleted, and nothing you can add to a fair use rationale can change it. Period. After this experience, I have stopped loading any images onto Wikipedia at all, and I refuse to ask the artists and celebrities I know for GFDL images - it's insulting at the outset, and opens up major issues for them going forward. Many of them will not give up control of their images in such a wholesale fashion, and they have otherwise been major Wikipedia supporters. Tvccs05:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. At the very least, the amount of prior discussion with the parties involved should be proportional to the number of images affected. If you are going to delete one photo because you think it's wrong...fine, "Be Bold". If you plan on deleting ten of them for the same reason then you'd better talk with some other editors about it first. When you plan to delete hundreds to thousands - the entire community needs to be involved on a much larger scale discussion with full consensus before proceeding. Talk first, delete later. SteveBaker14:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People don't come to Wikipedia because the images are free, they come here because of the information. Never remove a (properly tagged) fair-use image in favor of a free one, if the fair-use image illustrates the subject better. -Freekee15:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Partial support. Do replace fair use images with free ones; yes, even ones that are of slightly lower quality. (The example is too blurred to be useful, but anything better would qualify.) Promotional photos will always be of somewhat higher quality because they're taken by expensive photographers; fair use images will be taken by volunteer editors, very few of whom meet those qualifications. If we don't replace them, there will be no incentive to take truly free photos. However, don't remove fair uses images until free ones become available - it is unrealistic to expect volunteer editors to go to the lengths that paparazzi go to to snap photos. AnonEMouse(squeak)15:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concern. I am concerned that you might be misunderstanding – or worse, misrepresenting – the choices available to us. We are not forced to choose flatly whether to allow fair use or not. We have before us a more nuanced choice. If it is possible to replace a 'fair use' image with a genuinely 'free' one, we should definitely be doing that. Where no 'free' image exists, we should retain the promo photo until a free image becomes available; I think most people support retention of the 'fair use' images in that case.
If a 'free' image exists, it very seriously weakens any 'fair use' argument associated with a promo photo; it also weakens Wikipedia's claim to be a 'free' encyclopedia when we include non-free images in our articles. You ask rhetorically (I presume) "who am I to say the photo is not "copy-left" enough for Wikipedia?". I'm going to answer anyway—you're not required to decide or interpret. If the image hasn't been explicitly released under a free license (GFDL, CC, PD, etc.) then it's not copyleft enough, and we should seek a genuinely 'free' alternative. It's kind of a no-brainer.
Note also that it's not Wikipedia's responsibility to make stars look pretty. Their agents ought to be well aware of Wikipedia by now; if they want the promotional value of a pretty Wikipedia picture, they can provide us with one under an appropriate license. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where no 'free' image exists, we should retain the promo photo until a free image becomes available; I think most people support retention of the 'fair use' images in that case. -- But this is not how the policy is being implemented. As has been noted, a "delete all promotional photos of living people immediately" campaign is already well underway. As for star agents/publicity people, they DO make their stars available for promtional photos all the time... it's just that the current system (stars pose for studio photographers, in character, for photos released by the copyright holder) seem to mandate "fair use." You're not going to convince the entire entertainment world to release to Wikipedia, alone, images that are in totality, "free/libre." There will ALWAYS be rights reserved by the copyright holder, which is why fair use MUST be used. But there are plenty of editors who would rather have NO IMAGE than a fair use image, and these editors have been especially vigorous in implementing this new "no promophotos of living people" ban. To me, that's counterproductive, and not making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Jenolen21:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly concur with TenOfAllTrades. I also note that a lot of the photos used are not actually promotional photos released as part of a press kit, and their use is questionable. I am also of the position that having an unfree image up tends to discourage people from taking free photographs: they see that something is already there and will not have the incentive to go out and do so. Unless the image is genuinely necessary to discuss in the article (Marilyn Monroe with her skirt blowing up is a classic example), where it is possible to get a free photo (i.e., the person isn't dead, retired, or otherwise out of public life) I would prefer to see nothing, in order to provide that incentive: promoting future value in the creation of new free content rather than going for the short-term quick-fix but worse solution. In most cases photos of celebrities are nice but not absolutely necessary for the value of an encyclopedia. There are plenty of reference materials on the web available at no cost to view; what makes Wikipedia different is its being free-as-in-speech rather than simply at no cost and we need to act to further that, our mission. Kat Walsh(spill your mind?)16:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern with the deletion is that too many mass image taggers are failing to consider what relevant information the photo actually provides relative to what a free alternative could actually provide. A current picture obviously could not replace a publicity photo taken many decades ago (though this is arguably relevant only if we're dealing with a celebrity whose specific appearance is important, as opposed to say a scientist), and a free picture could not substitute for an in-character publicity shot or screenshot from an actor's work (yet I have seen pictures of all of these natures inexplicably tagged as "replaceable"). "The subject is alive" is obviously not a catch-all justification for deleting any fair use photo without qualification. Our policies rightfully require that the replacement be able to "adequately present the same information" as the fair use image, and anyone tagging an image as replaceable should not do so if they don't understand what that information is. Postdlf16:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably changing the subject a bit, but how does wikipedia reconcile discouraging editors from doing original research in articles with encouraging editors to take their own pictures? Shouldn't pictures come from a reliable source, and why wouldn't original pictures be original research? It seems contradictory to me. --Milo H Minderbinder16:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jenolen says, "Instead, the previously sensible fair use criteria would seem to allow for such images, but the wording on this policy has been tweaked and shaved so as to be basically nonsensical, and entirely impracticable." Well, no, it hasn't. The wording of the fair use criteria on this question has not changed since criterion 1 was first added in October 2005. The fair use criteria have always prohibited the use of unfree images where free images could be created -- not where free images already exist. Policy on this issue has not changed in the past few weeks. All that has changed is that people are finally starting to enforce the previously ignored criterion 1. There is simply no excuse whatsoever for using copyrighted images of living people who regularly appear in public. —Angr17:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The best excuse in the world; If the picture makes the article better, and it is actually fair or permitted use of the material, then the BETTER picture is the one that ought to be in the article. We want to have the GREATEST encyclopedia, not simply the freest one. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Break the rules. Be Bold. And if you have looked, a lot of the replacement pictures SUCK. --BenBurch18:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, we're about having the freest encyclopedia. Having a free encyclopedia means that our work here will outlive all of us, no matter what Jimbo or the board may do. It means that the encyclopedia can be spread to poor families in third world countries, whether whether it's spread solely by non-profits or by market-driven methods. --Interiot18:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia grows by being a great source of information. Reducing the amount of information here by removing pictures, and replacing them with images that don't well illustrate the subject (or not replacing them at all) is counterproductive. I would have an easier time accepting this rule if someone could explain the harm in having fair-use and promotional pictures here. -Freekee19:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be talking at cross-purposes here. You're discussing how Wikipedia grows—and certainly, nobody will dispute that adding non-free images and other content to Wikipedia will make it larger. The concern is the effect that non-free material will have on allowing Wikipedia to spread or to be distributed. Mixing free and non-free licensed content in our articles greatly complicates (and curtails) the ability of people or organizations to reprint, republish, mirror, or otherwise redistribute Wikipedia's content. For instance, having non-free images makes it difficult or impossible for an article to be included in a book – or, for that matter, a digital CD compilation – and sold.
I feel that the bigger and more helpful the encyclopedia is, the more it will be spread around, but your point is taken. What I don't understand is why we're more concerned about others passing on our information, than we are about having the best information available. And to TenOfAllTrades, just below, I wasn't suggesting we push the boundaries of "what we can get away with", I was questioning why it isn't within the boundaries in the first place. -Freekee22:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having a great deal of information here is only one part of what we do—we also have a responsibility (and specifically enumerated aim!) to make our content freely available to as many people as possible. Encumbering our work with images bearing restrictive licences hinders us in achieving that goal. Remember that we're building a free encyclopedia; we're not just assembling a large collection of whatever we think we might be able to get away with on this one particular web site. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa. The whole damned point behind a press release photo is that you can, with attribution, us it in any publication whatsoever. The rights have been given. You'll have to come up with a better excuse to justify this Political Crunchiness than that.--BenBurch21:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even the ones where permission is granted for use, they're not free content. You do not unless explicitly granted have permission to modify them, to create other derivative works from them, or to sell them (though you may in many cases sell publications which include them). You might also get better responses by taking a less antagonistic tone. The "political crunchiness" of which you speak is on the part of the project, not on the part of the individual editors you're talking to. (Well, said editors may hold those views too, but that really doesn't matter. :-)) We aim to create content that is free for those uses, not just reprinting, and so content that we cannot do that to is a poor substitute. Kat Walsh(spill your mind?)22:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me a non-sequitor that if mirrors and other reusers of Wikipedia content are unable to use fair use material for whatever reason, that Wikipedia should be unable as well. Fair use images are all tagged and categorized as such and so should be easy to filter out; why shouldn't it be up to mirrors to find "free" images to fill in the gaps left by the exclusion of fair use images, rather than Wikipedia removing what it has a legal right to use based on applicable U.S. copyright law?
Regarding "free encyclopedia," the repetition of this mantra does nothing to advance understanding, and suggests that it's an all-or-nothing prospect of a "free" encyclopedia "or" one that "gets away" (?) with fair use. I can understand wanting to minimize fair use, as 1) it makes sense legally to be more cautious than we think the law permits; and 2) there is no need to go out of our way to increase the burden on reusers to filter out fair use content. However, it should be acknowledged that Wikipedia cannot become devoid of fair use-reliant content and "free" without making far more drastic changes than deleting some images, such as the removal of all textual summaries of copyrighted fictional works and textual descriptions of copyrighted fictional characters, the removal of all quotes from copyrighted works... Postdlf22:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there are images that can't be included in a hard copy of wikipedia (or part of it), isn't the obvious solution just to omit those images in that version? Since wp is technology based, it should be possible to have images that are tagged as not being free identified and omitted automatically. And is there a reference to the "law" that says that publicity photos can't be used in a hard copy? --Milo H Minderbinder22:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Section break (images discussion)
Angr says, "The wording of the fair use criteria on this question has not changed since criterion 1 was first added in October 2005. The fair use criteria have always prohibited the use of unfree images where free images could be created." That may well be; the change I was thinking of when I wrote that may have been in the {{promophoto}} template, which, until October 2006, had a more liberal wording with regards to that criteria.
However, I think it's fair to say that the images I uploaded -- and worked with many admins to properly tweak and tag under the fair use policy when I uploaded them (mostly spring and summer, 2006) -- seemed to meet the criteria as they were being applied at the time. Admins I contacted to MAKE SURE my images were properly tagged and sourced agreed that they, in fact, were. And then, the log rolled. A whole new interpretation bubbled up - this "no promophotos of living people, at all" kick that many editors are currently on. I disagree with their interpretation of policy. I disagree with their implementation of the policy. And I'm glad to see some sensible discussion about it here! Jenolen21:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just my two cents; promotional images are used as such because (in theory) they are excellent samples of the subject (case in point: Image:Davidsedaris.jpg). In my opinion, it makes perfect sense for us to use such photos until a better photo can be found; to remove a photo just because the person is still alive is a poor concept that does more harm than good. EVula// talk // ☯ //21:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And what of the idea that it discourages volunteer photographers from making the effort to find/take free pictures themselves? In the long term, I think that's more harmful, because we don't get anyone with the incentive to take these photos. (For example, does he ever do book tours and signings? If you knew a picture was already there, would you make much of an effort to go seek out one of these events?) If you can find a digital picture of the person to use as "fair use", anyone else can find it on the web too, and we can link to the official site which presumably has them; it's a small inconvenience but better furthers our long-term aims. Kat Walsh(spill your mind?)22:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what discourages people from taking their own pictures. If I take a decent quality picture of David Sedaris, I know it has a good chance of replacing that publicity photo on wikipedia because "free" photos are preferred if they are available. And for the record, I've met David Sedaris at a reading, and he's incredibly friendly and accessable - I'd be surprised if he didn't agree to having his picture taken. Now I wish I had brought a camera, but now that I think about it, I do have other pix that could be useful to wikipedia. --Milo H Minderbinder22:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy that disincentive argument either. People are too competitive and prideful; they like to point to pictures they took of an article's subject (or maybe that's just me). Furthermore, all fair use pictures should be reduced in size so that they're no larger than needed to be legible; there will therefore always be the incentive to improve upon these fair use shots with a larger, high-res GFDL photo. Postdlf23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The practical experience we've had, however, suggests very strongly that image removal does trigger replacement; already a number of fair use images that had been around for months or years have been replaced in very short times after being removed. I suspect this is largely a question of the need for an image becoming much more visible. --RobthTalk23:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not one of the promotional photos of very obscure Asian liquors has been replaced, nor likely will be. Despite my justifications to this effect, every single photo of this type was deleted, almost all without serious discussion. The deleting editors, of course, have not lifted a finger to find such replacements, nor likely will they. I certainly will never upload another photo to Wikipedia, after the treatment I was subjected to in this regard. This campaign has impoverished us all, and really for nothing, as our own guidelines state that it is extremely unlikely that one of the producing companies would ever object to our use of photos that they placed online for the very purpose of promoting knowledge of their products. Badagnani06:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I had a digital camera, you bet your ass I'd take a picture of a celebrity that I meet and summarily check Wikipedia to see if I could replace a non-free image with the one I took. I think the only people who could be discouraged to replace a non-free image with their own are the same people who wouldn't think about uploading their own pictures in the first place. EVula// talk // ☯ //23:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope one of the GFDL only admins will buy you a digital camera and send you out as the first member of the Wikipedia free papparazzi,and pay all of your expenses. Tvccs05:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen a real clear answer on this, and I'm hoping someone such as Postdlf will jump in, but let's say EVula DOES take a digital photo of a celebrity he/she meets. I understand that EVula can license his contribution under the GFDL, but how are the personality rights issues addressed? How are the rights of the person photographed handled? Remember - 28 states in the U.S. have 28 different laws; doesn't it make more sense to go the fair use route in this instance? So, and this is the crux of the matter, is EVula supposed to contact the person after the photo has been taken, and get THEM to sign off on it, too? Just because they're in public doesn't mean they've given up all rights to their image, of course... Jenolen23:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is complicated, and will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and will depend greatly on the use. Making your own "merchandise" (e.g., t-shirts and posters) featuring your favorite celebrity in your own GFDL photograph is undoubtedly going to get you sued. Publishing and distributing a hard copy of Wikipedia articles with a full cover GFDL photo of a celebrity might as well. The most ironic thing is that the First Amendment protection in the United States that gives Wikipedia the right to make informative uses of celebrity likenesses in our own photographs to accompany articles is arguably as jurisdictionally limited and use-contingent as fair use. Postdlf23:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lets have a simple study? So why do we want to remove promophotos from wiki? -Because it increases the amount of "Free" content. Why do we want to increase the amount of "Free" content? -Because it makes our work survive even if something happend with WMF, because it increases it usability and because it protects WMF from litigations. Right? Now lets consider each point.
Survival: We do not need freeness for our work to survive. We only need forkability. If an image was a fair use in the contest of a wikipedia article it is a fair use in the context of a fork. For the purposes of forking the fair use is as free as GFDL as far as the "Fair Use" laws in the USA and anological clauses in other countries are valid.
Usability: Wikipedia without images of models, actors, dancers, singers is less usable no questions about this. Most of these images would not be replaced by free images. On the other hand, the fair use image has more limited usage over the GFDL. Users can not use fair images in e.g. an open-source game or as a decoration of a website. In most cases both GFDL and Fair Use are equivalent: we cannot put a GFDL image on t-shirt (without providing the GFDL license and the list of contributors), it is impractical to put anything GFDL into the commercial software, etc. Does a small increase in the potential usage of some images compensate for the removal of many others? I do not think so.
Safety: The less fair use images we have the more we immune to the litigation over abuse of the fair use clause. Since our policy is already strict we are already quite immune to this. Is it the only danger? How about privacy laws? For the fair use images they are the problem of the copyright owner. For the GFDL it is owr problem. The ban on promophotos encourage users to claim copyrighted pictures as their own work. Do you see problem here? By posting images with free licenses we become responsible if the images will become used in an inappropriate way by others (on a website advertising condoms, for example, or in producing photoshopped pornography). Do you know who will be the subject of litigation from the angry selebrity? WMF will. In short I strongly doubt we are to become safer after we remove all the promophotos.
If the deletion of promophotos (even if it is followed by the increased uploads of free images) does not increase our chances for survival, have questionable effect on usability and does not make us safer from litigation, then we do we do it? Alex Bakharev01:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider the increase in usability of GFDL over fair use images as small as you think; some of the most prominent media in which Wikipedia content will hopefully be reused someday (such as commercially produced books) would be on much surer ground with GFDL images than they would be with fair use images (even promo images).
I'm not sure where you get the statement that "For the GFDL [privacy and other liability issues] is our problem." Wikipedia is no more liable for GFDL images that it hosts than it is for promotional or other fair use images; remember that the holder of copyright over an image retains that status even if they release it under a free license. --RobthTalk02:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GFDL require copy of the license and list of contributors. It is not very convenient for most book publishers. Fair use in the context of the Wiki will be in the most cases the fair use in the context of book. The difference between responsibility for the promophoto and the GFDL image is one is a product of a known and accountable person the second is a product of an anonymous uploader. When wikimedia accepted this product on its servers it surely accepted some reponsibility in the case it was a violation of privacy, libel, etc. I guess it could be an important point for the publisher of a book as well. Alex Bakharev02:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If someone can find a Wikipedia article about a celebrity, it's very nearly certain that same individual is capable of using Google to find an image of that celebrity. (After all, that's more than likely how we got the promo picture in the first place.) For that matter, our article probably links to the celebrity's website. A handful of 'Wikipedia wouldn't be as pretty without this picture', combined with a dash of 'None of our editors can be arsed to get out and take a picture of this public figure', sprinkled lightly with 'It might take weeks or even months to get a picture, and we can't stand to have an incomplete article about my favourite celebrity for that long', baked at gas mark 7 for thirty minutes, does not a fair use soufflé make.
Regarding your point about 'safety', I would strongly recommend that you consult a genuine lawyer about...well, all of your legal assessments. I'm also a bit confused about the use of the term 'usability' in this context...? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, most of the information on Wiki can be found elsewhere if you spend some time doing googling or doing some research in a good library. In the best case the image is just one click away, sometimes the click goes to a dead link or to a foreign language site, sometimes the image shown on the celebrity's site is not exactly one needed for the text, but who cares about such small things, surely all the readers of wiki do not know what to do with their free time anyway. Alex Bakharev06:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem to me that most of the promotional photos on Wiki have provided much encyclopedic information. An article about singer/actor X is going to stand or fall on the content of the text, not on whether the picture is pretty. What encyclopedic question is answered by saying "person X looks like this" ? In most cases, as far as I can see, none. Thus, although I respect the work that many people have put into finding, tagging and uploading these images, I can't say I'm sorry to see them go. I've noted an unhealthy image-focus in many new contributors, as well... If we treat our encyclopedia like a photo blog, we end up attracting users who think it *is* a photo blog. It's imperative that we keep focused on our goal which not just to create a great information resource, but to create a great freeencyclopedia... things which divert energy from that are best done away with. -- Visviva07:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Remember that guy? He was in Groundhog Day with Bill Murray? And I think he was in Memento, too? That guy? You know, he's got that thin kinda' face? Glasses? Damn... uh ... Stephen something? Stephen Tobolowsky! That's it! Yeah... What's he look like?" It seems to me that this is the kind of question that Wikipedia should easily be able to answer without breaking a sweat (or having a massive policy dispute). Promotional photos help answer these types of questions, and in no meaningful way affect the "free-ness" of Wikipedia content. Jenolen08:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's the kind of question Google Images should easily be able to answer without breaking a sweat or having a massive policy dispute. Wikipedia is for providing encyclopedic information about him in the form of free content. —Angr08:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's an interesting line of thought. I'm fairly certain that you don't think an encyclopedia should be devoid of images. And there's quite a difference between a series of random Google Images results and a Wikipedia entry, I think we would both agree. I would even go so far as to argue that images, and the ability to actually illustrate an article, are what make an encyclopedia much more than just a dictionary on steroids. At the end of the day, I still have no idea why people are so supportive of content that is GDLF free, and so against promotional content that is, under reasonable fair use standards, equally free. It's just odd. Jenolen09:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course an encyclopedia shouldn't be devoid of images. But a free content encyclopedia should be devoid of unfree images. In the absence of free images, images (which are secondary to encyclopedic content) should be left out altogether. This is what German Wikipedia does, and its quality as an encyclopedia does not suffer for it. —Angr09:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But there are very important fair use images in the Wikipedia that are not secondary at all. Marilyn Monroe's skirt was cited above, Elian Gonzales and the INS most of us know, even I uploaded one, Gary Hart with Donna Rice. Those are all easily worth any other thousand words in their article, not just "what does X look like"? So we will always have some fair use images, as long as we try to completely cover the topic. Given that, the argument that we should exclude promotional shots to be completely free is invalid. AnonEMouse(squeak)14:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can't? Well, let me say it more clearly then: pictures are secondary to text when describing a subject. If a picture is worth a thousand words, but the only picture is unfree, I'd rather have the thousand words. And this includes things like Marilyn's skirt and Elian Gonzales. We aren't the only site on the web. For historical but copyrighted images like that, we can provide links to noncommercial websites that make no pretense to being free content and so can use fair-use images without compromising their principles. Better yet, if there is one, we can link to the copyright holder's own website showing the picture. —Angr06:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amen. To me, ANgr's attitude is the electronic equivalent of using the technology of the Internet at the level of the Gutenberg Bible. I never knew pictures (shudder) were such an evil thing until now. Tvccs05:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The argument above what should be how is purely hypothetical as it is based on fairuse images banned from Wikipedia altogether. This is not the case. As such, the fairuse images should be based on existing policies. WP:FUC #1 states: "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. " (in the specific context as any fairuse claim applies to a specific article.) --Irpen10:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite heavyweight enough to address all the issues being discussed here, but I'd like to chime in that I think that the anti-fair-use crusaders are making a mountain out of a molehill. Outside of this little enclave, the distinction between fair use and free images is hardly noticeable. Promotional photos are provided for the purpose of public release, and I don't see why downstream use of Wikipedia's content wouldn't be acceptable under the fair use doctrine. So why is this an issue? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because one of the core tenets of Wikipedia is that it is a free content encyclopedia. That does not mean using everything we can get our hands with low likelihood of getting sued. —Angr08:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, as an intellectual matter, the difference between fair use and free content. However, as a practical matter, in the real world, is there any discernable difference, for the purposes of Wikipedia and its downstream uses? I'm not sure that there is.
As a relatively new Wikipedian, with no previous experience in the policy-making end of things, let me throw out my perception of the situation to see if it has more than a passing relationship with reality. 1. Official policy directs that a "free" image should be used rather than a "fair use" image, even in the case of promotional images clearly intended to be widely distributed (which legally constitutes an implicit waiver). 2. Recently, rigorous enforcement has begun, including deletion, as if the policy stated that free images "must" rather than "should" be used. 3. Even the most casual glance through this discussion would seem to indicate that nothing approaching consensus has been reached on whether these deletions are appropriate, let alone advisable. Am I missing something? Is there a mechanism to put a hold on the enforcement until consensus is reached? --Jgilhousen00:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I see no reason to exclude promotional photos. The purpose that they are released is to make it easier for the media to add the likeness of an artist, author or notable person, when traveling to that person to take a photo might be inconvenient. They are commonly used in newspapers, which follow guidelines on notability, neutrality and conflict of interest that are similar to Wikipedia's.--Dgray xplane23:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's something to be said for reducing our use of fair use, to ensure that we remain a free encyclopedia. Having said that, I would suggest that there are better ways to do this than to mass-delete stuff that's been here for a long time without problems. These ways would include focusing more on getting rid of new unfree images, and to increase efforts to create/obtain free photos/images. These are probably more productive than deleting ancient images, for which the benefit is more than negated by the alienation of long-time contributors. JYolkowski // talk23:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SupportHackajar I'm concerned at the requirement of Promotional images being forced into "Fair Use" when the original publisher is dumping images into Public Domain for use. Why does the WP:FU caluse even apply in this case? Hackajar01:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concern Just something minor no one's addressed very well - I noted that one other person suggested 'free' images taken without permission could expose WP to as much, if not more, liability due to using a likeness without permission, but one other thing that I didn't see any mention of - did anyone consider that a lot of celebrity appearances outside of "the general public" are conducted in a "closed" manner such as to prevent people from taking such pictures? It hardly seems a good idea for us to be promoting that WP editors deliberately violate venue rules in many cases to snap GFDL pictures that don't carry the picture subject's permission and risk having venue staff confiscate their photography equipment. UOSSReiska13:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell your saying "If I bring my camera to a concert to procure an image that is "Free" for use on wikipedia do I risk 1.) Loosing my camera during entrance search and/or during concert by security. 2.) Open wikipedia to liability because image was procured illigally at concert that prohibits photography." Right?Hackajar05:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I first thought I'd stay out of this debate but Jgilhousen (talk·contribs) has brought up a point that's being lost in the debate storm. Noone can in good faith say that the mass-deletion of fair-use images is massively supported by the community and it's not right for anyone to go on crusade without getting community approval. Pascal.Tesson07:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have seen many high-quality free images added to articles after the existing fair-use image was removed. Clearly, restricting fair-use images from being used to depict subjects which still exist (such as living people) has, in many cases, resulted in a freer encyclopedia as there's no doubt that freely-licensed images are freer than fair-use images. That said, the law certainly allows us to use promotional images to depict living people, provided they are promotional images of the people and not of a character that person played. Still, our goal is to produce a free encyclopedia and I believe we should rely as little as possible on fair-use; in fact, I understood this was a core principle. --Yamla05:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(That is, creating a free encyclopedia is a core principle, not necessarily relying as little as possible on non-free content) --Yamla05:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with replacing, when one is available, a promo or press photo with a GFDL image of generally equivalent quality. I ran into one of these some months ago and after a revert, left the free image alone, even though I don't think it's as good, and it was of a car, and it least it was properly exposed. However, on the now "magic" subject of living persons, what in some cases is happening is members of the GFDL club are out hunting Flickr for images which may be of bad quality, editing and cropping, and using those. Furthermore, they don't even have the courtesy of verifying with the Flickr user what they are doing, and just take the CC license and run with it. I had one of those with an image on the Keith Emerson page, where a period-specific promo photo of Emerson at his peak was replaced with an awful fan image that was washed out, over-exposed and off-color. When I notified the Flickr image holder, a fan of Emerson's, of what had been done, and sent him the link, he immediately chose to relicense all of his images, some others of which have also been "nabbed" in his words, to prevent any such use. Said discussion can be found at the Chowbok Rfc page, If you're going to be changing policy here, you need to have these Flickr grabbers obligated to send a note verifying the use of the image on Wikipedia as being acceptable, especially when they are cropping it as they did in the Emerson case, or you'll open of a far larger can of potential hornets than a thousand legitimate press photos ever could. This copy and run without notice attitude towards Flickr CC images is frankly, disgusting. Tvccs06:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you are saying here. If the image was posted on flickr with a license that allowed modification of the image (not all CC licenses do), what was the problem as far as licenses were concerned? There's no requirement to notify the original owner of the image, though this may be good etiquette. That the flickr account owner changed the license does not mean that the original image could not still be used under the original license offered by the flickr account owner. The owner of the image clearly and specifically wanted the image to be used elsewhere, this is the whole point of choosing a CC license. This is of course an entirely different matter than the possibility that the image could have been of very low quality and, for this reason alone, unsuitable for use on the Wikipedia. --Yamla18:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An example image. This image is a fair use image. Please help us replace it with a free image. Maybe if someone was a bit smarter instead of mass deleting images they could have advertised the need for a new image (using a template) similar to that shown at right. Just a thought. —Mike06:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "help us replace it" caption seems like an excellent idea. Deleting images without replacing them makes the encyclopedia less informational, and seems disruptive and contrary to current wikipedia guidelines. Is there some action that can be taken to get people to stop doing this? --Milo H Minderbinder14:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, change the policy. At the moment, images which are replaceable must be deleted after seven days. It is not considered disruptive to follow Wikipedia policies. --Yamla18:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's all about interpreting the policy correctly though. For instance, the Woody Allen article is now illustrated with a picture of a statue of him. Is that as good a representation as the picture that used to be there? Of course it's not and it's not even close. So the quality of the article was downgraded. I understand the objective of free-ness but if we have a fair-use guideline, isn't it precisely so that we can use fair-use images in the event that no alternative of similar or at least close quality? I think editors who are against fair-use altogether are in essence proving their point by deleting them as fast as they can find them. Pascal.Tesson19:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Topics which draw many commercial links
Over the last few weeks, I have noticed that there is a tendency for certain articles to be targets of links to outside commercial sites, or sites that are bordering on commercial activity. The articles I have noticed this for include "Way of St. James", "Santiago de Compostela", and "Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela". The number of outside books quoted, and outside links to guides etc seems to grow and grow and constantly need to be culled. I am not even sure that all the books and links that are currently listed are appropriate. Do people ever consider making a separate page to capture these links so as to not clog up the main articles? Or should they just be edited away aggressively?--Filll19:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're almost always edited away aggressively. WP:EL is a guideline that you can rely on when trimming links away. A "place all your spam here" page might be entertaining at first, but probably wouldn't be useful to our readers. If there really are quite a few useful links that aren't notable enough to deserve their own article, it's preferable that DMOZ handle the link organization instead.
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#RfC new proposal regarding controversial names - a proposed addition to the naming conventions which discourages editors from editing for the sole purpose of changing between controversial names, and specifically allows multiple names to be used on wikipedia when there lacks consensus to support one over the other.
I am sick of seeing editors going through pages systematically changing one controversial name to another (such as BCE/CE to BC/AD, or removing or adding the word "Roman" when it is next to "Catholic Church"). A disclaimer arose from the last vote over at Talk:Roman Catholic Church on whether to change the name to CC or keep it RCC. There are editors who feel strongly that certain controversial names are better than other controversial names, and aren't scared to make wikipedia reflect their personal opinion. It seems like common sense to me, but I wanted to see something in writing that say "hey, some names are really controversial, and wikipedia has been unable to choose between them, so we allow both. So DON'T go around editing with the sole purpose of changing controversial names, ok?". So I have modified the disclaimer to be more inclusive, and posted a proposed text at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#RfC new proposal regarding controversial names. Are there more controversial names that we could list? Is this a good idea? Thanks for your imput.--Andrew c00:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed question
i just removed some citationless trivia [10]. i suppose i could have tagged it as citation needed, but as i was editing it struck me that the statement was just suspect enough that it warranted a quick google search. finding nothing relevant, i removed it.
policy says to boldly edit, so i did (just as did the person who added the statement originally).
this seems like a fault prone procedure to decide whether or not to add a citation needed or delete the item. can anyone point me to official or suggested policy on this. 131.107.0.7300:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The way I usually deal with such things is via harm minimisation and likelihood. If I strongly suspect something is false, I usually just delete it and mention this in the talk page. Similarly if I'm not sure but I feel it's too controversial to leave unsourced. However when I suspect something may be true and it isn't particularly controversial, I usually just tag it as citation needed. Of course, each editor is entitled to deal with such issues however they see fit. In this particular case, I probably would have done what you did Nil Einne07:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nil Einne that movement of material to talk for discussion is suitable when you feel that it might be ok to include in the article in some form but doesn't seem to be good to reatain in the article at this time with Template:Fact addendum. This provides a seed for expansion and explication. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging a commons image as unverified
What is the recommended way to deal with commons images that you have tagged for deletion? I tagged Image:Correa.c.jpg.gif for deletion on the commons here Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Correa.c.jpg.gif. However as I wished to inform people the image was up for deletion, I tagged it {{unverifiedimage}} on the Rafael Correa page. But this means it directs people to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images so I had to include a comment there telling people to discuss it in the commons. Is this the best way to deal with such images or should I have just subst the template and then modified it to direct to the commons and/or not used a template? Nil Einne07:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best thing would be to create a new template that links to commons, or add a parameter to the existing template to make it point to commons instead. People at WP:TR can help if you want. (Radiant) 11:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see WP:DELPRO changed slightly, particularly the Non-admins closing AfD's section. I would like to see non-admins permitted to speedy close deletion debates, particularly, but not limited to AfD's. Some non-admins have already done this once or twice ([1]). Clearly, in that example, there was a community consensus, and if it wasn't for this tiny little clause in this policy, I would have done it myself. Thanks!
This preceding statement in a nutshell:
I want the following to be ammended
Non-administrators may not "speedy-close" deletion discussions. They must either express their view that
the debate should be "speedy-closed" in the normal procedure, or wait until the discussion has run the
full AfD period to close it as a "keep" if there is a concensus to do so.
to
Non-administrators may "speedy-close" deletion discussions. In the event of a speedy keep, the non-admin
should close the discussion just as an admin would. For speedy delete, the non-admin should place {{db}
on the top of the article, citing the page of the AfD.
(after ec) Now normally it wouldn't be correct to just revert this out of the policy, but I draw your attention to this edit: [11] where that paticular clause was made by an anon. Should I just remove it? — Deon555talkdesk09:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the other editors liked his contribution, since they rewrote it almost completely. Through introduction it gained consensus. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 09:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with the idea, except that non-admins can't delete the article to begin with, so why close the debate then? - Mgm|(talk)13:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Red links in lists of people
I quite often end up in lists of people which have (red links) to non-existent articles. It seems to me that while I am there, I may as well delete them (the red links), as it's just clutter. E.g. Santosh. One could argue that a recently added name may be an article about to be created, but certainly names that have been there for a while are stale. Often they are the result of links to speedy deleted bios/self written resumes, in which case they should be deleted, but it's not always easy to know that. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge15:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that as an exception if a red link name is clearly notable (i.e. a former members of the United States House of Representatives) it will never become stale and should remain. In the example, the red-link article is supported by a WikiProject and will eventually be written, however long it might take.--G107615:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in principle, but sometimes its not so easy. For example, I work on United States Congressional Delegations from New Jersey, a fairly complex table with lots of information. If I run across a link to the wrong person of the same name, then I have to chase it down and I end up 2 or 3 degrees away from the task that I originally working on. Then to have to immediately lookup the person and create a new stub article brings me 3 or 4 or 5 degrees away from the task that I was originally working on. Maybe I haven't been around here long enough, but I just don't see the difference between red links in articles or lists and red links on disambiguation pages.--G107614:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarification, are we just talking disambiguation pages here or all lists? In disambiguation pages I would agree that red links should generally be deleted. However, red links in lists should not generally be deleted (unless they're blatantly non-notable) as they are good indicators of articles that need to be created. If you have spent a lot of work creating a list of notable individuals it is irritating in the extreme if another editor comes along, however well-meaning, and deletes all the red links, often with the justification that "if they haven't got an article they're obviously not notable enough for the list". This is blatantly not true and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what Wikipedia is all about (i.e. it's an ever-growing encyclopaedia and lack of an article simply means nobody has got around to writing one yet, not that the subject is "obviously" non-notable). This has happened to me and it is extremely frustrating. -- Necrothesp13:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about red links on dab pages — Red-links are tolerated on dab pages, folks. The main reason they should be included is not in anticipation of the future, but as the result of some articles referring to the non-existent article. I often add red-links to dab pages when repairing them if I find in the 'what links here' link set one or more articles that link to the dab page and require disambiguation of terms to article titles that do not exist. The corollary of removing this type of red-link from a dab page (one the reflects usage in other articles) is removal of red-links from the referring articles - which is generally a no-no. I do agree that pre-loading dab pages with red-links in anticipation of use is not to be encouraged; but representation of red-links that are used in other articles I think is a reasonable reason for red-link representation. Note that you can see on a red-link whether or not other articles link to that non-existent article as the 'what links here' function works at the title level whether or not the article actually exists. There is a section of MOSDAB that addresses this, but I'm loath to simply say 'you should leave red-links in because the guideline says so' ... I hate being told things that way without additional explanation of benefits of editing in a certain way. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not wrong to unlink redlinks to articles that are unlikely ever to be created. This happens sometimes with historical peerage articles -- an enthusiastic editor redlinks a batch of younger siblings and the mother, but there just isn't enough information to write an article on most of them, so someone else unlinks them. If it is not wrong to unlink a redlink in an article, it cannot be not wrong to remove the same redlink from a dab. Automatic removal is wrong, but some should be removed. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Illustrated Wikipedia apparently aims to "illustrate" our articles using cartoons, as can be seen on the project page. I have a number of problems with it:
The images are just not right for encyclopedic articles, even just as links (they are cartoons after all).
The template used to distribute the images is clearly a self reference.
The whole idea seems very spammy/self promotion.
The idea does seem to have been discussed at all.
We already have too much template clutter as it is.
My solution would be to use these templates/images on talk pages, if we have to have them at all. For the time being I have removed, as have a number of other editors, the templates from articles. Martin15:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wants to contribute their talents to Wikipedia, and especially if they have considerable talents, it would be good to work to try to find where their efforts can help the project the most. Some general comments though:
Because the images are completely original (eg. aren't a snapshot of a real scene, and aren't directly tracing a reliable source), the images would have to meet all our content policies... verifiability, neutrality, formal tone of voice, etc. Some illustrated work does take a more formal tone, so I don't think we should bar all illustrated content, no matter what. But I'm not sure the current illustrations would meet our standards for content.
"Wikipedia" should not be mentioned in the cartoon, per WP:SELF. The template can at least be fixed after the fact. But the content here is meant to be distributed by others, and it's awfully hard to remove bits of text from an artistic image. If "Wikipedia" is prominently displayed for reasons that are similar to this template, then the author should be reminded that Wikipedia content is intended to be distributed by many other people. (it's entirely acceptable to require attribution to the original author, but trying to tie it to a particular distribution point is not) --Interiot17:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're brilliant (it's just a matter of determining where they should go), but at least two of them rely on fair use and so shouldn't have been uploaded to Commons—the facial hair comic depicts the copyrighted character Spock, and the Dr. Seuss comic makes use of Geisel's distinctive illustrative style (thus making it derivative of his work), and directly copies visual elements of the Cat in the Hat and the fish from that story. Postdlf19:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the funniest thing I've seen in a long time. Seriously, I love this idea. As for the Spock thing, I thought parody works were allowed because they don't infringe on the actual copyright holder. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 19:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone really copyright a drawing style, Someguy? Like, Warner Brothers' Anastasia looked awful early-1990s Disney-like, but Disney didn't complain to my knowledge. I correct people to this day about who created the animation. -- Zanimum21:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These are great! There's nothing intrinsically unencyclopedic about cartoons. However, the presentation of the images within their articles needs work, and I can see why so many of Greg's edits were reverted. Perhaps they should simply be thumbnailed as Zanimum did at Hammerspace(current version)?
The self-references should absolutely be removed, but that's easy enough with any image editor, and it's allowed by the CC license. The concern that comes to my mind is this: the images contain an unusually large amount of text which is not easily edited. Not very wiki-like. Perhaps the creator could be persuaded to provide editable source files, such as Photoshop docs with the text layers intact? This would also help with translating to other languages. Melchoir00:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do the self-references detract? In my opinion, it lets the reader know that they should temporarily suspend reality, and enter the "WikiWorld".
As for the assertation that it's not "wiki-like" to make the images uneditable: how does this differ from any other diagram? Justification for the uneditability:
It's his handwriting, not a font, so any attempt to reproduce the writing would end up ugly.
"Hyperthymesia" does use computer generated text, but in an uncommon, copyrighten font.
If you change what selections of text are used, the images and pacing are weakened. One of Greg's strengths in this cartoon series is that the images aren't just random drawings, they link to the text, and often provide much deeper insight into the topic than the text alone, by providing humourous "case studies". -- Zanimum21:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. These should be viewed as something different from articles, so that the same principles and rules don't apply. In most cases, attempts to edit or change these are going to ruin their integrity. There's also no reason why someone can't copy the pictures, add different ones, rearrange them, and add their own completely different text into a separate comic as an alternate version. Nor should multiple comics on a single topic be viewed as mutually exclusive with one another. Multiple articles would be a mess, but multiple illustrated interpretations can coexist. Postdlf22:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The self-references detract in the same way any self-reference detracts. They limit the images' usefulness to downstream publishers. They're distracting and inelegant from a design perspective. And, as other users have commented, they suggest a purpose of self-promotion. Zanimum, I don't understand your point about suspending reality at all.
I can't think of a qualitative difference between the editability of the cartoons and of other media on Wikipedia, but the cartoons just have a greater amount of information. Along with that, they have a greater possibility that they will need to be edited for neutrality and factuality. I'm not saying it's a deal-breaker, but we should always explore ways to make Wikipedia easier to interact with. Postdlf, why should any attempt to edit a cartoon ruin its integrity? You might have to tweak Image:Hyperthymesia cartoon.jpg if a second case is confirmed, and in Image:Dr seuss cartoon.JPG the text has little connection to the imagery, so you could rewrite most of it without impacting its overall quality. Melchoir07:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd make it a separate dab, since someone looking for "Samuel Ealy Johnson" isn't interested in digging through all the other entries at Samuel Johnson (disambiguation). The latter page is fine as it is, though; there's no need to start a tree structure or anything. Melchoir00:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that, as protection from vandalism, we semi-protect or protect the Main Page featured article while it is on the main page. We already protect the images there, and the Main Page fetured article is the most obvious thng to vandalise, ever. Bart13321:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree, especially after the pornography my young daughter witnessed on the Macedonia (terminology) article last night. The featured article can be unlocked as soon as it comes down off the main page. ZincOrbie20:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does Wikipedia have a policy regarding acceptable sources for fashion articles? My guess is that fashion magazines, as well as scholarly books about fashion, would be acceptable sources for fashion articles. The Question is wheteher tv shows, movies, CDs (Cover & insert pohtos), and other informal sources are acceptable for fashion articles.
Tim Kennelly06:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A similar issue was discussed in regard to Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima (a featured article) back in October. The lead formerly claimed that the photograph is "one of the most significant and recognizable images in history", quoting an American reference as its source. Many non-American readers, who never saw the photograph, were puzzled by the statement. In my opinion, no amount of referencing (especially taken from over-enthusiastic sources) justifies the abundance of peacock terms in an article. --Ghirla-трёп-12:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I refer to the edit above in particular. In my opinion when there are several reliable sources provided (though it isn't the case), any statement could fail both WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL (also because none of them are currently the official policies). If Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima would cite some non-American reliable sources along with American asserting that it's one of the most significant and recognizable images in history, the sentence could be restored. --Brandспойт12:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL are not marked as official policy, so several issues could be discussed. Again, sharing the opinion, Trifon is not a good example, but if he were a quite revered indeed, it's worth of writing so (also bearing in mind that the Panagia on the Ribbon of Saint George was awarded only twice in its history). --Brandспойт12:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simply referencing it would normally be enough, but if the statement is excessively superlative, attribute it in the prose. "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima was called by [group name goes here] 'one of the most significant and recognizeable images in history'[ref]." --tjstrftalk23:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've marked it historical. Given the lack of recent response I don't quite see the point of closing the debates; I'm sure that anyone who wanted to draw a conclusion there has already done so. (Radiant) 15:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Citing News stories mirrored on third-party sites
A copy of a news story has been posted on a third-party website. While we would prefer to cite the original source, if that has become unavailable, is it okay to link to the mirror site when referencing it? --Alecmconroy14:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My personal action is to source the original in the article without a link, and then either link the website it's mirrored in hidden text next to it, or, if it's possibly controversial, link the mirror on the talk page. As long as you're sure that the copy of the story is accurately mirrored, I don't think there's too much of a problem - we wouldn't hesititate using a news story from the 1940s if all you had was a photocopy from the library, after all. --badlydrawnjefftalk15:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Need to be careful. Sometimes sites which advocate on an issue are less than perfectly accurate or complete in mirroring content (I've seen some articles that have been selectively abridged). Sometimes they just outright lie, and make up articles, with fake attribution, that were never actually published. Well-known organizations with reputations to protect don't do this, but smaller, practically unknown groups may. Fan-196715:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about an instance where, oh, say, AP (or Reuters, or any other wire service) has a story and all 5 zillion of their associated papers, magazines, websites, and other news outlets pick it up and run with it crediting the wire? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)18:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're just talking about an instance where ABC News ran a story four years ago, but the link has gone dead and we want to link to the mirror on another site. --Alecmconroy11:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cite the original, note the mirror, after satisfying yourself that the mirror is a true mirror. If anyone disbelieves that, they can go to Lexis and check the original.And then they can delete the mirror. Hornplease12:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Introductions
Now that I have been on Wikipedia for a while, I have noticed one striking "problem" or feature. Many articles have almost unreadable introductory paragraphs. Some of this is because of the Wikipedia Manual of Style itself (for example, see WP:MOSBIO). In short order, following the Manual of Style and carrying the policies to extremes, the introductory paragraphs become clogged up with details such as:
multiple names (sometimes 3 or 4 or 5 or more), all in bold face
alternative spellings, all in bold face
very detailed date information, and sometimes alternate date information when the dates are disputed
names in multiple languages and scripts (sometimes just one other script like Arabic or Chinese, but other times in 2 or 3 or more other scripts)
translitterations of foreign words
parenthetic information
semicolons and dashes
sentence fragments with no verbs
long lists of material separated by commas
multiple topics and caveats all strung together into one long sentence
pronunciation guides, sometimes with links to audio versions
If just one or two of these is present, things are not too bad. However, in some cases, it makes the articles completely inaccessible. A reader cannot read the first 3 or 4 sentences of the article and have any idea what the article is about. Many editors try to shove as much information as possible towards the front of the article and into the introduction, and this compounds the problem. I am afraid that the Wikipedia style policies exacerbate this problem. Comments?--Filll14:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide an article that is an especially egregious offender? I'd like to see specifically what you're talking about.--Dmz505:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have any great examples to offer, but a couple that I have tried to make a little cleaner, with mixed success are the articles about the Forbidden City, Nurhaci, Hung Taiji, Merlin and Yasser Arafat. I am showing their state before I put some work into trying to simplify the introductions. Not all of my changes were accepted, however. I have seen some worse examples, but these give the general idea of what I was referring to. It is my opinion that they are starting to get to be a bit dense for someone who just wants to find out what the subject is about, before digging into a lot of details.--Filll03:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) notes that when more than 2-3 alternative names exist, it is often best to move them to a separate section. It might be nice if various MoS pages also mentioned this guideline (and the seeming unwritten rule that name information should not be added to one article when it is already present in another linked article).
Another solution that often works well, particularly when not a lot of explanatory text is needed, is a language infobox. Of course, opinions on those tend to be somewhat mixed, but it does seem that many articles would benefit from such a box -- particularly where there are multiple official names, each calling for separate transliterations. See {{chinesename}} and {{koreanname}} for examples in widespread use. And for a lively India-centered discussion of this issue, see Wikipedia talk:Vernacular scripts. -- Visviva09:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forbidden City, before editing
The Forbidden City or Forbidden Palace (Chinese: 紫禁城; pinyin: Zǐjinchéng; lit. 'Purple Forbidden City'; Manchu: Dabkūri dorgi hoton, literally "Layered Inner City"), located at the exact center of the ancient city of Beijing, China was the imperial palace during the mid-Ming and the Qing Dynasties. Known now as the Palace Museum (Chinese: 故宫博物院; pinyin: Gùgōng Bówùyùan), its extensive grounds cover 720,000 square meters, 800 buildings and more than 8,000 rooms. As such, it is listed by UNESCO as the largest collection of preserved ancient wooden structures in the world, and was declared a World Heritage Site in 1977 as the "Imperial Palace of the Ming and Qing Dynasties". The Imperial Palace Grounds are located directly to the north of Tiananmen Square and are accessible from the square via Tiananmen Gate. It is surrounded by a large area called the Imperial City.
Although no longer occupied by royalty, the Forbidden City remains a symbol of Chinese aristocracy and the image of Tiananmen, the entrance to the Imperial City, appears on the seal of the People's Republic of China. The Palace Museum is now one of the most popular tourist attractions in the world. Recently, the site has been under much renovation which has limited visitors to the main courtyards and a few gardens.
Nurhaci, before editing
Nurhaci, also known as the Taizu Emperor, Nurhachi, or Nuerhachi (Chinese: 努爾哈齊; pinyin: Nǔ'ěrhāchì]; Manchu: ) (1558-September 30, 1626; r. 1616-September 30, 1626) was the last chieftain of the JianzhouJurchens and first Khan of Later Jin. He is considered to be the founding father of the Manchu state and is also credited with ordering the creation of a written script for the Manchu language. Nurhaci's organization of the Manchu people, his attacks on the Ming Dynasty and Joseon Dynasty Korea, and his conquest of China's northeastern Liaodong province, laid the groundwork for the conquest of China by the Qing Dynasty.
Hung Taiji, before editing
Hung Taiji (Manchu: ; Chinese: 皇太極 Huáng Tàijí; also known as 洪太極 Hóng Tàijí or 黃台吉 Huáng Táijí; sometimes referred erroneously to as Abahai in Western literature), (November 28, 1592-September 21, 1643), was first Khan of the Later Jin and then Emperor of the Qing Dynasty, after he changed its name, reigning from 1626 to 1643. He was responsible for consolidating the empire that his father, Nurhaci, had founded and for laying the groundwork for its eventual success in conquering Ming dynastyChina, although he died before accomplishing that great achievement himself. He was responsible for changing the name of his people from Jurchen to Manchu in 1635 as well as that of the dynasty to Qing in 1636. The Qing dynasty would last until 1912.
Hung Taiji was the eighth son of Nurhaci and succeeded him as the second ruler of the Later Jin dynasty in 1626. Although it was always thought as a gossip, he was said to be involved in the suicide of Prince Dorgon's mother, Lady Abahai in order to block the succession of his younger brother.
Other accounts distinguish two different figures named Merlin. For example, the Welsh Triads state there were three baptisimal bards: Taliesin, Chief of Bards, Myrddin Wyllt, and Myrddin Emrys. It is believed that these two bards called Myrddin were originally variants of the same figure; their stories have become different in the earliest texts that they are treated as separate characters, even though similar incidents are ascribed to both.
Arafat, however, was a controversial and polarizing figure throughout his lengthy career. While his supporters viewed him as a heroic freedom fighter who symbolized the national aspirations of the Palestinian people, his opponents often described him as an unrepentant terrorist with a long legacy of promoting violence. Still others accused him of being a deeply corrupt politician or a weak and devious leader. Arab nationalists believe that he made too many concessions to the Israeli government during the 1993 Oslo Accords. However, Arafat has been widely recognized for leading the Fatah movement, which he founded in 1957.
Disambiguation pages
Go to Category:Disambiguation and you will see most of them list things that don't have articles either with red links or no links at all. Most do. However I find on some disambig pages, people with grudges against an acronym will control it (typical article WP:OWNing throughout Wikipedia) so nothing without articles appears. I dug through policy and I can't see anything that says one way or another. For instance see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GNAA&action=history One article gets deleted and some HighInBC (who does reverts within 2 minutes--what's this guy doing all day if in only two minutes 24 hours a day they revert the articles they control?) and Robotman1974 go around reverting any links they want. Robotman1974 does something like 8 reverts in the last 24 hours, so I am suspecting sockpuppets here and suspecting it because an admin reverts HighInBC and so Robotman1974 reverts the admin. There's three different disambiguations for the GNAA acronym and only this HighInBC/Robotman1974 holds a grudge against, and with them holding a grudge against one, they keep all the ones out they don't hold a grudge against. Can someone find policy where non links can stay or if they can't then it's fine for all non links in every disambig page to get deleted via bot to make it fair? Anomo 20:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Err I didn't look that closely at the last revert and it appears they left one of them in and only wanted the article recently deleted (I think on it's 200th AFD) not be mentioned. Anyway, I'm still curious about that disambig policy thing. Anomo21:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was rewriting my comment to be less negative, but I got an edit conflict, so I struck through it and here's how I rewrote it: "Go to Category:Disambiguation and you will see most of them list things that don't have articles either with red links or no links at all. Most do. However I find on some disambig pages, if an article gets deleted, it can't be mentioned on the disambig any longer. For instance see [12] and there's for instance one account does close to 8 reverts in 24 hours. Can someone find policy where non links can stay or if they can't then it's fine for all non links in every disambig page to get deleted via bot?" Anomo21:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is, a redlink for an article that has never yet existed is fundamentally different from a redlink that has been removed, or a redlink to an article that has been deleted through a valid process. While the DRV is (was?) still ongoing, it will be trivial to re-add the link to that particular GNAA if/when the article is restored/recreated validly. -- nae'blis21:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Links to non-existent articles ("redlinks") may be included only when an editor is confident that an encyclopedia article could be written on the subject.
Since the article has been deleted by an AfD, one can no longer be confident that an encyclopedia article will be written about the subject, so it's very reasonable to remove the link. Keeping the entry around with no link is no good either, since disambiguation pages are solely for choosing between encyclopedia articles. --Interiot21:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a huge number of disambiguation pages that need to be be corrected to meet our guidelines, because it's perhaps a little unintuitive that disambiguation pages aren't for listing meanings that have no encyclopedia article. Nonetheless, it's a well-established principle that relies on NOT a dictionary, so it's unlikely to change. wikt:GNAAdoes take dictionary entries, though I don't know their exact criteria for inclusion. Based on the lack of sources noted in the AfD, it might be similarly difficult to list it there, but you'd have to ask some wiktionary people. --Interiot21:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if the interpretations I've put here aren't considered generally valid ... I believe they are, but accept the possibility that they aren't. There are some circumstances under which a red-link arising from an AfD action might be converted to a proper link, typically in cases where the AfD action related to deletion of the article but not the concept. Consider an article for a specific song on an album being deleted, but the article about the album existing, then a dab-entry can exist that refers to the song on the album, either by blue-linking to the album or by seeking approval for re-creation of the song article as a redirect tagged with Template:R to list entry. A more common occurrence is where a person's name appears on a dab page and the corresponding biographical article is deleted. For instance, let's assume that Mr. X was a perpetrator in a major crime; it is possible that the major crime might appear as an article or section and that Mr. X might be mentioned by name as a properly encyclopedic datum, but that a stand alone 'Mr. X' article might be disallowed through AfD action. In this case, 'Mr. X' appearing on a dab page would be appropriate with reference to the article about the crime in which Mr. X is mentioned ... but Mr. X must be mentioned therein - I've run across (and edited) cases where a cross-reference like this has been made and the target article has no mention of the referred concept; the reference should be eliminated in that case, where the target article is blind to the referred concept. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that seems generally valid, eg. if the only bluelink on the disambig entry was troll (Internet), that might work (it would definitely work if there are mistaken backlinks to GNAA that meant to link to the troll group). Though if that were the case, one would think it's preferable to instead make Gay Nigger Association of America a redirect to troll (Internet) instead (though I guess you'd have to consult those who salted the article... maybe salting it as a redirect would be okay). --Interiot00:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hijacking of Dictionary words
Somebody writes a specialized article based on a common word, and then claims to own the common word. Dr. Johnson would be horrified. Examples: I'm tired of arguing on their talk pages the merits in favor of Tenure and Option being allowed to retain their common meanings, letting the specialized versions take the hindmost in the shape of a parentheticised word describing the specialty, whatever it is. There should be a tag asking for an admin to either get the page name changed, or have it deleted. Meanwhile, I am sure many users who live outside the U.S. and U.K. are feeling deprived of information they have a right to. At the moment, any attempt to enlighten with an edit at the opening with an explanation that this is not the common usage of the word is reverted by a robocop reciting that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JohnClarknew 07:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I think "live outside the U.S. and U.K." should actually just be "live outside the U.S." If "tenure" was mentioned in the UK, very few people would think of the academic term, since it's rarely used here. -- Necrothesp18:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The answer, I think, is to append in the 1st position of only such articles (which keeps it over to the right) the Wiktionary tag. The ordinary meaning(s) of the word is then made instantly available to worldwide readers, and I hope that this might become officially endorsed as a policy. Many such cases are not able to provide a Disambig page which may or may not do something similar. It should offend no one, and there are still a few language purists around. As an example, check Tenure. JohnClarknew 19:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Policy question on closing XfDs
Should a discussion be automatically closed if the nominator withdraws the nomination, even if it is after several days and many contributions by many people? The case I'm specifically referring to is Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AtionSong/World's Longest Poem (second nomination), which Whedonette (talk·contribs·logs) withdrew AND closed for this stated reason. It seems to me to be somewhat disruptive to do so since many other people have taken the time to state and defend their position. I don't mind the nominator withdrawing, but it doesn't seem to me that the decision to close at that point is entirely up to the nominator. I'd like to see what other people think. —Doug Belltalk23:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say undo it. The common sense requirement is that you only close things where you decide that you nominated in error, as proven by other people unanimously opposing your nomination. When others are agreeing that it should be deleted it's no longer your decision. --tjstrftalk23:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have undone it. It seemed the correct thing to do. The discussioni is almost five days old with many people weighing in on each side of the issue. —Doug Belltalk23:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image Use
This is a copy of an email I sent requesting an image. Is the response enough to use the picture on Wikipedia? He agreed... sort of. Could anyone make sense of this? All personal information was replaced with +++++.
Hello +++++++++++++ -
MusicNotes has forwarded your below e-mail to me, as we own/control
the photo in question. I have no problem with your using the photo on
Wikipedia, but cannot give any broader rights than that (especially
commercial rights). Let me know if that works for you.
Best regards,
Greg Jansen
VP Business Affairs
Narada / Nara Music
150 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10011
Original Message
From: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 4:11 PM
To: Musicnotes Customer Service
Subject: Help Forms - Other
Name: +++++++++++++
Email: +++++++++++++++++++
Issue: I am an editor of Wikipedia, a multilingual project to create a
complete and accurate encyclopedia by open editing. We gather
information from all types of sources, but the web sites of government
bodies, institutes of higher learning, and other non-profit
organizations are often particularly useful. The English-language
version may be viewed on the Web at http://en.wikipedia.org/. As a
unique and highly visible project, we freely and publicly release our
work, that it may benefit mankind. To this end, we deeply respect
copyright, and are careful to prevent any infringement.
We would like your permission to include resources created by your
organization in our encyclopedia. Specifically, we are interested in
copying your picture of David Lanz, accessible at
www.musicnotes.com/features/artists/davidlanz/. In order for us to do
so, it would be necessary for you to license your work under the GNU
Free Documentation License (GFDL), which was designed by the Free
Software Foundation (FSF) for free works. You can find the license text
at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html.
If you licensed one or more of your documents under this license, you
would retain full copyright. However, we would be licensed to
distribute
the material, as would future users of it. We would distribute your
work
free of charge. However, future commercial distribution could occur.
This is because users of our encyclopedia are authorized by the GFDL to
distribute it, or any part of it, for a fee.
The license does stipulate that any copy of the material, even if
modified, must carry the same license. This guarantees that if licensed
in this manner, no copy of your work could be made proprietary. That
means that no one who distributes the work can ever restrict future
distribution.
Please notify me if you are interested in licensing the picture of
David
Lanz, or all of your copyrighted material, under the GFDL. I can be
contacted by e-mail at +++++++++++++++++++.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
I'm afraid it isn't. Images to be included in Wikipedia have to be available for modification and commercial reuse. I could probably dig up a policy page to that effect, but that's the big point. You could try responding and emphasizing the point, but it already doesn't sound like your contact is willing to release the image under a suitable license. Melchoir06:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's basically said no to a free license. You could write back and make sure he understands that you are not allowed to post anything just for Wikipedia to use but must have free licensed images using either Gnu Free Documentation License or Creative Commons by or CC by SA licensing and tell him thanks but if you put it up under a license restricted only to Wikipedia an editor will delete it. The only thing that seems unclear about his response is whether he understands you have no choice in this matter; he seems to think there's an option for him to just allow it in Wikipedia. Generally though he's already told you "no". – Bebop13:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dealing with images
I have a number of questions about images and licensing. I tried asking these at the Help Desk, but no one answered, and someone there suggested I post the questions here.
1. If a band hands the band leader's camera to a casual passerby to take a band photo, and they never hear of the passerby (who may not have ever heard of them) ever again, they do not know his name, and they develop the photo and want to give it to us under a free license are they not able to own it and give us licensing because they didn't take it themselves even though it was their camera? Therefore should I tell a band to only use the self timer if they ever want to take a photo they own themselves when including themselves in the shot because the passerby owns it technically if he takes their camera and shoots the photo for them?
Note on question #1, someone at the Help Desk did offer an answer to that one question, which I quote at the end of this message, so if you agree with his answer on 1, then 2, 3, and 4 are what I still need help on. [I am moving the other questions to the end of all the answers to question 1 in hopes it will be easier to read now. – Bebop23:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Quoting from The Help Desk on question #1:
:#1 seems unambiguous. There is nothing in copyright law that gives copyright to the owner of the camera; it rests in the photographer unless it is transferred or is a work for hire. Signed legal paperwork would be needed. Notinasnaid10:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This would mean that any time someone who never sees you again, doesn't know you, and can't remember they even took the picture says "ok" when asked to snap a quick shot of you with your camera, which I've even had people ask me to do before when they were vacationing where I live, they entered into a copyright relationship with that stranger/passerby now owning an image the camera owner can't even put it on their own wall since they don't know who took it and can't ask permission. Even though the passerby took the photo without identifying himself or qualifying the terms of his taking the photo, the person who has all rights in the image on your camera's storage media is the stranger who doesn't know you or how to contact you, so you don't really have permission to even keep the image and should destroy it, if the above is "unambiguous". Anyway, I'd like to make sure this is the correct answer on #1 before I take other action on an image, and I still hope for help on the other questions, particularly hoping someone replies on #3. – Bebop12:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the answer is probably technically correct. The camera owner could probably claim that they had rights to the photo(that they were the photographer), but if they are in the photo then that begs the question as to how the picture was taken by them if they are in the photo (Self timer? Some other photographer?). Like many legal questions it is more about the probability that someone would take legal measures in any given situation. The law says that the photographer has copyright rights to a photograph from the moment that they create it. But, if someone were to claim that they actually took a photo that was later used on an album cover, how would the photopgrapher prove their case? Would they do so? If the camera owner took all of the other photos on that roll of film, and could prove that, it might lean there way, maybe not. What if it is a digital camera, how would one link one photograph to others? Perhaps some kind of forensics. How would the photographer/camera owner even prove that any of the other photos in that batch (or roll) were taken by them?
IMO the risk of using a photo that a random passer by took for you is very low and the probability that someone making a claim would spend the money on a legal case and could win are low. But, that is just one random Wikipedia editors opinion in passing. The safest way (and still not risk free) would be to have a professional photographer take a photo that is intended to be used for commercial purposes (such as an album cover). They usually use film, have a unique camera format (often different from a conventional 35mm), they usually religiously number and document each roll and photo that they take, and they have a professional reputation that could possibly hold up in court better than a random passer-by.
Thanks. I'll not use the one where a passerby took a photo of the band. You mentioned timers, and, yes, when a self portrait is taken, a camera timer is often used by people taking a photo of themselves. When that occurs, I guess I had better make it clear. That is relevant in a different photo that has been submitted as a self portrait. I will get that clarified. But the photo I asked about regarding the passwerby is a band photo they told me on the front end was by a passerby; that is not the self portrait someone sent me that he took of himself, which I presumed was with a timer, but will get it made crystal clear since you mentioned that topic. Bebop
Meanwhile I really hope to get help on the other questions besides question 1, especially to find a French speaker to help me talk to a photographer (although I have now received a license consent from him). – Bebop 13:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC) (I only wanted to ask him a couple of things about how to do his name and make sure he didn't have any other questions, but I have since figured that out and also have been in touch with with a French speaker but the photographer didn't seem to me to have any questions and is not illiterate. He does understand English but the first day I wrote him he asked for a translation and I sent him a link to a French translation of the CC license and he then later approved the permission after getting the French translation. I just wanted to see if he had any other things to talk about to a French speaker but he knew I was waiting for one and he did not seem to feel he needed one any more but I've gotten one in touch with him if he needs one, not because of the license but just to make sure he has no questions about Wikipedia or anything else that he'd like to ask in French. He had the choice of waiting and indicated he understood the license and he did have a copy of it in French to read. I just like to make sure a French person has a French speaker to talk to before all communication is done with but he did approve the license clearly.) – Bebop23:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question #1 is a legal question. So far, the answers are unsatisfactory. They would seem to say that a camera operator in all movies in the history of the photo industry, owns the resulting images. Please! Ever hear of "Contract law"? Ever hear of "Oral contract"? Or "Implied contract"? "Condition"? "Waiver"? "Claim"? "Consent"? "Release"? These are all common words connected with legal doctrines at common law. By taking your camera and as a result of your words of instruction consenting to take a picture, without claiming ownership of the copyright there and then as the condition of taking it, there is no case. The burden will be on the operator to prove it, and they cannot without witnesses on their side to swear that they heard the necessary words. And of course, you will have witnesses on your side who heard your words of instruction. The ownership of the camera is beside the point (maybe it was borrowed). Where it gets murky is telling the necessary truth and claiming copyright for the purposes of publishing the picture, and protecting the publisher's self interest. But of course, you will have first secured the release from the stranger who took the picture if you thought you were going to claim copyright for the purposes of future publication. Didn't you do that? No? Then you have a nice picture to put in your private family album. Best not to offer the picture at all, because you will be frustrated by the publisher's reasonable demands. Caution: As always, beware of fraudsters. JohnClarknew 18:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
3. I need to locate a French-speaking editor familiar with copyright and licensing to help me communicate to a French photographer interested in letting us use a photo. But he does not yet understand CC by SA 2.5, so I cannot upload the image until he understands all the issues and he finds it confusing. I have email and can talk to the French editor in English at my email address and connect him with the photographer but I would like to upload and maintain the image since I know the details of who is in the photo. I wouldn't mind the French editor getting the permission done though. Or to find out if it's not really what the photographer would want to agree to. I don't want anyone agreeing to a license they really don't agree with if that ever comes up. There are plenty of advantages that can be mentioned to the photographer though since it's just one photo and can bring his other work attention by linking to his website and so forth in the photo description page. I'm also asking things to an admin by email but he is very busy and can't always answer. Contact me at my talk page or email me regarding item 3. (I have had licensing permission on the image for hours from the French photographer, but I still thought when I wrote this question earlier I wouldn't mind having a French speaking Wikipedia editor just check in with him to make sure he doesn't have any further questions, so I had one check with him.. He knew he had time to wait but went ahead and cleared it for the license after reading the French version of the license. I already finished with this barring anything new coming up.) – Bebop23:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Photo credit question regarding Spanish name form & nicknames
I have a name question for a photo credit. The photographer at issue has a name of this type: José-louis [long name] [final short name]. He often goes by a nickname shortened version of his "long name". Another way he has sometimes referred to himself on a credit is by José [shortened nickname derived from long name], without mentioning his final short name. I don't know if it is a Spanish form, but he speaks French. Perhaps he speaks other lanugages too but not much English. He lives in France. I am wondering if there is a rule on how I am supposed to identify him and how those downloading the photo in the future would be required to identify him. By his full legal name? Or by his preferred photography name? I could put both in the photo description page but it would be helpful to those downloading it if they knew what they are required to put. Here is another way to illustrate the situation without putting his actual name up on this page; this is not actually his name but similar: José-louis Blancorogero Ortega is what is in the FROM field on his emails. But on his photos he often embeds the short form "Blanco" and I saw one example where he has put up "Photo by José Blanco" on a page because he may still bedeciding how to do this. He seems like a very talented amatuer photographer, who does this as a hobby and hasn't started a business yet but could some day, rather than someone who has firmly decided how he's going to call himself. These are things a French speaker could make sure to clarify with him so that my questions to this person are clearly understood. Note that this is not his actual name but a very similar illustration of the situation. – Bebop13:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if I need to start a new French wikipedia account in order to try to locate a French speaker to check in with the photographer I was speaking to. The problem with that is someone else took my username at the French one even though they almost never edit with it. Also, I don't know French, so I would embarrass myself trying to ask for help there. I could try to find a help desk at wikimedia commons, I guess. – Bebop15:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[Strike out is clarifying that I got finished with the French guy hours ago.][reply]
Category:User_fr-N contains English Wikipedians who are native French speakers. If you really want to follow it up with him, you might trying recruiting one of them as an intermediary. Generally though, I would copy the identification given by whatever source you acquired the image from. (It is appropriately licensed as per Wikipedia:Image use policy, right?) Dragons flight19:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried now to make it clear what items I have left to be answered. The French guy gave me the photo directly on request, not an outside source. He has done his name several different ways publicly so I was checking to see the right way for photo credit but already solved that issue. He speaks a little English and he had the license to read in French prior to deciding he wanted to agree to the license. At first he seemed to want a French speaker the other day but several emails later he seemed comfortable especially after I sent him the French license twice. My question I have stricken because it's already taken care of and I'm already in touch with a French speaker was about non-license issues like photo credit and just wrapping up with him. He already felt comfortable with the license and did not indicate he had any questions for a French speaker the last 5 or 6 times I asked him if he wanted one but i later eventually did get French speaker in touch with him too just in case. I am not needing any more help with that part of it and so have stricken that. Thanks for the link. The questions in the prior thread are more important to me. I wouldn't have minded reading an opinion on how long names and professional nicknames are handled in photo credits but I solved it to my satisfaction. I have no problems with the license and sorry if someone misunderstood the fact I hadn't rushed over here to update people that I was finished with the French photo license previously. – Bebop00:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just created Category:Wikipedia subject-specific style guidelines and moved first two subject specific style guidelines there. The reason is following: Original category is full of guidelines that only few people need to know which makes finding the most important guidelines very difficult. I plan to move all the WikiProject style guidelines there plus other kinds of guidelines like for India related article etc. Please comment, kill me etc., if you think it is a bad idea. BTW.: moving most of style guidelines will need creation of new template for subject specific parts of manual of style. This is second reason why I included only two guidelines. The first one obviously is that I do not want revert too many pages if my idea is bad. --Jan.Smolik14:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Photos by Wikipedia users, ourselves
If I submit a photo or scan that I created myself, would I have to list my real name in either the photo description page or whatever letter I have to send to wikipedia permissions to confirm I created it. Do I send a letter to Permissions dept confirming it, if I create an image myself? Is using our wikipedia username not enough for these licensing issues to identify ourselves; i.e., is wikipedia username anonymity disallowed for this licenses? Can I say "Bebop" licenses this CC by SA? Or tag it CC and say I created this image myself, sign it with my username and leave it at that? I don't want to find out later I have to name myself because I'd rather delete the image or try to find someone else who can shoot the image than do that. But it seems like you would have to do your real name in a copyright issue. Yet I feel certain I have seen images by Wikipedia users that didn't tell their real name and were licensed GFDL. Am I right? – Bebop02:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you create it yourself just upload it and tag it. Real name not required although by not useing your real name you have an effect of the length of the copyright on the image.Geni02:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
QUESTION - What do you mean by I have an effect on the length of the copyright on the image by not using my real name? It's not something I care to restrict at all. KEY ISSUE - It's a photo of a fair use image of a 12-inch album cover. How about that? I just realized that in this case the fact of me photographing an album cover or scanning a cd cover does not matter, right? I would just submit the photo of the fair use "album cover" and not even mention it was me who took the photo because of the fact I don't have any ownership of the image anyway, right? The worry about naming myself would only matter on a photo of other things, I would think, not this situation with photographing a fair use album cover/cd cover (which is similar to when you scan an image)? – Bebop03:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The effect on the length of the copyright is that if a work can not be atributed to a real identifiable person a different term applies. If you reveal your true identity then the copyright on your works last for as long as you live and for 70 years afterwards (controlled by your heirs). If you publish your works under a pseudonym and remain "unidentified" however, the term is instead a fixed 95 years after publication (I asume hitting "upload" here counts as publishing).
And you are correct, for all intents and purposes you would hold no rights to such a photo of a poster or albumcover, or at least what few rights you would have would be moot since you would need the permission of the copyright holder of the poster or whatever in order to do anyting with it. --Sherool(talk)07:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other Questions I wrote earlier that hopefully will get answered
1. (was 2. earlier) What is our current stance on watermarked images? I saw this question asked previously by someone else at a talk page but the question was ignored and now suddenly I need to know the answer because I'm encountering a number of situations where a photo is available but has a watermark of a photographer's name and sometimes his email addres on it. I know that if he gives the photo to me CC by SA 2.5 I am allowed to alter it, providing I list the alteration, but sometimes removing a water mark may remove data from the image or crop it in a way that is bad.
2. (was 4. earlier) I assume album covers being used for illustrating an album continues to be ok but definitely they don't want promophotos any more, from what I've read lately. Album cover scans are fair use so long as they illustrate an album and not people, I understand, unless someone is going to say we never use any sort of fair use item. I have some work to do on something related to an album cover but in general, it is often hard to find photos from a past time period for a group that's been out since 1979, an album cover scan of a key past album can sometimes be a very helpful illustration in a historical discussion. I've seen them used in at least one article that achieved featured article status too. Are cd covers as ok as album covers? I will check the album cover tag.
3. (was 5. earlier) Is it better for the photographer to send the Permission directly to the Permissions email address and just copy the editor on it or for the editor to forward the permission to the Permissions dept themselves? I have been forwarding it but I'm wondering if it's even better when the photographer sends it directly. The only problem with that would be if the photographer doesn't write the permission correctly the first time, thus ending up with a bunch of extra emails to the permissions dept. till it's clear or specific enough. – Bebop03:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the best thing is for the photographer to create a wikipedia account, log in themselves, and upload the images on their own so they can assign usage liscences themselves. That is the fastest and best way to do what you are asking. --Jayron3204:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. That would certainly make the image less than ideal. I'm not aware of any policy that would specifically bar watermarked images, as long as they are clearly released, but many Wikipedians would object to them per WP:NOT an advertising service, etc. Unless the image is truly irreplaceable, I would err on the side of exclusion.
2. I don't think there's any relevant distinction between CD and album/LP covers. Is that what you mean?
3. What Jayron said. But if that's not an option, it is probably better to have the release sent directly to Permissions. Less risk that it might be seen as spoofed, illegitimate, etc.
I have a question about the policy on notability. As I understand it, an article must assert the notability of its subject. However, many editors are of the opinion that certain classes of subjects are notable in and of themselves and require no such claims. The most frequently cited subject is high schools, but other areas (many being items of local interest such as streets, fire departments, and the like) also garner this questionable claim. I know that there ARE some subjects for which policy exists: incorporated municipalities are deemed inherently notable. Here is my question: is it possible, in the current absence of actual policy on schools, police departments, etc, to create a new policy as part of the existing notability guidelines that explicitly states that in the absence of policy on that specific subject area, no article is exempt from the notability guidelines? I am being somewhat unclear, but essentially it would be nice to point to a real policy that says "there is no official policy on the inherent notability of this subject; therefore, the article must assert its subject's notability just like every other article on wikipedia." Does this make sense? Thoughts please? --Dmz504:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really sure why you need anything more than WP:V here. If a major local institution can't be verified, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. If it can be verified, then by virtue of being a major local institution it is notable. Of course WP:LOCAL may still apply... -- Visviva04:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I shouldn't pretend I'm not talking specifically about high schools. Many high school articles do nothing but establish that the high school exists. A lot of editors propose these articles for deletion and say "this doesn't assert the notability of this school." Many people agree. Many other people, however, say "of course it's notable. It's a school." If you were not aware, this circular argument occurs every single day on AfD. Am I wrong that there is no official policy that states all schools are inherently notable? There are essays and proposals and the like and who knows if/when real policy will be created. My suggestion involves heading the circular argument off at the pass by emphasizing that an article has to assert the notability of its subject in the absence of policy stating that the particular subject is inherently notabl. --Dmz504:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of that circular argument... and I can say that the only thing more annoying than someone saying "all high schools are notable" is someone else saying that's an unacceptable argument and "without a policy, you must provide some other proof that Y is notable besides its being a major public high school." :-) It would be nice if we could all simply accept that reasonable people can and do disagree about whether all X are notable by virtue of being verifiably X. In terms of AfD, the real question, based on the (disputed) guideline WP:N, is whether being verifiably X gives us good reason to believe that additional reliable sources can be found... A visit to your local public library or historical society will surely turn up any number of reliable sources about local schools, and the same can be said for many other local institutions. Hence, in my experience, being verifiably a major public institution is sufficient grounds for notability; however, in many cases merging is still the best option (again, per WP:LOCAL). Will we get a consensus on this? Probably not. Is that a problem? Not really. Happiness, -- Visviva07:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a number of thoughts about your response, but I do note that you specifically refer (albeit in jest) to "major public high schools." I'm talking ALL high schools, and ALL streets, and ALL police stations. Also, you return several times to the question of verifying - getting more sources, etc. It isn't verifiability I'm concerned about. The existence of a high school is verifiable. Oh, and I do agree that there is unlikely to ever be consensus about this, but I thought my point was a unique one.--Dmz507:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you all are trying to put too much effort into determining what is notable and what isn't, and in the process, you are going to not only delete a lot of potentially valuable information, but you are going to discourage people from contributing in the first place. I really value Wikipedia as reference material, and there are a number of subjects I could contribute articles and images for (e.g. the reverse engineering work I've done on proprietary compression and image formats). However, I've given up on that plan, because I'm not going to waste time when it could be deleted for being "non-notable." Why do you care, as long as it's factual? There are probably ten thousand articles on Star Trek and anime, but that's okay because more of you have heard of them? Somehow I doubt that there's a resource/space issue and it's more a question of editors on a power trip. IMO, if you are actually arguing over how to distinguish what high schools are notable and which aren't, you're so far down the path of deadlocked and useless bureaucracy that it might be too late to ever turn back. --blincoln03:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The schools are best dealt with by asking a simple question: are there actually reliable sources about the school that provide substantive information, such that we're not merely mining the school's website for the names of its assistant principals or splitting off columns of district enrollment statistics. If not, then "notability" is beside the point—it's just not an independent topic. Be bold and merge and redirect to an article on its parent school district if it's a public school, or to a list of private schools in X otherwise. Just as Broadway is notable, but not every block on broadway would merit a separate article, one can accept that schools may be notable, but not accept that every school somehow merits a separate article. It's simply a matter of properly organizing information. Postdlf06:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This recently featured article contains blatantly pornographic photos, which are completely unnecessary. Because this site is not only a public, all-ages site, but also an excellent resource for school-aged children, this should not be allowed.
It is bad enough when porn websites don't require age-verification. It is MUCH worse when the porn is right on a page that young people are likely to use on a regular basis.
As mentioned above not only is Wikipedia not censored but it also does not discriminate against the category of featured article candidates or creating an article for that matter. Wikipedia aims for its content to be as encyclopedic, as descriptive, and as factual as possible; including but not limited to articles about controversial, sexual, or offensive topics. In order to meet the standards listed above we as a community must not use discrimination in the process or else we will hinder productive editing of the bulk of Wikipedia's articles to begin with.¤~Persian Poet Gal(talk)05:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This may not be the place to drag out this discussion, but I am reposting a comment I left on the earlier misc. topic about this. Perhaps this is a silly "what if", but what if autofellatio ended up getting featured status? Stranger things have happened. There isn't much choice there - yes, the erotic depiction article had a tasteful image on the main page, but what if you opened wikipedia innocently one day and the word "autofellatio" was slapped right on the top in bold letters with a the first paragraph right there? And what if the erotic depiction article had not had such a tasteful picture? Blindly citing policy and saying "parents should do a better job supervising their children" seems to me a rather arrogant and dismissive response to this question.--Dmz506:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that ever happened, I for one would die laughing. Then again, I rarely visit the main page, so I probably wouldn't notice. In either event, I'm sure that if in the event that were to occur, the image could be forgone or a diagram put in its place. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah yeah I know it's silly, but I'm not just talking about the image. And where does this line get drawn? Is wikipedia censored or isn't it? Why should the image be forgone? I don't have a firm opinion here but I don't want this debate to die away in a cloud of users blithely saying it's the parents' fault for not making the child leave the room, checking the main page to ensure there's no porn, and then having the child come back in.--Dmz506:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my assertion was a strictly "if necessary" sort of thing. Were that to actually happen, consensus would likely fall in favor of "let's do it regardless". Wikipedia not being censored shouldn't be compromised anywhere. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will copy my comments from the other discussion ALSO being carried on this EXACT subject on another page. How do we decide what articles are "too objectionable" to be included as a main page featured article? The question must arise: Objectionable to who? As a parent, a person might not want to see an article on autofellatio. As a single adult, with no kids, a person might not care. Why does the parent have a greater right to set obscenity standards than does the single adult? Why does the most restrictive standard have to apply? The solution is not that wikipedia should be censored. The censoring needs to be done at the consumer level, not at the producer level. Any solution enacted institutionally at wikipedia to "protect the kids" is unsatisfactory as an unmanagable policy.
If memory serves me right Raul654 is the one who decides what FA's get main page or not and not all FA's get main page which somewhat dismisses the entire idea that an article can't be an FA because it's explicit because it only means it can't be on the main page because it's too explicit... like autofellatio :). Cat-five - talk09:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One could argue that the main page is not really part of the encyclopedia, and thus the policy of no censorship would not need to be entirely maintained. An image depicting autofellatio should not be on the home page. You have to be realistic- putting extremely pornographic content on the main page would hurt our ability to bring new users, and thus new content, to the project. However, in this case, I see nothing wrong with the image that was used on the main page. And of course, once you get into the real mainspace, there should be no censorship whatsoever. --- RockMFR07:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tangent: I know it's not entirely productive to post comments in multiple places, but I also know how easily discussions like this evaporate, especially on these relatively arcane policy pages.--Dmz507:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What might be questionnable is the wisdom to make this article the featured article of the day. There's a subtle difference between maintaining high quality articles on such topics and showcasing them. That being said, the absurdity of having an article on History of erotic depictions without having examples of erotic depictions just numbs the brain. We've been through this over and over, if you don't like seing erotic depictions, read something else. There's a million and a half articles to choose from. Pascal.Tesson18:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Great!! Double wow!!! This was my first visit to the Dump, and look what I find - a dragged on discussion on a nonexistent case that emerged from a presettled policy issue quoted to prove a point against an unsigned appeal to censor WP by an anonymous user. Triple quadraple wow!!! I just love being here. Seriously. - Aditya Kabir16:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template policy
Hi, I would like to know if there is any particular policy on the location of templates. Is it possible to put them on a user subpage, or do they have to be put in the Template namespace? I would be grateful for any feedback.
If they're going to be transcluded into the main namespace (or the Template namespace), they should be in Template space. Don't know of a specific policy on that, although WP:OWN is pertinent. Other namespaces, especially the Talk namespaces, might be more flexible. Depends on the context, somewhat.-- Visviva10:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My intention was to create some little award for users (sort of like Phaedriel'sToday's Star but not really), so really only on the User/User talk namespace. Not on the Main namespace, that's for sure.--CarrotMan11:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bearing that in mind, where should I put a template of this genre? If possible, I'd find it easier if it was on a subpage of my user page.--CarrotMan14:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject Wikify has a template here instead of in the Template namespace. Seeing as what I plan to do is even more personal than that, I think it would be safe to file it away in a subpage. I'm going to go ahead with it (rather recklessly, I know), but if anyone objects I'll be sure to listen.--CarrotMan07:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable to me; it's quite normal for templates of that nature to be on user subpages (or WikiProject subpages) anyway. Cheers, -- Visviva09:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Work of reference: inappropriate to have time-dependent information
Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia, a work of reference to be used at any time. As such, articles should be written without an assumed time wherever possible. This end can usually easily be achieved without any loss of meaning. While the introductions to articles about prominent people and events are unlikely to fall out of date (I would not expect to find "Bill Clinton is the 42nd president of the US"), references sprinkled through the text, and less prominent articles, can easily become out-of-date if not carefully written.
For example, instead of saying
"George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the forty-third President of the United States, inaugurated on January 20, 2001"
we can say, with no loss of meaning,
"George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) was inaugurated on January 20, 2001 as the 43rd President of the United States"
Expressions such as "currently", "recently", etc. should be "in 2006", "since July 2005", etc.
If this is done consistently, the wording of articles will remain essentially up-to-date, leaving only developing facts and events to be updated.
Templates and so on should be updated. For example, "Incumbent" is unnecessary in a politician's entry if we say
"In office 20 January 2001 - <blank>"; the lack of a closing date implies incumbency. This is nothing new; in many works of reference people's date of birth and death are often left open "(1 January 1980 -" and "b 1 January 1980" are both found).
I have already changed one template, with no complaints, to say of someone with no date of leaving office "Assumed office <date>" instead of "In office since <date>".
Thanks for the reference; I have people complaining about my edits to remove the implied present as "all articles do this". Pol09818:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed disambiguation guidance (continued)
An archived discussion on this page proposed that some text be auto-added to be visible when people are editing disambiguation pages. The discussion was inconclusive, but with some comments that editors unfamiliar with the applicable guidelines should be notified on their talk pages. I have created a template, {{mosdab}}, intended for use in such cases. Matchups14:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fourohfour appears to be acting as if acceptance of the inclusion is a done consensus, having used it as justification to revert my recent removal of the hidden text while I was doing other cleanup activities at Fab
I think you're reading too much into it. The template wording had changed somewhat since I first wrote it- primarily in response to some of the comments made here. My edit summary was referring to this change. It wasn't meant to imply official endorsement and/or consensus.
I felt that in this case its inclusion was justified. You disagreed. Well, it's a matter of opinion, there's no real official weight on either side, and I didn't imply that there was. Fourohfour15:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(I knew some discussion was going on but did not know it had progressed to page editing activity). Is the decision for inclusion of this lengthy text (which can be longer than the full visible text of many dab pages) sufficiently supported that it can be used as the basis for edit reversion? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back at the archive, I see: This is useful, thanks. Nothing that would justify doing it to every disambig page yet, but I'll include it if and when I find pages with the problem occurring. One of the main snags is that as it *must* use subst, we can't easily change/update existing notices automatically. Fourohfour 11:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
A few people weighed in, hardly a consensus for a policy change, just the beginning of a discussion about an issue. My opinion is that the inclusion, or not of the auto-added text, as user:Fourohfour says, is a case by case issue. Apparently he disagrees with you over whether it should be included in the Fab article, as there is no consensus that it MUST be included in each disambiguation page. I suggest discussing the issue on that talk page and getting others to ofer their opinion there. Atom13:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't weigh in at the time, I assumed it would be implemented, it's such an obviously good idea. Disambig pages need a lot of cleanup, and there's not a sufficient number of people cleaning them up. MOSDAB s a bit arcane, so a short-n-sweet summary might be useful. For what it's worth, I think it might be worth mentioning that every entry needs to have (or the editor needs to be confident that there can be) a blue-link, per WP:NOT a dictionary, which is solidly policy and unlikely to change. --Interiot16:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The real issue here is that the template did include the disclaimer text in the Fab article. It seems that Matchups removed that text for whatever editorial reason, and Fourohfour reverted it, as he says above, "I felt that in this case its inclusion was justified." He goes on to say, "there's no real official weight on either side, and I didn't imply that there was". Ceyockey asks "Is the decision for inclusion... sufficiently supported that it can be used as the basis for edit reversion?". I believe the consensus is, no. Atom16:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the dab page. I don't like the hidden text, it's absolutely annoying and unnecessary. We really don't need to handle *every* special case as a special case. Rules upon rules upon rules.... The link to "for other uses see Wikitonary" or whatever should be fine. Also red links shouldn't be removed simply on principle as they cause no harm to wikipedia and allow new users a convenient way to begin editing. Wikipedia isn't as obvious to use as experienced users like to think. Wjhonson16:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment on red-links It is pretty established practice now that red-links shouldn't be removed on sight or on principle from dab pages. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. After some thinking on this, I understand the drivers behind it. I think my objection is more to the size and wording of the hidden header than its existence. However, I think that the header's use should not be across 100% of dab pages, which is a shared sentiment I believe. Here's a revised version and I'll explain my reasoning after the example.
<!-- *** EDITING GUIDELINES for DISAMBIGUATION (DAB) PAGES *** -->
<!-- DAB pages are not normal articles and have a special style -->
<!-- DAB pages help users find specific articles -->
<!-- Please ~ Point to (link) only one article on each line -->
<!-- Please ~ Start each line with the target article -->
<!-- Remember ~ These are guidelines - not absolute rules -->
<!-- *** More information @ [[WP:MOSDAB]] *** -->
First, I've tried to make the concepts more the focus here than the technical specifics ... I'm hoping this wording is easier to digest for new editors or editors who are new to editing dab pages. Second, I've remove the 'new users' because it is as likely that experienced editors are coming new to editing dab pages as it is that newbies are doing the editing (in my opinion). Third, I've replaced the long wikilink with the shortcut WP:MOSDAB ... the point is giving them an easy link and not a self-explanatory one. Fourth, I've restricted the width so that it will be constant over a wide range of window sizes. Fifth, I've changed the introductory line so that it is more of a style thumbnail than a warning or admonishment. Sixth, I've dropped use of the term 'sentence' which would encourage the inclusion of full stops and full sentence syntax, which is not part of the current style guideline. I know this is a radical change from the original proposal. Perhaps further evolution will satisfy all parties. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that your new version is much better than the one I wrote. It's informative without being pushy, and it's also cleaner looking. Fourohfour14:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a bit of a controversy over at WP:EL - there have been some pretty major changes made lately without consensus, and every time the page is unlocked it becomes a revert war. Any outside opinions would be appreciated. --Milo H Minderbinder17:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a correction, a difference in opinion. It has been in line with policy all along, a couple people believe "Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Wikipedia which contain information that can't or shouldn't be added to the article" says that it's OK to link to copyright violations and factually incorrect material (as well as in versions that say the same thing more specifically). Also, there was a recent addition without consensus forbidding from linking to any site that is anonymous - the claim was made that WP policy forbids it although so far nobody has yet been able to say what policy that would be. If there is an absence of consensus on this, I feel that the guidline should stick with previous versions instead of whichever version happens to "musical revert war" by chance before it's locked again. --Milo H Minderbinder17:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It takes two to tango, Milo. Arguments have been made against the appropriateness of a wording that encourages linking to "information that can't or shouldn't be added to the article". If information can't or shouldn't be added to an article due to violation of policy, the EL section is not the place for it, for example. As for the recommendation to avoiding linking to blogs, personal pages and anonymous sites that is consistent with WP:V. In a nutshell, the external links section is there to augment the article with good quality links and not to detract from it by linking to likely spurious websites. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)17:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that linking to copyvios of factually incorrect material is an absolute no, and the guideline should avoid any ambiguity on this issue. ≈ jossi ≈(talk)17:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I brought this up here so that others may comment, not so that it could be argued here. And for the record, nobody has ever argued that it's OK to link to copyright vios or factually incorrect material (nor argued with the "nutshell"), that's a straw man. But it is allowed to link to copyrighted material, and still says that in the guideline. WP:V applies to wikipedia content, not external links - where does it even mention external links in WP:V? Where does it say in WP:V that it applies to external material? So would any NEW people like to look over the guideline and join in the discussion? --Milo H Minderbinder18:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Photographing Album Covers and Scanning CD covers
When you photograph an album cover (generally is too large to scan) and scan a small cd cover, and then want to put the image into wikipedia and use it in a band article, I realize it's an "albumcover" tag as for the license if you properly use it to illustrate an album in an article. But does the fact that you yourself had to photograph or scan it enter into anything regarding licensing? What is the image to be tagged? Fair use albumcover? Or licensed GFDL by the person who took the photo of the album cover? I am confused. – Bebop19:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no separate copyright apart from the album cover itself; the photograph or scan of the cover is merely a copy rather than a derivative work because it adds nothing to the original (except the labor of copying it, which is not an aspect of copyright protection). Accordingly, the fair use analysis need only consider the album cover rather than the scan. Postdlf19:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey everyone. Over at Wikipedia:Usurpation we've got a useful proposed policy to allow active users in good standing be renamed to already existing but totally unused accounts. It's got a fair bit of support, but it doesn't seem to have been commented on by a lot of people, so the bureaucrats are worried the community doesn't really know about it. It'd be pretty good if people would go read it and comment. --Gwern (contribs) 20:16 3 December2006 (GMT)
Need advice regarding TV series naming conventions
I recently moved Becky and Barnaby Bear (TV series) to Becky and Barnaby Bear based on my understanding of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) because there is no other Wikipedia article by this name. Now User:Tmalmjursson has moved the article back to Becky and Barnaby Bear (TV series) and left a comment on my talk page claiming that (TV series) is necessary to avoid confusion because a series of books exists as well, even though there is no relevant article for those. His other reason appears to be based on the possibility of other articles by the same name existing in the future, but I was under the impression that article titles weren't disambiguated until other articles of the same name actually existed. If anyone can take a look at my talk page and give me any suggestions I'd appreciate it. Psychonaut300000:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There have been many discussions in the past around whether or not editing should take into account the possible future and the consensus has almost always been that you should not try to predict the future while editing. Moving the page in question and/or creating a dab page or using a dab-related template (like Template:For) when it is needed is sufficient. As a courtesy, you might ask the other user if they are intending to create the now-missing article soon ... and if they are not, then suggest to them that they add it to Wikipedia:Requested articles if they think there should be an article. This being said, the new article in question would be entitled something like Becky and Barnaby Bear (book). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline page at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) is currently marked as disputed, and there's a rather hefty debate going on at the talkpage about a related issue on the naming of episode articles, which is also moving on to mediation. See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). Based on the intractability of both sides, this may move on to ArbCom as well. For now, I recommend letting the process at WP:DR work things out. Though, I was interested in Ceyockey's comment, that there has been prior consensus on this issue? Could you please provide a link? --Elonka02:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Policy on sound samples, specifically length of excerpts from music
Do we have a policy on the recommended length of sound samples? I would like to add segments of certain tracks to some articles (eg The Bonzo Dog Band). I've looked at Wikipedia:Sound samples but there is no guidance on the matter there. eMusic.com seems to use 25 seconds of a track on its commercial site. I seem to recall Amazon uses about 30 seconds.
Although it's a pain, I would be tremendously grateful if a reply could be posted on my talk page as I'm rather scatter brained and forget where and what I've asked. Many thanks. --bodnotbod02:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The recommended maximum is 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the piece, whichever is shorter. If you can get the point across by using less, then by all means do so. --Carnildo06:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
advertising
Could somebody tell me what Wikipedia's policy is (if it has any) on advertising? I just deleted a section in an article that was taken directly from a press release, and I'm wondering if that was the right thing to do. I can't find any information on this. P4k07:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are some editing challenges which require subjective action on the part of an editor, the same one who deletes the offending material without discussion. That must have happened to nearly everyone, and not without some justification. How to mitigate the damage? How about a rule taken from California court procedure. An Order to show cause filed with the court demands an answer within a specified time, and states that if an unsatisfactory or ignored demand is not responded to, an action will take place. An offically prescribed Wiki tag would put a pre-determined time limit for the respondent to talk, could be as little as 3 days. After which, well, see what happens. Right now there are too many users alienated by a swift chop based on boilerplate. JohnClarknew 22:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Model infobox, model articles
Template:Infobox Female Model Bio
I've been clashing with a number of editors writing Indian actress articles. They've been using a "model infobox" that was apparently developed for people writing articles about Western models and supermodels. Here's an example of such an infobox, from Riya Sen.
I haven't ever thought of myself as a feminist, but this infobox upsets me, in that it treats women as pieces of meat to be weighed and measured.
I'm also offended as a scholar in that none of these claims to weight (not filled in here, but in the code), measurements, and dress sizes are ever referenced. They can't be: they're bogus claims, or ephemera.
I know that dress sizes no longer mean anything -- there's been a constant "deflation" of sizes, as manufacturers slap a size 8 label on a dress that would have been a size 14 thirty years ago. The rag trade has discovered that no one wants to be a size 14, but will buy a size 14 labeled as an 8. So there's incentive to cheat. If an actress or model claims that her size is X, she's flat out lying.
I've also listened to countless friends talking about how they gained or lost weight, lost inches when they started an exercise program, even gained inches in the bust when they got breast implants. Just how can we publish some measurements, derived ghu knows how, as if they were immutable facts about a woman? One editor, asked where he got his numbers, said they were from a beauty contest web site. I said, "That was years ago, how do you know they haven't changed?" He replied that since they were actresses and models, it was their business to keep their bodies the same, therefore their bodies did not change.
A related issued has been the lavish inclusion of company names in the context of "she was chosen as the Lakme model of the year" and suchlike. I think that this is advertising and I don't want to see it sneaked into the article under the guise of reportage. The Indian editors' comment is that this is OK in the regular model articles (see Kate Moss) so it must be OK in Indian actress articles. Do model and celebrity articles get a pass on the advertising rules? Or do we apply those even there?
If I can convince the community at large that the model infobox and the advertising have to go, there are a fair number of model articles that need to be revised. I posted at Model (person) but no one has replied. I don't know how to get feedback from that community. Zora23:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you feel slightly better if the fields were referenced or had "approx" tagged on them? I personally do not see the problem with this infobox. It no more demeans women than all the articles on porn stars. Infoboxes are only meant to collect general infomation into a nice little box. It's not meant to demean or deavalue anything. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the porn star articles -- sheesh, I never considered that such things would exist here. Yes, I think those articles demean women too. Questions of taste aside, however, all the comments re verifiability of information apply to the pornstar infoboxes as they do to the model infoboxes. No references, and the assumption that these are eternally true measurements. Adding approx wouldn't begin to solve the problem.
I suppose that, on the grounds of "no censorship," prurient interest in women's bodies might have to be tolerated. However, like any other POV, it has to have references, not just figures pulled out of the ether. A reference would be something like, "On X date, model Y asserted that she weighed XX pounds and measured XX-XX-XX," and then a ref to the published article where she made this assertion. Her assertion is not necessarily true. She is very likely minimizing her weight and waist size, and exaggerating her bust and hip measurements. Zora00:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Until the day comes where we can spirit models away on a whim for physical testing to ensure Wikipedia articles accurately reflect their physical attributes, we'll just have to take their word for it. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These allegedly witty comebacks are bizarre. Clearly the context matters. Sure there might be an info box on Ron Jeremy showing his penis size. But does that mean there should be one for Abraham Lincoln shwoing his penis size (perhaps it's in his autopsy). Even if we had that information availalbe on old Abe, I don't think it belongs in the Abraham Lincoln article. As for the article Zora's working on, I'm not sure about that either, but simply syaying it's appropriate because Wikipedia publishes Ron Jeremy's penis size si bizarre. I would also say the data should be removed if no verifiable source could be provided for it. --63.250.231.1704:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would think penis size to be an appropriate, if not necessarily useful, bit of data for a porn star's article. As for models, there's already a source for this particular models bio, even if its not cited directly. Unless people are just whipping up guesses, I would say such information is readily available and reliable in the case of this particular model. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the infoboxes - vital stats of a female model are clearly relevant information. Agreed, they contain information that is very likely to change, but as long as one mentions the point when measurements were taken, it shouldn't be an issue. Gamesmaster G-905:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The advertising stuff is a completely separate discussion issue, not just a minor point to be sneaked into another discussion in the guise of an afterthought. I'd welcome Zora wholeheartedly to initiate a discussion on brand names featured in articles on showbiz personalities who are notable as models, especially as there career highlights. It was most inapropriate to imply that Lakme the brand (there goes an advertisement of Lakme) was made by Riya Sen's endorsement, not the other way round. For someone who declares a war against advertisement, it should be a priority to establish a guideline, by consenus, to differentiate advertisement from information/education.
Now, back to the infobox. The only point in Zora's complaint that I see is that these measurements are not properly cited for source, though the level of precision Zora is demanding may actually put almost all the WP articles to a tough test. Otherwise models are and always was appreciated for their looks and their figure (appreciated as meat if you prefer), and their statistics is much an anti-woman statement as there very existence. If women's bodies and its commercialization is so scandalous, I propose that we remove all female models from WP, they all may represent anti-woman statements (check The Female Eunuch by Germaine Greer).
I see no problem with the infobox itself, may be all they require is a request to post the source for the stated stats. By the way, the implied difference between Western models having a right to flaunt their brands and Indian models lacking it was amazingly racist for someone who speaks for women's dignity and stuff. Thank you all. - Aditya Kabir15:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aditya, I don't think Western model articles should be full of brand names either. Please don't hint that I'm a racist. But I agree that it might be a good idea to bring up the advertisement discussion in a separate thread.
As for the measurements -- I'd suggest that they be sourced, to reputable sources, and dated. Readers will be able to evaluate ten-year-old measurements with the necessary grain of salt. They may also require a disclaimer on the order of "stated by subject, not verified". We don't otherwise let people write their own biographies on WP. I don't regard pornstars and models as such reliable sources that they should be exempt from this requirement.
I'd also suggest that the measurements be moved OUT of the infobox. The vast majority of WP biographical infoboxes give data like name, birth and death dates and places, and reason for notability. Having a separate infobox for people who are notable only as bodies IS demeaning, don't you think? As someone said previously, imagine the porn star infobox applied to Abraham Lincoln ... or perhaps Mahatma Gandhi. In terms of the Indian actress articles, the use of the model infobox has meant that some actresses, who were never models or beauty contestants, get an infobox of the same type as given to any other notable figure, like a writer or politician. Actresses who were models or beauty contestants get infoboxes that suggest that they're only notable because of their bodies. That's just not even-handed. Zora01:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox for the occasion, that's how it works. Your assertion that we should somehow blanket infoboxes is ridiculous. That'd be a pointless mess of code and a severe risk to Wikipedia integrity (literally speaking). A model is notable for modeling, Ghandi is notable for humanitarianism, and presidents are notable for being presidents. It is in no way uneven-handed to classify an article on a person by what they're most notable for. If a model is a crappy actor or does it as a side job, are you seriously suggesting we use the actor infobox simply to be more "politically correct?" I'm sorry to say this, but it seems as if you're trying to make Wikipedia seem sexist. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually - models ARE in fact notable for their bodies. Its their job to have great bodies, and they perform that. I didn't understand the Gandhi example. Its like asking - "Can you imagine Cindy Crawford with a scientist infobox". Its not demeaning, just bizarre. Gamesmaster G-903:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the essential question is; "If these women do not feel personally demeaned or debased by their use of their bodies to make a living, why should you?" I have many friends who are sexworkers, and several who are current or former "porn stars" and though most of them will tell you that it isn't the world's best job, all of them have reasons why they do now or did once prefer it over other employment. How, for example, is making love with the camera rolling more demeaning that cleaning toilets mucking out stables or asking "Do you want fries with that?" for minimum wage? (And I've done all three of those things, BTW.) Why is how they choose to live their lives threatening to YOU? --BenBurch05:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no quarrel with the way they live; that's their choice. However, there's no evidence whatsoever that any of them WANT to be represented on WP by the infobox in question. This isn't advertising, or co-eds gone wild, or the Man Show, or any of the other venues in which women get money or attention by appealing to men's prurient interests. If Paris Hilton or Britney Spears don't get model or pornstar infoboxes, despite their public (and pubic) shenanigans, then neither should the women in question now. Zora05:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a complete non sequitur. Britney Spears in neither a model nor a porn star - she's a singer. Riya Sen, Celina Jaitley and the others did have careers as models before turning to movies. Hence they have model infoboxes. And hello - why should a model not WANT to be referred to as a model on WP? Its not something they are or should be embarassed of. I'm afraid this entire discussion suggests a regressive mindset. Gamesmaster G-905:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, you're faster at expressing the same sentiment. This is getting ridiculous. Now we're to try and assume what the subject wants? Not gonna happen. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And what exactly is Paris Hilton? Her bio lists "Singer, Fashion model, Actress, Author", but in line with what you said before, she doesn't do any of those things well and they're not really what she's notable for. In all honesty, she's notable having sex on camera, just like Ron Jeremy. Curiously, she doesn't get {{female adult bio}}, but {{infobox celebrity}}. It seems sometimes we do put some weight into how a person wants to represent themselves. – Anþony talk 13:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, there are occasions when we need to respect the wishes of the livin person in question, but what Zora is suggesting that some women may be offended if their vital stats were put in an infobox on WP. Now sticking to the example of Riya Sen (the lovely lady whose picture is directly above) - this is a woman who has walked the ramp, who has appeared in a number of ad campaigns, and posed semi-nude for a calendar. The information on her vital stats were put there by me. I got them off a website that serves as a database of Indian models, for the benefit of advertisers. Given that she carried out her activities as a model in the public eye and that her measurements have been circulating among photographers for a while now - how can we make the leap to suggest that she would specifically take offense to the said mmeasaurements being put up on WP? Gamesmaster G-918:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the essential question is whether the information is notable enough to belong in an infobox. Personally, I think not. Speaking as someone who likes ogling the scantily clad females, I don't need to see her measurements in the infobox (and dress size is just ridiculous). Or her hair color. Maybe her height. And birthday. How about just use the Celebrity infobox? -Freekee05:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. Dear Zora, I have nothing against you personally. In fact I hold your efforts to put WP right in real high esteem. I hope I can be of one tenth of your use and resolve someday. But, yes, I'll hint, smirk, scream and shout at all flavours of bigotry and zealotry whenever and wherever I can. And, trust me, racist overtones can creep into even the very best of intentions. It's dictated by the culture we live in (just take a trip to an international soccer match, or read some of Michel Foucault's thoughts), and, yes, it's the same in Hawaii and Bangladesh, Iceland and Madagascar. My sincere apologies to you. But, please, try to remember your "tanks & Islamabad" comment, to remember how a slip of insensitivity can prove as racism. Thank you. - Aditya Kabir16:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Wikipedia not being censored, I'm free to say that these infoboxes are the crappiest piece of shit that ever happended to Wikipedia. All bio infoboxes. Only completely stupid morons can prefer infoboxes over text. --Pjacobi14:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of patronising nonsense up here. First of all, Gamesmaster's attempt to seize some sort of moral high ground on the basis that he got the information from a modeling website is a little pointless; the claim that some -possibly unauthorised - website thinks that some potential employers would be interested is irrelevant to whether or not WP thinks that that information is relevant to a person notable as an actor. Zora, how the individual wants to be represented is clearly not directly relevant. How she or he is notable is.
Secondly, physical statistics are relevant for individuals notable as porn stars. Height and dress size are relevant for models. Bust size is probably irrelevant for the vast majority of actresses. If someone wants to add the information, it can be sourced, and will almost certainly be deleted unless most users think that it is directly relevant to the individual. To have a box that seems to imply that it is relevant to all individuals is presumptuous, and somewhat puerile. Hornplease12:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
School Alumni and Infobox
Can someone who understands verification policy explain how it applies to a listing of alumni in a school’s article. I ask because of the deletion of a list in the Madison West High School article due to it its verifiability. This is difficult information to source. Additionally, the school's infobox was removed for the same reason. An infobox which contains blaringly obvious information, such as the school's name and location. Does every detail (mascot, school colors, logo, motto, etc.) really need to be sourced, especially when it's never even been disputed? stainfomind17:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, my mom went there! In response to your question, I think that a school website should be a good enough source. I don't think everything on that page should have been deleted including the infobox. I think that's just ridiculous. If Wikipedia worked like that, well over half the articles on Wikipedia would be deleted. Things that aren't disputed shouldn't be flat out deleted. The user should have gone through proper tagging first. I can see some of the information being deleted due to notability, but deleting an infobox for references? What does he want?
Most of the articles on Wikipedia lack sources. Sources should be added to articles. I'm pretty sure that deleting more than half an article on the grounds of lacking sources is not in good faith and disrupting Wikipedia. He gave what, two days for the article to include sources up to his par? None were added so he deletes everything. In Wikipedia, you should wait before deleting content that isn't sourced. That just isn't right and it's harmful to Wikipedia. WP:DICK++aviper2k7++ 02:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I spend a lot of time patrolling school articles and every day I revert at least one addition to alumni lists. However almost all of those are non-notable people being added. It's very rare for anyone to question an alumni list, and most of those disputes concern people who left before graduating (AKA "attendees"). Most schools do not maintain lists of prominent alumni so the information is usually derived from celebrity biographies. As a class, school articles may be among the worst sourced and most vandalized on Wikipedia. The good news is that school websites usually do list the basics, like mascots, school colors, and the name of the principal. That information, at least, should be sourceable if anyone wants to track them down. -Will Beback · † · 08:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a clear policy on this? I would think that pages [semi]protected because of high traffic would get just the icon, as would prominent and important pages being vandalized. What determines whether or not the full notice is used? Personally I see no reason to ever use the full notice on the main page when all other templates are placed on the talk page. - Noclip02:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, it doesn't work well on featured articles as it conflicts with the featured star. Also, I think a direct notice (since this should be the exception, not the rule) is in order for the people that would most likely encounter a semi-protected restriction. Over all, I don't see much reason to use the icon, although I do appreciate it from a stylistic point. —Doug Belltalk02:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's the policy on people blatantly deliberately misrepresenting the comments of others on talk (taking WP:AGF into account, I'm talking about obvious cases of selective quotation)? Chrischeesewhine04:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Usually you can make your point by giving a diff or link to the original comment. That's the great thing about the Edit History : ) Doc Tropics07:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone agrees that trolling is bad. It's right up there with vandalism and spam. But often people disagree about what constitutes trolling. Since it is as bad as vandalism and spam, editors often take it upon themselves to remove what they consider trolling. This then sets off edit wars with people who don't consider it trolling.
Reverting mainspace articles to remove vandalism and spam is uncontroversial. But trolling happens on discussion pages. I believe that discussion pages exist to document what people said, and editing them to remove trolling doesn't make what was said go away. It's right there in the history.
Furthermore, I firmly believe that whether a post is trolling is a matter to be decided by the community, not a small group of editors who often are emotionally involved.
At first I thought I was the only victim of this. Then I saw the same group do the same thing to another editor.
I believe this has to stop. I work on Wikipedia for fun, and if it stops being fun I will stop doing it. If the community decides I am a troll, I will be happy to leave. But this is not a decision to be made by a small group.
If you believe I am a troll, there is no need to participate in this discussion. You will not listen to anything I say, and anything you say to me would just be "feeding the troll". It is impossible for me to prove I am not a troll, since by definition everything a troll says is suspect.
Personally I believe, removal of one user's comments from a Talk page should be against policy for *any* reason whatsoever. It is so outrageously antagonistic that it does not serve any wikipurpose. Actually it serves the purpose of keeping the mediation cabal and the anti-vandal police active, also the sockpuppet warriors... and the vandals for that matter. Go figure! Wjhonson07:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? If the community thinks you are a troll you will leave but if anyone here thinks you are a troll they should keep their mouth shut and not add to this thread? eh? (Never interacted with this editor before) I find that a bizzare statement to make - it's basically saying "speak up if you support me or shut your gob if you don't!" --Charlesknight20:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I already know who thinks I am a troll. I also know who does not think I am a troll. I am looking for opinions from those who are yet undecided. --Ideogram20:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, you know the process is doomed when a) people start deleting other's comments, and b) someone accuses someone else of a personal attack for accusing someone of a personal attack. -Patstuarttalk|edits20:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Patstuart. It was debatable whether your post was trolling or not, but it wasn't constructive. Neither was the reaction, of course. What to do? Stop your side of it. Don't make it worse. That's all you can do. AnonEMouse(squeak)21:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was my view. Are you saying I should not speak my opinion? That the other party should be allowed to say whatever he wants without opposition? --Ideogram21:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I believe that you should report this to WP:PAIN, as far as I am concern you obviously were not trolling, and accusing other person of trolling (not to mention deleting his comment) should be a blockable offence per WP:CIV/WP:NPA. Unfortunatly me experience shows that unlike 3RR, abuse of those policies is usually ignored :( -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(outdenting) For some reason Ghirla doesn't care about hurting my feelings (or those of many other people). Do you really think it is best for the project to let him have his way and just wring our hands? Are you saying his feelings are more important than mine? --Ideogram21:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, and if he had asked for comments on his behaviour here, I would write something similar to him. He didn't, and you did. I could, of course, write for advice to you on how he should behave, but ... I'm a strong fan of being "constructive", as you may have gathered. :-) By the way, "he did it first", and "he did it worse", is not usually accepted as sufficient excuse. AnonEMouse(squeak)21:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I do have a temper. Given sufficient motivation, I can restrain it. But if I feel I am doing all the work to maintain the peace I am likely to decide it is not worth it. In order to follow your advice, I would have to avoid Ghirla and, perhaps, leave Wikipedia entirely. I think there are not a few editors who feel the same way. I honestly don't feel it is right to tell them all, "let him be a jerk, as long as you don't reciprocate". --Ideogram22:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This question originated on Talk:Temple garment but is really a theoretical question with general applicability across Wikipedia; I'm not fishing for a particular outcome. The essence of the question is: what are the Wikipedia policies about the verifiability of images? Specific sub-questions include whether the information presented by an image must be attributed to a reliable source just as information presented textually must be, per WP:V, or whether in the absence of a reliable source there is still some sort of standard for verifiability (such as the consensus of a group of editors that the image is probably reliable) that an image can meet. Un-cited article text can be tagged as unverified and eventually removed; is there a similar process for images? If there is no verifiability policy for images, should there be? What practical effect might such a policy have on Wikipedia? All thoughts appreciated. alanyst/talk/08:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that there are two spearate but related issues here: sourcing and accuracy. All images on Wikipedia, of course, must note their (proximate) source — whether it be "own photo", "drawn based on text", "illustration from book X", "from website X" or whatever — if only to allow verification of their copyright status. These sources need not be reliable, but the source information itself needs to be verifiable in a broad sense (by looking up the source document, contacting the claimed author, etc.).
As for accuracy, I would say that, where there is any doubt about it, the infromation presented in an image should be backed by a reliable source. For images that merely aim to present, in visual format, information already included in the text of the article, a statement to that effect should suffice; the sources of the relevant parts of the article then serve as sources for the image as well, and any embellishments or deviations from the text may be ascribed to the illustrator (and corrected if necessary). As for images that present detail beyond what is otherwise given in the article, these do need an explict source, or at least, where no better solution is possible, a disclaimer stating that some of the details may or may not be accurate.
Note that the issue here is one of accuracy, not authenticity: all images on Wikipedia are illustrative in nature, not documentative, and we most certainly do accept things like hand-drawn sketches, "artist's conceptions" and even retouched photos as long as these accurately illustrate their stated subject. Of course, such images should be described as what they are, just as we should present any other information that may be relevant to interpreting the image. It sould also be noted that the same image may be, and usually is, presented in different contexts on different pages (including its own description page), and that these need to be considered separately insofar as they may make different claims about what the image in each context illustrates. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to know if it is considered rude, incivil, or offensive to ignore a legitimate and civil message placed on a user's talk page? And how many requests for a reply should be made?
It's generally considered good form to reply to polite, civil questions on one's user talk page. Replying to comments that don't involve a question or request for action may or may not be called for depending on the circumstances. No Wikipedian is compelled to respond to your queries; note as well that in general, your perspective on what is a 'legitimate', 'civil', or important communication may differ from that of others.
Incidentally, have you considered trimming your signature? It's six lines long in the edit window—much larger than yoru question. Long signatures are frowned upon, and can make it difficult to participate in longer threaded discussions. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking a little further into the background of this question, I will note that it is considerably more rude to attempt to browbeat another editor into answering your questions: [13]. In general, you should ask a question once. If the matter is important to you, then it may be acceptable to 'ping' the other editor once more, in case they missed your message (this happens sometimes on busy talk pages). Beyond that, it's not appropriate to pester another editor. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out. I will remember your advice; I admit I was getting a little frustrated with Pediaguy16 not replying. I'll apologize to him in a minute. Thank you for being polite about this; some users I know of are, in my opinion, a bit ... uptight. (Oh, and is my sig a better length now?) Cheers, Yuser31415@?&05:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused about how Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep became a guideline. From what I can tell, it has never been proposed, attempts to tag it as such was reverted according to the history. There's not consensus on Talk (no active discussions either). Does anybody know something I don't know? -- Steve Hart08:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Requiring we do those things to it would be instruction creep, wouldn't it? Jokes aside, it was probably tagged a guideline, no-one objected, and since there is a consensus regarding it now no harm is done in having skipped a minor unofficial step of the process. As for the ultimate source, it's from meta:, as the original version clearly shows[14]. On meta: it's been around since 2004[15] and enjoys a nice acting consensus of editors. --tjstrftalk08:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell from the history, the article originated at Wikipedia:Instruction creep before it was moved (see talk at [16]) into the guideline space on August 3, and briefly tagged as a proposal the same day [17] before the same editor the next day tagged it as an essay [18]. It was then tagged as a guideline by a different editor on September 9 [19] with edit summary: It is a longstanding guideline to avoid ins.creep, as a corollary to policy WP:NOT a bureaucracy, even though the few comments on talk at that time indicated it should be an essay. (btw: I see I put this at the top of page, moving to bottom) -- Steve Hart09:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page originates from meta (m:instruction creep), was written in 2004 and has been a guiding principle since before it was written. There appears to be some confusion here about what a guideline is (see WP:POL) and how they are made (see WP:PPP). Specifically, Steve seems to allude that there is a formal process that needs to be followed to make a guideline - but we do not in fact have such a process. We should ask ourselves whether this page is (1) actionable and (2) consensual. The first is obvious, as it specifies a course of action. The second is visible all over the wiki where we, indeed, avoid instruction creep. Note that the talk page lists a total of 43 users who concur. The counterquestion is, can you find me anyone who thinks we should use instruction creep, or bureaucratic instructions for the sake of covering every possible angle? "It sounds like an essay" doesn't really mean anything. (Radiant) 12:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that the process outlined at Wikipedia:How to create policy guided the making of guidelines and policies. And I know that consensus needs to be reached, which we don't have yet according to the talk page. And yes, I believe instructions can be quite handy sometimes. What I disagree with specifically is how that "guideline" is written up, it's unspecified and comes off saying that our policies and guidelines aren't that important (something I can do something about of course). On a second note, I see that the "guideline" now is demoted to proposed. -- Steve Hart17:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of correctness, the talk page doesn't list 43 users who concur, it lists 43 editors who has quote, "referenced instruction creep during discussions". Which was another thing that made me cringe: naming editors who has used the expression at one time or another, found by doing a earch I suppose, thereby giving the impression that all of them support the proposal. For all we know none of them even knows their name is listed on that page. Just saying. -- Steve Hart18:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is something to be said for the idea that our policies and guidelines aren't that important. Indeed, we want people to be able to edit freely without having to learn The Rules first. Note that the 43-list isn't meant to indicate support for the proposal, it is meant to indicate that the term is indeed in use as such, and if you follow the links you'll note many remarks discouraging instruction creep. Sometimes we make a guideline simply by writing down what already happens. (Radiant) 16:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page says nothing about ignoring policy. What it says is that a lot of proposals suggest long complicated procedures which are complicated for their own sake, when either a very simple guideline will solve the problem, or the problem, if it exists, cannot be fixed with such a policy. Fagstein06:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FRINGE is tagged as being a guideline on the page, but I do not find it listed on the guideline list page. So is it a guideline or not? (note, it has been referred to in a few other guidelines such as the recently revised WP:RS). Blueboar15:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is that the guideline list is outdated since nobody's bothering to maintain it at the moment, and since we have CAT:G for that. The somewhat more specific answer is that yes, it's a guideline; see its talk page for relevant discussion. This was based on how we handled a few incidents with pseudoscientific theories. (Radiant) 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really a guideline, though? Does it have widespread support? Does it actually address the full breadth of issues? Does consensus really exist? --badlydrawnjefftalk16:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a WP policy/guideline or accepted practice regarding the appropriateness of linking difficult terms or words to its Wiktionary entry? Reason I am asking: on a few occasions I have come across a needlessly difficult or seldom used word in an article and I am not sure if I should leave it, replace it with a clearer word/phrase, or, if it is preferred, link the word to its Wiktionary entry. Thanks in advance for any responses. Katalaveno18:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done it a number of times myself, but yes, it is generally acceptable to link to other wikis, just within reason, of course. --Bobblehead16:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same here.It,s especially useful for defining a technical verb or adjective without or not warranting a wikipedia article. Circeus00:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
due to a recent act of "content dispute" at the article Chinese Taipei at the 2006 Asian Games, i committed myself to raising this point of order. an administrator treated This, a "content dispute" instead of an act of vandalism.
Taiwan, Republic of China or Chinese Taipei is NOT a province of China. my proposal here is: Any direct implication that Chinese Taipei/ROC/Taiwan as a province of China should be considered vandalism and MUST be deleted. the following are my rationale:
the Taiwanese Government officially calls itself Republic of China. (an indisputable verifiable fact)
the government of People's Republic of China exercises NO active jurisdiction over the domains of Taiwan.
the International Court of Law has NO final and executory ruling on this subject.therefore status quo should stand.
the claims of PRC and ROC are internal, Wikipedia has no control over it. as per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a medium for soapboxes.
Since wikipedia is not a democracy, more weight should be given on discussion points raised here rather than mere voting. --RebSkii19:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
I'm not sure how to handle this one - it's pretty sticky. But I can say that referring to Taiwan as a province of China, without explanation of the conflict, ought to be treated as unnecessary POV-pushing. Unfortunately, it's not vandalism, and can't be treated as bannable. -Patstuarttalk|edits19:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's vandalism either, but it's definately POV-pushing. That's why I replaced the original text in this article with the headlines used in the Chinese Taipei article. Somebody making these kind of changes should however be warned. If he/she still make edits like this, then it's vandalism. SportsAddicted | discuss19:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Systematic POV pushing by one given user should be considered as vandalism but we most certainly won't start creating classes of particularly unwelcome POV pushing. Pascal.Tesson19:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blatent POV pushing of a political agenda without fact to back it up most certainly constitutes vandalism. I realize that I have more experience with the Chinese Communists and their sympathizers than most because I live in Taiwan and am very active in support of the legitimate rights of the Taiwanese people. Chinese use that reference to Taiwan being a part of the PRC to serve political ends, though we have hashed out the most acceptible wording regarding this in a variety of places, the lastest of which was on the 2006 Asian Games discussion page, where we seem to have come up with a workable compromise regarding the use of Chinese Taipei. I will henceforth regard any insertion of this line in Chinese Taipei related sports articles as vandalism and will summarily delete any such references I see. ludahai 魯大海22:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a content dispute. It may be wrong, it may be POV pushing, and it may require warnings be given to the user if this persists against a clear consensus, but it is not vandalism. That policy page makes clear that NPOV violations and stubbornness are not considered vandalism. Fagstein05:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would not be wrong (and since the moving leaves a redirect it's really not a problem if you go head), but frankly you might have something better to do :) I believe there's some even older deletion debates residing in the template namespace. (Radiant) 16:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed several "Missing persons" postings, the most recent being: Jane McDonald-Crone. While one should have empathy with the family and friends, are these listings considered as "speedy delete" candidates, or must they be prodded? SkierRMH22:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at WP:CSD, I don't see a Speedy Deletion criterion that would cover these as a class. Rather, I would opt adding a Template:Prod tag to them and letting that process take its course. One might consider CSD:A1 if the articles are one-liners or CSD:A7, but A7 is problematic due to the notion of whether missing persons are truly just like your regular joe-on-the-street and equally non-notable. Consider that the criminal who kidnaps someone might well garner an article here; perhaps the victim of the crime would be equally notable. Too many 'ifs' - add PROD and go that route is my suggestion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Generally they can be speedily deleted; articles on people are only for people with some claim to fame, and being missing isn't such a claim. The relevant template is {{nn-bio}}. (Radiant) 16:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CURSES (Profanity)
We should ban curses in the discussion pages of every article! Really!
Some of the users might me very young, and I do not want cursing on every discussion page! Is it really necessary? I beg you to grant this small request! Please! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.122.3.19 (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Wikipedia is not censored, so profanity would naturally be tolerated in articles. I mean if we're taking a quote from someone, we won't just bleep everything out. Some people may object to it, but that's just how it is. Nishkid6401:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The anonymous comment referred to the Talk space rather than Main. Discussions can get pretty colorful, but that is the nature of them. It's not a bad idea to remind editors that they aren't with their belching buddies, but most folks discuss things cleanly and sanely. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the very young users might be the ones using profanity. So what? The only concern is whether a particular use is uncivil in the context of a discussion. That some people would not want children to know such words exist is not our concern, and we're not going to reduce discourse on this site to the level that some people think must be maintained for children. No one is rendered blind by seeing "fuck" or "shit" in print. Postdlf01:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that curses of that sort would be covered already by a generous reading of WP:NPA, which explicits outlaws threats. Implicitly, carrying through on a threat would also be covered... Trollderella05:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that Wikipedia allows these kind of articles to begin with you must understand that there is a tightwire act that editor's try to follow. The curses can be easily removed if they relate in no way to the article's subject or are apparent vandalisms. Futhermore if the curses in an edit are a personal attack directly toward an editor or editors, then it can be easily removed by other users as well. Trying to remove/ban every single curse on Talk page space and warn every single user who uses them would not only be instruction creep but it would be a huge contradiction to Wikipedia is not censored.¤~Persian Poet Gal(talk)06:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There really aren't that many situations in which swearing is appropriate on Wikipedia because it's nearly always incivil. Unless you are discussing the word itself, there are almost no circumstances in which a mature individual would need to swear to get their point across. Maybe if you were making a satirical AfD comment "deriding" the "hellish bastard" who dared to nominate an "incredibly encyclopedic" garage band article for deletion or something. So while profanity is not and should not be banned, it is discouraged, and you shouldn't be encountering it very often in your normal activities. --tjstrftalk06:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why are there so many unreviewed articles on WP:AFC? If this is the method that new and unregistered users are now forced to use then surely the people who produced this policy should have mandated a group of editors to issue timely reviews?
82.32.8.612:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer: Nobody is paid or obligated to contribute to Wikipedia. therefore, no one has the power to mandate anyone to do anything. -- Visviva13:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case don't the people who introduced the policy have an implicit responsibility to oversee its implementation? At the moment it seems that extra bureaucracy is being pushed on to unregistered users, and no-one is making sure it's being dealt with in a timely manner. 82.32.8.614:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A number of issues here. (1) as noted above, it's a volunteer project; you can't make anyone do anything. (2) Frankly, a huge number of the requests are, uh, less than impressive candidates for articles. The sheer amount of dreck makes the prospect of going through it rather unappetizing. (I notice right now there's a request out there from some 14-year-old kid who wants us to create a bio on him.) (3) It's easy to register, which bypasses the whole problem. Fan-196714:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of afc participation has been a major frustration of mine, and I try to help it. But I agree, it's very rude for us to provide a way to create an article, and by and large ignore them. That being said, as I do afc, 85-90% of the article are unsatisfactory, and it's no fun telling people, "you typed up this article, but it sucks, now go away." -Patstuarttalk|edits14:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is that simply a statement of fact or an answer to my question? I have no viewpoint on the user or his request, only an interest in the extent of the policy. —Doug Belltalk22:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea: I twice asked on the IRC channel but no one answered. I guess it isn't policy, but I think they are valid. --Majorly22:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The real situation is probably more like "anything can be deleted as long as no one objects". I wouldn't so much say it's policy, as say that no one has brought forth any argument against it. I can think of one, but I'm not sure I want to go there. Wjhonson22:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't generally think such deletions are a good idea. Same goes for user and user talk pages IMO. They can serve the project as a useful record of past events. Friday(talk)22:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that deleting the user pages is OK, but I share your opinion on the user talk pages. I also don't think it's a good idea to start extending this to project pages. Without wanting to get into instruction creep, it would be nice to have some guidance on this issue in the right-to-vanish policy. The current absence of any discussion of it makes me think this is not a valid request and should not be granted. —Doug Belltalk23:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say my concern with the Right to Vanish in these cases is that you not really just "vanishing" a single user's words and works but rather the contribution of many editors who commented on those pages. What rights do they have for their work and good faith contributions to not just "vanish"? At the very least, there should be some some soft of consistent MfD process that these requests can go through. Agne23:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the meta article, it says that "right to vanish" is intended as a privacy feature. I get the impression it is more intended for people who use their real name, or have info on their user page that would identify them. Looking at the two RfAs, while I can see why he may be a bit embarassed by them, I don't see any information that would identify him. Deleting something like that just because someone feels like it makes them look bad seems unnecessary and unfair to others who posted on those pages. --Milo H Minderbinder23:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Send them to MFD if it's really thought this is a viable option, but I would oppose deleting any pages that talk about the person who is vanishing. That's just... odd. -- nae'blis01:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they're malformed, unaccepted or empty, deleting RFAs sounds reasonable. Otherwise, I'd prefer not to. For instance, there may be feedback from other users here that is relevant for future RFAs. (Radiant) 17:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not semi-protect all featured content or at least Featured Articles if featured class items are indeed "perfect" and only require editing if new information becomes is available? I've noticed 95% plus percent of editing on FAs by new IPs leads to a revert. I think this would be a good policy to enact but I don't have a bunch of wiki buddies to support me on this so I need some advice on how to get my idea through digital red tape. Andman816:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where would I propose to change the upload form? My idea is to have several more boxes where the user must supply the source and license tag. The source would require a URL and the license tag would require a valid license template. A description box could still be available and an optional fair use box could be used if they are claiming fair use. Failure to fill in a valid URL or license would prevent the image/media from being uploaded. My reasoning is looking through the categories of unsourced, unknown copyright images and the uploader failed to even try to comply with the rules of providing a source and/or license.
Also, I'd like to know where I would propose a change to the CSD rule of 48 hours deletion after the image uploader has been notified to 24 hours after the image is uploaded. I think even 6 hours should be plenty, but 24 is a nice round number. My reasoning is that a large portion of the images I've seen have no encyclopedic content. Currently, someone could upload images for sharing with friends (Hey, go look at these images I took of my vacation!) and they would exist for 7 days (or 48, if someone took the time to notify them, which doesn't seem to happen much, most go by the 7 day rule once tagged). Any advice is appreciated. Thank you. --MECU≈talk17:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changeing the interface would require software changes. Makeing people provide sources would result in nonsense sources which would make them harder to spot.Geni18:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A problem with requiring people to provide a URL would be that it would make it impossible for people to upload their own photographs or drawings. Of course, Commons is better for those anyway, but not everyone knows about Commons or has the inclination to create an account there (single-user log-in will help with this, but not solve it). Also, I would take issue with your, "even 6 hours should be plenty" statement. I don't know about you; but I typically sleep for 8-10 hours at a time, and sometimes go 2-3 days or more without checking on Wikipedia. I certianly don't check Wikipedia every 6 hours and I think it's unreasonable to expect anyone else to. I think 48 hours is reasonable. 3 days or more is too long, 6 hours is way too short to give the uploader time to fix the problem. Unsourced images are a problem, and copyvios are serious, but I think the end result of your proposal would be to discourage people from going out with a camera and taking totally free images for Wikipedia's use. In otherwords, it would make the problem worse rather than better. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)14:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crown Copyright
People have been deleting Crown Copyright photos. While they are technically unfree, they are of provincial leaders. This is pathetic. Is there no way that Crown photos can be kept? See fair dealing. -- Zanimum20:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do you do that? Technically, the photos they've been deleting are the ones the press would be provided if they asked for a portrait of the politician. -- Zanimum19:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When are Museums, Libraries, etc. guilty of advertising?
I found a delete article tag for alleged "blatant advertising pending cleanup" attached to the Los Angeles Maritime Museum, and it seems to me that that is outrageous. In the discussion page, I wrote Just my opinion, but I don't think that museums or libraries or similar public not-for-profit places exhibiting information of public, scientific, historic and scholarly interest should be negatively so labeled as being guilty for "blatant advertising". They're struggling enough to remain financially viable as it is. They should be welcomed to Wikipedia, and it's OK for them to reveal a little of their treasures. (I just checked Disneyland. Not a label in sight!). I'm removing this label, and I hope there is discussion about it.'
Guidance from an admin on this very important point would be welcomed. JohnClarknew 21:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, the tag may or may not have been warranted but it's just a tag. If you disagree, you can simply, as you did, remove it and discuss it on the talk page. I don't think that any reasonable sysop would delete a museum article as spam. Pascal.Tesson22:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an articles subject is worthy of an article (btw i'm not convinced this one is but that is a totally seperate question) doesn't mean that the current article on the subject isn't spam.
The article that is there now reads like a promo peice and i wouldn't be surprised if it was a copyvio as well (the fact that the bulk of the content was introduced in a single post by a completely new user reinforces this suspicion) though i can't find the source if it is one. Plugwash22:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has been improved some now, including revision of copy-vio text detected by one editor. There can be a fine line between composing a piece with entrepreneurial intent vs. educational intent when it comes to museums and the like because it is difficult to divorce writing about the holdings and stimulating folks to visit the location to see those holdings. Nonetheless, one of the reasons museums exist is to preserve what is notable in the world, so mentioning that a notable artifact exists in a certain place seems consistent with the Wikipedia mission. Unfortunately, a quick look around Wikipedia:WikiProject and a search doesn't reveal a WikiProject devoted to museums ... though there is one devoted to Amusement Parks (why am I not surprised by that?) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale:
Generally, only experienced users know about templates, and how they are used. Templates ate frequently targeted for vandalism, due to their wide reaching effects. While we already have many high profile templates protected, there are many more that can be used disruptively, and few, if any reasons why new or anonymous users would need to edit them. Also, it can be reasonably assumed that anyone with sufficient knowledge of templates that would be affected by this and would reasonably need to change a template would also know how to request a change.
Proposed Policy
Admins are permitted and encouraged to indefinitely sprotect templates used in the article namespace (only established users able to edit it), in order to prevent their use for mass vandalism.
Current Policy
A current de facto policy of full-protecting high risk templates seems to exist, both to prevent vandalism and denial of service.
Not sure I see a compelling reason for this; has there been a lot of template vandalism recently? -- Visviva
There was at least one pretty serious bout of vandalism the other day, inserting offensive images into little-known but widely used templates, yes. Fut.Perf.☼10:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anecdotally, it seems to be a more and more common way to attack the FA-of-the-day; rather than simply vandalising the page itself - which will be reverted in seconds - vandalise an obscure transcluded template, which can take five or ten minutes to notice and track down... Shimgray | talk | 14:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Template vandalism, which can be maddeningly difficult to locate and fix, seems to be increasingly common. The proposer's points are well-taken. Newyorkbrad14:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also support. Perhaps I'm missing something, but this change seems to only have positive features. Under what circumstances would we ever WANT to have an anonymous IP editor or an editor registered for less than four days CHANGING a template? If such users should, for some reason, actually figure out that there really was a problem with a specific template, they could always post to the template talk page or notify an admin or even just another user.
On the other hand, we DO know that templates have been vandalized, including some within the past few days that were used in a Main Page article, and we DO know one avenue to attack templates is an experienced vandal doing so anonymously or via newly registered accounts (sock puppets).
Will semiprotection stop all or even most template vandalism? Quite possibly not. Will vandals figure out ways around it (sleeper accounts, for example)? Some certainly will. But changing this policy clearly will stop SOME vandalism, and there really seems just about no downside to this proposed change. John Broughton | Talk14:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After looking through the histories of various navboxes I'm familiar with, I would have to disagree with the premises of this proposal -- that unregistered users do not understand templates, or that their contributions are unlikely to be anything but vandalism. Actually, I see lots of constructive (though mostly trivial) changes by anons, like this one to a history navbox... Some templates were even created by anons (not possible anymore, of course). There is some vandalism in those histories too, but nothing terribly out of line. Now, I recognize that Wikipedia is slipping slowly (inevitably?) away from being "a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but I don't think we need to hasten the process. For my money protected pages are still considered harmful, even when they are templates. I concede that we should be a bit more aggressive in protecting or semi-protecting heavily-used templates, or those which are particularly inviting targets for vandalism; but the ground rules at WP:PPOL already allow for that. -- Visviva15:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Her'e what WP:PPOL says (in total) about protecting templates: A permanent or semi-permanent protection is used for ... Protecting certain "system administration" pages. This includes many editorial templates, such as deletion notices and stub templates.
I suspect that a lot of admins would be troubled by the leap from "system administration" templates, clearly covered by the policy, and "heavily-used templates, or those which are particularly inviting targets for vandalism", which aren't mentioned in the policy, unless the policy was reworded. For example, I don't think the templates that were vandalized on the Main Page article recently were "system administration" templates, though I could be wrong. John Broughton | Talk16:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a lot of heavily-used templates already are permanently protected, in accordance with Wikipedia:High-risk templates, so in practice it seems that they are considered to fall under system administration. That's as it should be; vandalism to something like Template:! would cause a mess to horrible to consider. On the other hand, I don't think that most garden-variety templates really fall under the high-risk category, and I don't see why such templates should be protected. It's not that hard to spot and fix vandalism to a simple navbox or infobox, and changes can be tracked through "Related changes". -- Visviva16:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a reasonable corollary to WP:HRT. I've noticed that a naughty image on a page is quickly removed, but one on a template can stay there for quite a bit longer as a significant amount of editors don't know where to find it. (Radiant) 17:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One could argue that actually, anons not editing templates is the real problem. They can't figure out how templates work and so don't edit them. One ad hoc approach I once tried was include an external link to the edit link for the template in the template itself, but this violates Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Another approach is the software feature that links templates used in the article on the edit page, but this is easy to overlook and not very intuitive. Any other ideas? Deco10:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Protect user pages
I propose that all user pages should be semi-protected by default. I can't see any reason why an unregistered user should be allowed to edit another user's page, or why a user registered for less than four days needs a user page of their own. My user page was recently vandalised, and looking over others, it appears that it is almost always inflammatory in nature. User page vandalism is a problem, and a seemingly preventable one at that. - Jack(talk)14:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why users registered for less than four days can't have a userpage. If a page gets vandalised a lot, then the user can request it be protected. Some pages are never vandalised. --Majorly14:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've always thought that user page vandalism was a healthy test of character... people who can't deal with it are likely to have problems dealing with other aspects of Wikipedia. :-) -- Visviva15:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no. There's no compelling reason to forbid people from making their own userpage for four-five days; sometimes the first test edits are done there while they figure out wiki syntax. Established users/admins are much more likely targets for vengeful vandalism, I'd think, and security through obscurity might actually apply to a new user among thousands. -- nae'blis17:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second that, userpages shouldn't be auto-semi'd. Personally, my only "contributions" for the first week that I found Wikipedia were solely to my userpage (making bookmarks to the pages that interested me). It wasn't a stellar beginning, but as Nae'blis said, it's one way to learn wikitext... --Interiot23:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't semi-protect anything by default (because indeed, some users start with their userpage, and many welcome all kinds of edits). However, I'd be happy to protect yours if you want me to. (Radiant) 17:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A guideline on Positive Contributions Please?
I have had the frustrating experience of putting a lot of work into carefully referenced enhancements of articles, only to have them completely reverted by a few editors determined to maintain the status quo. After a lot of discussion on the talk pages usually some progress is made, but one or two editors just say no-no-no and revert and never offer any positive suggestions as to how the text might be improved. I do not want to name names or personalise this at all, but in principle I think this is unsatisfactory. I wonder if we should have a guideline (PCP - Positive Contributions Please) which:
Reinforces the message that it is WP Policy that contributions should be constructive and not simple reverts.
Allows an editor to reply WP:+P (one problem is that it takes a lot of energy to reply to a negative contribution, most of which is ultimately wasted.
Enshrines the principle that at least no-one should make 3 contributions to a topic/article in a row which are negative, without one positive suggestion.
Allows an editor to reply WP:3+P if someone has violated this principle, with the undertsanding that this editors comments will generally be ignored until (s)he has made a positive contribution.
Your frustration is understandable, but I'm afraid the propsosal is a bit mistaken. In the case of established articles with a long history that have achieved FA status, sometimes the best thing "regular" editors can do is keep the article clean. It's very common for well-meaning newcomers to try "improving" an FA article, but the edits are often non-productive and actually lower the quality of the article. In cases like these, "negative" contributions (ie, reverts) are both appropriate and necessary. Once an article has achieved FA status, there is rarely a need for sweeping changes...if there were, it shouldn't have been made FA. Doc Tropics16:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am one of those whom NBeale dares not name. There is of course another perspective, and that is simply that I and others are trying to defend certain articles from insertions of text which are clear breaches of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, and which also add so many microfacts, footnotes and glosses on minor points that they obscure the meaning of an article. That is why the contributions get deleted. Snalwibma18:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing against all deletions, and such a guideline might not apply to WP:FA. If an Editor thinks text is a "clear violation of NPOV" it should be possible to re-word to NPOV, at least 25% of the time. One Editor's "footnotes and glosses on minor points" (etc...) can be another Editor's "inconvenient facts that people are trying to hide". By collaborating we can make better articles. NBeale17:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm one of those too who dares not have his name spoken and the article is The God Delusion in which there has been resistence to adding words describing why Dawkins uses the word "Delusion". The article has a suitable section decided by consensus and is of an appropriate weight (given the word itself is not a central theme). The anti-consensus view is that unless there is further text added that shows that Dawkins uses the word incorrectly in a non-technical/non-medical sense it is hoped that the whole premise of the book is flawed. A number of editors have reverted various versions of WP:OR for a few weeks now and I feel that if this proposal was progressed the consensus (i.e. the views of the reverters) would be biased away from the consensus as only views positive to the anti-consensus view would be accepted. This proposal would plainly makes a nonsense of consensus. In the Dawkins article if Dawkins felt that a footnote was worthy of inclusion as a central theme then it would be in the main text. That something is a footnote means it was not central to the book. Wikipedia should reflect more or less a degree a similar weight from what the author gives to the subject and not ride off on some tangent. WP:Undue weight clearly applies and this idea of "Positive Contributions Please" smacks of trying to bash in factoids which there is a clear consensus that they are not relevant. Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes is perfectly adequate. Ttiotsw01:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Protection of user pages
What's the policy on protecting user pages? Should user pages be protected or semi-protected simply because the user wants them to be without any evidence of need? —Doug Belltalk21:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of an official policy, except the general polices on page protection in general, which don't, as far as I can see, allow for routine protection without evidence of need. Fan-196721:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if one could request semi-protection of user pages if one is concerned about retribution from vandals who you have been warning with templates on their talk pages. (I'm in a 'conversation' about this currently) My argument is that, yes, one could justify this in order to encourage signing of warning template additions - the result of the protection would be increasing comfort level of the editor to a place where generally accepted behavior could be engaged in without concern. This would generally apply to those folks who engage in anti-vandal activity as a major proportion of their effort here. Thoughts? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think that goes against the general philosophy here of assuming good faith. I think we should wait until there is a proven need to protect. Nobody should be worried about leaving notices on vandals pages—any damage done to user pages is as easily reverted as anywhere else and if the problem becomes a pattern, the pages can be semiprotected. So no, I don't think this is justified here. —Doug Belltalk04:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my first gut reaction was 'gee, please just assume good faith and if something bad happens - take it from there', and it is this opinion (albeit in a much harsher tone, unfortunately) I espoused in the conversation. I got to thinking then about adaptation of tools to editors needs (perceived or real) versus temperamental/behavioral changes required to be a fully functioning Wikipedian and thought 'well, are there some relatively minor things that could be done to accomodate certain editor proclivities or fears in order for them to fully function.' It's a Wikipedian culture question, and I think my first gut reaction - that there is a culture and adaptation to the culture is part of participating in it - was probably the right one. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My userpage has been vandalized frequently, as I get heavily involved in vandalism patrolling. I had it semi-protected for a few weeks because of one persistent anon, but that was months ago, and it's been unprotected. Generally, my experience has been that most vandals tend not to target you more than once or twice. You revert it and move on. Certainly you don't anticipate it. The ones who actually do it may well be the ones you least expect, when you least expect it. You don't protect just in case. Fan-196704:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a big deal to protect or semi-protect any user page at that user's request (of course, usertalk pages should not be protected as such). If you think about it, how would it hurt the encyclopedia if you were unable to edit User:Somebody's user page? (Radiant) 17:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I protect userpages upon request per the same logic as Radiant! described. I mean, if it's not in the encyclopedia, there's no harm done. It's as simple as that. Nishkid6421:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then if that's the case, perhaps we should change the protection policy so that those changes are covered. Not that I'm in favor of encouraging endless requests from users to protect their user pages, but I do think that if this is going to be defacto policy it should probably be listed as an acceptable use of protection. —Doug Belltalk23:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality?
Shouldn't we be be concentrating on being complete and current too Some people's ideas of neutrality are extremely narrow (such as rabid views of some people on g theory). Reactive / Redactive neutrality is not the neutrality that we need. We need factual neutrality. Complete exposition of the common viewpoint, but not ignorant of the less common viewpoint, but not tolerant of the intolerant viewpoint.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.103.55 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds a bit like an "English Irregular Verb"[3]. And if we didn't tolerate intolerance (to some extent) a lot of articles would have to be deleted! NBeale18:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tribal and Oral Knowledge wiki
The call for a citation in Mukurob (yes, I am the original author) sparked a train of thought which I think is interesting and might be very important.
Throughout the world, but especially in Africa, knowledge, news, fiction and so on are all passed on orally. Only rarely are these nuggets of information (and disinformation) formally recorded, and then often with great differences of interpretation and content.
In the article, I assert that Nama oral tradition predicted that 'white' rule would end when the rock structure collapsed. My statement is based on several conversations in the Seventies and Eighties, around campfires and while travelling through the desert. There are no citations; the Nama stories are largely unrecorded.
The fact that I cannot provide a citation does not particularly bother me; I think that factoid is interesting but not significant. Probably a coincidence. There have been several other similar predictions the most famous of which is the prediction of Nonquase, a Xhosa girl, that two suns would rise and the white people would be driven into the sea by the ancestors who have risen from the grave. Well, that didn't happen.
What does concern me (and prompted my relating the prediction) is that these snippets information are just going to be lost through inattention, and worse, through self-censorship. On the other hand, I do recognise and agree with the policy of NOR; however, these oral nuggets are only unpublished, not original.
Perhaps there should be another wiki for this sort of thing. Before it is too late.
Oral sources have become acceptable to historians and other academics, but unfortunetaly I don't think we can use them in Wikipedia. To ensure accuracy and NPOV all our articles need to be verifiable, and there is no reasonable way to verify such oral sources. - SimonP15:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically, we have too many pranksters who make stuff up to see if they can get away with it. Some of it is quite reasonable-sounding unless an expert is available. We have to require accessible sources for verification, or risk allowing false content. Fan-196716:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that having a Wiki (separate from Wikipedia) to record oral history is a very admirable goal. Wikis are perfect for this, since they allow the user to enter the information without requiring an academic to record it directly. Bluap23:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some thoughts that occur based on the responses above
Regarding the need to 'ensure accuracy'; this is a admirable goal, but somewhat elusive as far as history is concerned. And citations and publications will not help much; publications cannot be revised as easily as a wiki, but they can be revised. See how, on the White House website, the words "Mission Accomplished" prominently displayed behind George Bush as he made his 'victory' speech, have now mysteriously disappeared from a video made by CNN.
It is true that we can use published work as a citation. That is not the question or concern. The concern is about the rich (admittedly undisciplined) knowledge that is being discarded. One spectacular example. The Khoi-San have known for millenia that a certain plant has wonderful medicinal properties. A large pharmaceutical company discovered this 'fact' from the Khoi-San's oral 'knowledge' (no previous research or publications!), and have started the (admittedly expensive) process or providing it commercially. They refuse to compensate or acknowledge the contribution of the Khoi-San in any way (despicable, but understandable). The case is sub judicae, so please don't ask me for any citations or details. The point I am making is that valuable, real knowledge is being lost.
I don't think that wikipedia is the right place for this knowledge to be recorded. However, I do think that this community could be invaluable in helping to establish and manage a wiki where it can be recorded, and eventually fed into wikipedia.
I would presonally be pleased and proud to play any role in such a project as my skills and knowledge would permit.
Is there an existing guideline on the notability of cases? I ask because Lindon v. First National Bank was recently posted, and an editor asked on its talk page whether it was available online. It's not, without recourse to LexisNexis. The problem is that a reasonable notability guideline, citation of the opinion in law review articles and other opinions, is also not easily available online, and I personally don't like Shepardizing any more than I have to. Mytildebang17:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should the discussion be about whether this one-paragraph article should be merged into name change? The availability, or not, of an on-line version of an 1882 U.S. court case seems a lesser issue. John Broughton | Talk
A solution sometimes adopted on AfD is to redirect instead of delete a page. Generally this may or may not be a good idea. My question isn't there though.
Instead of proposing the deletion of an article, an editor insists on redirecting pages instead of listing them for deletion. Is there a policy to prevent this? If the content is to be removed, there isn't really a reason not to list it? -- User:Docu
Well, one can look at it from the vandalism perspective and consider conservation of information. If the redirection essentially eliminates substantial Wikipedia content from view, it is tantamount to page blanking or section removal, both of which are considered vandalism in the absence of good explanations for the actions. Merger+Redirect should be the preferred route over Redirect alone when there is the potential for removal of significant content. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. And this is why it is important to categorise redirects, or at least to have an easy way of listing all the redirects pointing at a page (the only way I know of at the moment is visually scanning the 'what links here' list for the 'redirect' label). Then the redirects can be examined to see if (a) they contain edit history of text that was merged to the destination (in which case it is vital to not delete the redirect without retaining the history somewhere); (b) the edit history of the redirect contains unmerged text that has been lost. Carcharoth11:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The editor who changes an article to a redirect has the responsibility to move any appropriate content from the article becoming a redirect to the target article. For moved text, the edit summary should mention the name of the article that has become a redirect. If for some reason there is no content to be moved (e.g., the editor thinks virtually everyting is duplicated or dross), the editor should put a comment at the talk page of the target article saying that a redirect had been done and other editors were welcome to review what the former article said, to see if they wanted to incorporate anything. John Broughton | Talk15:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upgrading WikiLawyering to a guideline?
I think we should upgrade WikiLawyering to guideline status. I've seen this used a lot in the community, and it's already being treated like one. Several policy pages, such as WP:NPA and WP:3RR mention WikiLawyering as being a bad thing. It would definitely benefit the community. There's already been a ton of disruptive 3RR violations that sysyops can't do anything that's too uncontroversial because WikiLawyering is a simple essay. With this in place, there would be a lot less edit wars. That's for sure. -- Selmo(talk)04:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IAR and WiliLawyering are related, but I wouldn't call it the same. IAR is more like the be bold guideline: don't worry about the rules, because someone else will fix it. WikiLawyering, while it in a way says we should ignore the rules, it's more focused on ignoring the technical interpretation of the rules, while it still requires editors to follow the spirit. -- Selmo(talk)04:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This essay was essentially created in order to document a common piece of jargon, normally used in a pejorative manner, rather than to prescribe a particular course of action. Nobody ever does wikilawyering from their own perspective. Thus it doesn't particularly make sense as a guideline. Deco10:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Wikilawyering is covered more by WP:POINT than by IAR. Even real courts have the power to say, "Clever argument, and you would appear to be right on the technicalities, but that is not what this particular law is meant to accomplish, and we don't intend to be a party to defeating the intent of the legislature." That is not ignoring the rules, it is implementing them with a clue. If Wikilawyering does not rise to the level of disruption, what is the need for a guideline? Robert A.West (Talk) 12:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A question has been raised at a recent RfD whether the guideline WP:FRINGE applies purely to fringe theories in the field of science, or whether it should apply to other fields as well. Please pop over to the guideline talk page and comment. Blueboar15:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
^Most sources indicate Cairo as Arafats place of birth, but Arafat at least sometimes listed his birthplace as Jerusalem. See here and here for more information.
^ such as I am strong-minded, you are obstinate, his is a pig-headed fool "My viewpoint is 'the common viewpoint', yours is 'the less common', his is 'intolerant'"
18:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
This preceding statement in a nutshell:
) (1558-September 30, 1626; r. 1616-September 30, 1626) was the last chieftain of the Jianzhou Jurchens and first Khan of Later Jin. He is considered to be the founding father of the Manchu state and is also credited with ordering the creation of a written script for the Manchu language. Nurhaci's organization of the Manchu people, his attacks on the Ming Dynasty and Joseon Dynasty Korea, and his conquest of China's northeastern Liaodong province, laid the groundwork for the conquest of China by the Qing Dynasty.
; Chinese: 皇太極 Huáng Tàijí; also known as 洪太極 Hóng Tàijí or 黃台吉 Huáng Táijí; sometimes referred erroneously to as Abahai in Western literature), (November 28, 1592-September 21, 1643), was first Khan of the Later Jin and then Emperor of the Qing Dynasty, after he changed its name, reigning from 1626 to 1643. He was responsible for consolidating the empire that his father, Nurhaci, had founded and for laying the groundwork for its eventual success in conquering Ming dynasty China, although he died before accomplishing that great achievement himself. He was responsible for changing the name of his people from Jurchen to Manchu in 1635 as well as that of the dynasty to Qing in 1636. The Qing dynasty would last until 1912.