Wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

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

« Archives, 1, 2

Request for advice

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

Short summary:

User:Hammersoft started an RfC

Some people responded

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Completely irrelevant question

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

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

Category:Language icon templates

Resolved

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

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

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

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

Request for advice (April 26)

Topic Bay of Quinte.

Unresolved issues in Talk Page, however I do feel that it is relevant that a non-business funded 'link' that is an 'official page' for the region should not be ommitted because of what is called : Spam. Spam is completely different, and it is well noted why there are rules for Spam.

Please help.

User:RyanRiWilliams — Preceding undated comment added 14:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the WP:Village pump (policy) noticeboard; it is not the actual noticeboard itself. Please post at WP:ELN instead, which is a noticeboard specifically for external link questions. PleaseStand ^(talk) 19:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it for me instead of doing nothing ;) --RyanRiWilliams (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Now I have moved it for you. PleaseStand ^(talk) 21:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV application across the article database

Here is the conflict boiled down in a dispute over criticisms of X (religion) articles. This phrase All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, was one editors basis that NPOV applies across article choices whereas the other editor defines the scope as per article. Do we rephrase the NPOV wording to explicitely say within an article or widen it to include articles to assure fair and proportionate? Or do we instead start using WP:BIAS arguments in deletion discussions? Alatari (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Anything that can be fixed by editing the article is not a valid argument for deletion. In extreme cases an article can be chopped down to a very brief stub and reconstructed in a more neutral fashion as a final alternative to deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It could be argued that articles with biased titles cannot be fixed by editing, though the problems might be mitigated by renaming the article concerned. There are similar problems with articles like Criticism of the United Nations (and, no doubt, other articles entitled "Criticism of . . .), Euromyth, etc. --Boson (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Users can discuss a new title on the talk page, any autoconfirmed user may move a page to new title. I don't see how an article detailing criticisms that have been reported in reliable sources in inherently biased anyway. Obviously, any article that analyzes criticisms is going to need to contain those criticisms, it's how they are presented that makes the difference. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not my question. I'm talking about POV pushing because certain articles of equal parity are missing or being deleted. It can be found when a faction of editors force sourced POV into another article and then push for deletion of that article. That POV goes away. I'm talking about the NPOV of the demographics of the entire article database. The example that brought me here was the existence of articles with laundry lists of criticisms of each major particular world religion. The non-existence of one religion criticisms page or the push for it's deletion appears to be a violation of NPOV as quoted above. Even if it isn't; should it be? I'm considering Criticisms of Wikipedia section on the wikipedia's bias as a violation of our pillar of NPOV.