User:Ned Scott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


While I try to keep up to date with discussions I'm in, it's very possible for me to miss something. For this reason or any other, feel free to send me an extra poke via e-mail or AIM, for anything, trivial or important (or to just say hi).
Help track images! User:Splarka/watchimages.js Cut and paste the script into Special:Mypage/monobook.js, and you'll get a link in the toolbox (on the side bar) that lets you add all images included in an article to your watchlist. Changes to the image description page, new uploaded versions, and deletions will be displayed on your watchlist.
Wikipedia
en This user is a native speaker of English.
AF This user can make high quality audio files.
{{t|c}} This user can use and program conditional templates.
Mixer-icon.jpg This user is an audio engineer.
WikiProjects
DIGI This user is a member of the Digimon work group.
Wikipe-tan head.png This user is a participant of WikiProject Anime and Manga.
Wikiproject:Television This user is a participant of WikiProject Television.
The WikiProject Council logo This editor participates in the WikiProject Council.
Miyajima-Torii-Modified.jpg This user is a participant in
WikiProject Japan.
WPVG icon 2016.svg This user is a member of
WikiProject Video games.
Stargate-color.png This user is a member of the
Stargate WikiProject.
Schwarzbeck UHALP 9108 A.jpg This user is a member of the B.E.a.T. Taskforce.
Definition of Free Cultural Works logo notext.svg This user is a member of WikiProject Free images.
List This user proudly participates in WikiProject Lists
Graduation hat.svg This user is a member of WikiProject Classroom coordination.
Technical
Power Mac G5.jpg This user edits/views Wikipedia with a Power Mac G5 (10.5), a MacBook Pro(10.6, W 7) and an iPod touch)

sfri This user contributes using Safari.
Mozilla Firefox logo 2013.svg This user contributes using Firefox.

I am User:Ned Scott on all Wikimedia Projects with the exception of wikinews:es:User:Ned Scott. I'm in my late-twenties and live in Arizona, USA. My main focus on Wikipedia is working on articles about entertainment and fiction (particularly anime and science fiction, which is probably not a big surprise), though I do enjoy working on much more than just those kinds of articles. Lately I've been more active in meta space than in article space, focusing on discussions and technical features such as templates. I'm also very interested in applying some of the methodology of Wikipedia to other wikis around the internet, which lead me to start up WikiProject Transwiki.

Unfortunately my personal time is being consumed by some other stuff lately, and I'm not nearly as active as I once was. Don't let that stop you from leaving me a message or asking for assistance if you feel I can be of some help! I will always be a Wikipedian, and look forward to always having at least some level of contribution to this great project. I also plan on getting more active again to at least finish a number of projects/ideas that I've either had or was involved in.

Useful links


List templates

Projects

Transwiki

  • User:Ned Scott/transwiki - A rough rough draft and collection of thoughts for guidelines and advice about transwiking articles.

External contact project

Lets you find users who have external contact info. For use with WP:CATSCAN

Discussion tracking

Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Note: entries for inactive discussions, closed or not, should be moved to the archive.

Notice Fiction/entertainment guideline notices
More issues and discussions at the fiction notice board
Delsort
Delsort categories
RfC/General notice
XfDs
Other
Village pump sections
Policy
post | watch | search

To discuss existing and proposed policies

Technical
post | watch | search

To discuss technical issues. For wiki software bug reports use MediaZilla

Proposals (persistent)
post | watch | search

To discuss new proposals that are not policy related. See also: perennial proposals.

Assistance
post | watch | search

To post requests for assistance not covered by the Help desk or the Reference desk

Miscellaneous
post | watch | search

To post messages that do not fit into any other category


RfCs - Art, architecture, literature and media

Talk:Giving You the Best That I Got (album)

The article was nominated for deletion; the result was "no consensus". Even when the song may be "notable", the song article has not been tremendously expanded. The content was copied and pasted into the album page in case of potential merger, but the song article was not yet redirected to there. Shall the song article be merged, redirected, or what else? George Ho (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

The following disclaimer appears on professional wrestling event articles: The event consisted of professional wrestling matches that involved wrestlers from pre-existing scripted feuds or storylines that played out on WWE television. Wrestlers portrayed heroes or villains as they followed a series of events that built tension and culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches. Is this (or any) disclaimer necessary for people with little knowledge of the subject? Would linking to Professional wrestling and scripted be a suitable alternative?LM2000 (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:White savior narrative in film

Should The Matrix be listed with other films at white savior narrative in film? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:12 Years a Slave (film)

Should the White savior narrative in film wikilink in the "See also" section be removed? --NeilN talk to me 17:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon

There are several books published in the MusicHound guide series (MusicHound Rock, MusicHound Jazz, etc.), one of which--MusicHound Rock--is cited in this article's ratings template. I recently changed the link to a piped link--from [[MusicHound]] to ''[[MusicHound|MusicHound Rock]]''--but was reverted... Should the book title be specified or not? Dan56 (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Eidetic memory

One concern is that "It should be very clear to readers that 'eidetic images' (in psychology) and 'photographic memory' are not the same things. Photographic memory does not exist, and eidetic images are generally not found in adults and they don't allow people to perform spectacular memory feats. [...] 'Eidetic imagery' in psychology is not 'photographic memory' -- it refers to the brief impression of an image that children sometimes see, and it has nothing to do with adults who memorize things. There is no science to support that." The other concern is that "most of the sources [...] are clear that the terms are used interchangeably or that photographic memory and eidetic memory are the same topic, but that the term eidetic memory is more accurate; if they distinguish photographic memory and eidetic memory at all, it's only slightly. In other words, sources usually treat these topics side by side and as the same thing while other sources distinguish them or slightly distinguish them."

So the issue is this: Should we be strict in stating that eidetic memory and photographic memory are not the same thing? Or should we should initially treat the terms as the same thing, with "photographic memory" as the WP:Alternative title, and then relay that the terms are sometimes distinguished? Sources for examining the terminological matter are below. If viewing this from the RfC page or an alert on your talk page, the full discussion starts at Talk:Eidetic memory#Eidetic vs. photographic. I will alert WP:WikiProject Psychology and WP:Biology to this discussion.

Click on this to see the sources.

1. D. Draaisma (2000). Metaphors of Memory: A History of Ideas about the Mind. Cambridge University Press. p. 129. ISBN 0521650240. Retrieved May 11, 2016. The type of visual memory which is commonly called 'a photographic memory' was connected with photography at an early period. In 1868 Maudsley described the case of a man who was capable of repeating a text he had just read, backwards. This is the kind of visual memory, writes Maudsley, 'in which the person seems to read a photographic copy of former impressions with his mind's eye'. The metaphor of the 'photographic memory' is considerably older than the specialist term 'eidetic memory', which was only introduced in 1922. 

2. David Moxon (2000). Memory. Heinemann. p. 15. ISBN 0435806521. Retrieved May 11, 2016. Photographic (eidetic) memory is a term given to describe an almost perfect replication of some observed material (usually observed for only a short period of time). It is more correctly referred to as 'eidetic memory'. 

3. Dennis Coon (2005). Psychology: A Modular Approach to Mind and Behavior. Cengage Learning. p. 310. ISBN 0534605931. Retrieved May 10, 2016. The term photographic memory is more often used to describe eidetic imagery. 

4. Foer, Joshua (April 27, 2006). "The accused Harvard plagiarist doesn't have a photographic memory. No one does.". Slate. Retrieved May 11, 2016. Lots of people claim to have a photographic memory, but nobody actually does. Nobody. [...] That's not to say there aren't people with extraordinarily good memories—there are. They just can't take mental snapshots and recall them with perfect fidelity. [...] Photographic memory is often confused with another bizarre—but real—perceptual phenomenon called eidetic memory, which occurs in between 2 and 15 percent of children and very rarely in adults. An eidetic image is essentially a vivid afterimage that lingers in the mind's eye for up to a few minutes before fading away. Children with eidetic memory never have anything close to perfect recall, and they typically aren't able to visualize anything as detailed as a body of text. 

5. Robert McEntarffer, Allyson Weseley (2007). AP Psychology. Barron's Educational Series. p. 106. ISBN 0764136658. Retrieved May 11, 2016. Memory researchers are particularly interested in individuals who demonstrate eidetic, or photographic, memory. [...] Some people say they have a photographic memory when what they mean is a very good memory. True eidetic memory occurs very rarely. 

6. Dennis Coon, John O. Mitterer (2008). Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior. Cengage Learning. p. 273. ISBN 0495599115. Retrieved May 11, 2016. The term 'photographic memory' is more often used to describe a memory ability called eidetic imagery. Eidetic imagery occurs when a person has visual images clear enough to be 'scanned' or retained for at least 30 seconds. 

7. Carol Turkington, Joseph Harris (2010). The Encyclopedia of the Brain and Brain Disorders. Infobase Publishing. p. 128. ISBN 1438127030. Retrieved May 11, 2016. Most experts suspect that eidetic imagery is not a different kind of visual memory, but just a greater skill in the ability to form visual images that everyone possesses to some degree. While eidetic imagery is most likely the source of the concept of a photographic memory, there are differences in the two concepts. An eidetic image fades soon after one sees the original image and does not stay with a person over time. The image is subjective, and the details of greatest interest to the person are the ones most easily reproduced. Moreover, a person cannot form an eidetic image in one second, as a camera can snap a photo; several seconds are required to scan the picture. Once the picture has faded away, eidetic images cannot be retrieved. Those who can form eidetic images do not seem to be able to use their special ability to improve long-term memory. 

8. Gordon, Barry (January 1, 2013). "Does Photographic Memory Exist?". Scientific American. Retrieved May 11, 2016. The intuitive notion of a 'photographic' memory is that it is just like a photograph: you can retrieve it from your memory at will and examine it in detail, zooming in on different parts. But a true photographic memory in this sense has never been proved to exist. Most of us do have a kind of photographic memory, in that most people's memory for visual material is much better and more detailed than our recall of most other kinds of material. For instance, most of us remember a face much more easily than the name associated with that face. But this isn't really a photographic memory; it just shows us the normal difference between types of memory. 

9. Annette Kujawski Taylor (2013). Encyclopedia of Human Memory [3 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 951. ISBN 144080026X. Retrieved May 10, 2016. Eidetic memory is sometimes called photographic memory because individuals who possess eidetic memory can reproduce information from memory in exactly the format in which it was provided during encoding. 

10. Bennett L. Schwartz (2013). Memory: Foundations and Applications. Sage Publications. p. 172. ISBN 1483323269. Retrieved May 11, 2016. It is likely that those who claim to possess 'photographic memory' (or eidetic imagery, in technical terms) do have extraodinarily good visual imagery systems that allow them to form strong visual images of the material that they learn. 

11. Minna Lyons, Neil Harrison, Gayle Brewer, Sarita Robinson, Rob Sanders (2014). Biological Psychology. Learning Matters. p. 140. ISBN 0857256947. Retrieved May 11, 2016. Eidetic memory [...] This type of memory refers to occasions when people claim to be able to recall a very detailed visual image for a long period of time. This type of memory is commonly known as photographic memory and is very rare (with some researchers claiming that eidetic memories do not exist at all). 

12. Scott Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, Laura Namy, Nancy Woolf, Graham Jamieson, Anthony Marks, Virginia Slaughter (2014). Psychology: From Inquiry to Understanding. Pearson Higher Education. p. 353. ISBN 1486016405. Retrieved May 10, 2016. Iconic memory may help to explain the remarkable phenomenon of eidetic imagery, popularly called 'photographic memory'. 

13. Anthony Simola (2015). The Roving Mind: A Modern Approach to Cognitive Enhancement. ST Press. p. 117. ISBN 069240905X. Retrieved May 10, 2016. [...] Photographic memory or eidetic memory, as it is more accurately called. It refers to the ability to recall memories in vivid visual detail without the use of mnemonic techniques. Importantly though, eidetic memory differs from what is commonly thought to be photographic memory in the respect that eidetic memory literally refers to one's ability to view memories like photographs. In popular culture, photographic memory simply refers to the ability to recall items like pages of text or numbers in great detail without the visualization associated with eidetic memory. Sometimes found in children but rarely in adults, photographic memory has an aura of mystery to it, and to most people it sounds almost like a supernatural ability. The incredible claims surrounding eidetic memory arouse high emotions in the public, which remains predominantly skeptical of its existence. 

14. S. Marc Breedlove (2015). Principles of Psychology. Oxford University Press. p. 353. ISBN 0199329362. Retrieved May 10, 2016. If a person had iconic memory that did not fade with time, he or she would have what is sometimes called photographic memory (also called eidetic memory), the ability to recall entire images with extreme detail. 

Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Madonna (entertainer)

Should the wording currently in the lede "She achieved popularity by pushing the boundaries of lyrical content in mainstream popular music and imagery in her music videos, which became a fixture on MTV." remain or be changed to "She achieved popularity from the controversial lyrical content in her music and imagery in her music videos, which became a fixture on MTV."? The former is not supported by content in the article body, the latter is supported by content in the article body. -- WV 01:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Doctor Who (series 9)

I think we need to stop arguing over the theoretical hierarchy of knowledge/authority, it is not source based and therefore cannot be used by either side to justify and back-up their argument. We need this discussion to be purely source based, state what a source actually states, not what a vague statement could mean. It is my view that DWM is very open to interpretation, but that is not source based, just like assuming who the official website is sourcing, we don't know who they are sourcing, but they are as reliable as a source can get and it is not open to interpretation, the official website has remained constant in their classification of episodes, whereas DWM has changed their view several times (one time (issue #489) they took a view which was not representative of official designation, referring to TGWD and TWWL as a two-parter), an indicating that it is more their opinion than actual fact, something with DWM is we don't know what Moffat said to them, for all we know they could be misinterpreting him, we can't be sure, while we have a statement from issue #493, that was before the episodes aired and Moffat was likely being purposely vague to keep people in the dark about the episodes, we don't have a post-broadcast statement from Moffat, issue #495 does not quote him, and therefore it cannot be used on the grounds that Moffat shares that view, even if he does, Moffat's personal opinion doesn't necessarily constitute official designation. Fan4Life (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album)

Ever since the last RfC concluded Pop was going to be the genre, and the only genre for the current revision of Red, there have been numerous discussions, edit wars and complaints. Even though a lot of them were inaccurate (using the nomination for Best Country Album at the Grammy's or Swift claiming it's country as an argument), the essence of the rejection is in the right place, so I started a RfC.

The genre of an album page on Wikipedia is not like iTunes, in which it is considered which genre section the album fits in best. It is supposed to give a good overview of the genres present on the album. I am not trying to change the genre from pop to country so I am not dismissing the previous RfC. However, I do think that country and rock should be added as genres to give a good overview of the actual content on the CD. Since pop will be the first genre, which usually indicates the genre most present on an album, it will still showcase a transition in comparison to the previous albums of Swift (going from Country to Country pop to Country pop • pop rock to Pop • country • rock to Pop • dance-pop • synthpop).

So should the current revision being kept or changed? Bjork138 (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Kodak Black

 ::* Fourth, and finally, I know I have been on a soapbox for the last few paragraphs and I want to be sure it is not just my opinion that is presented here. You said above "Please get input from other editors before adding the stub status." I'll go you one better and try and get input from many editors on both (A) the stub status of this article and (B) whether or not my position on Wikipedia policies and guidelines is correct. I am going to tag this talk page with {{rfc}} and ask for input on what I just wrote so that it is not just one editor's opinion. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 23:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Kesuke Miyagi

Should there be anything regarding the Jackie Chan character of Mr. Han on the Kesuke Miyagi character article? Orstio (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup

It is proposed that WP:WikiProject Popular Culture (formerly WP:WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture) and WP:WikiProject Laundromat be merged into WP:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup, the best-established and most clearly named project for this work.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Axis: Bold as Love

These three genres are mentioned in the article; according to Hendrix historian Steven Roby, critics praised the album "for its wonderful blend of R&B, hard rock, and Mose Allison-influenced jazz" (Roby 2002, p. 77). This issue is being raised in response to GentleCollapse16's recent removal of those three genres. Dan56 (talk) Dan56 (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


RFCs - Wikipedia style, referencing, layout and WikiProjects

Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation

The question on the table is, generally
What guidance should WP:Disambiguation give for article titles that do not result in a conflict between two or more articles, but which may not be inherently unambiguous to a general audience?

and specifically, which of these passages is preferred in the rule (the bolded text is just to highlight the addition, not intended to be bolded in the actual rule):

  1. Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia. (A "topic covered by Wikipedia" is either the main subject of an article, or a minor subject covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject.) For example, the word "Mercury" can refer to a chemical element, a planet, a Roman god, and many other things.
  2. Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous. This is most often when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia, either as the main topic of an article, or a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject. For example, the word "Mercury" can refer to a chemical element, a planet, a Roman god, and many other things. Disambiguation may also be applied to a title that inherently lacks precision and would be likely to confuse readers if it is not clarified, even it does not presently result in a titling conflict between two or more articles.

and the bolded section is called the "additional guidance" for the purposes of discussion. Herostratus (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Gruffudd

As the original merge suggestion attracted no salient comments here and only two at the other page, with a 50/50 split, I'm opening an RfC, and suggesting a merge in the other direction, to the better-developed page. The Gruffudd spelling appears to be more common today, is more familiar to more readers because of Ioan Gruffudd, and produces significantly more Google hits. We definitely do not need a bunch of WP:REDUNDANTFORKs on every possible spelling of this name (or any name), especially when most of it's just disambiguation "un-content" instead of real content, spelling varies widely even for the same historical subjects, there are many more such variants, and none of them are likely possible to develop into a real and properly sourced article on the name without combining them.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Tony Scherman

Do you want the Collections section on the article to be done as (A) prose?

Do you want the Collections section on the article to be done as a (B) list?

Zpeopleheart (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Bombardier Movia & CNR Changchun C951

This article, Bombardier Movia & CNR Changchun C951, attracted attention in light of the C151A scandal that broke a few days ago. As a result, there is now a requested move and removal of the phrase "Changchun" trying to remove all references to China. Personally I never liked the MRT rolling stock articles to be named this way as convention in WikiProject Trains follow the operator rather than the manufacturer, but it is a fact established by several sources that these trains are constructed by Changchun Bombardier Railway Vehicles, a joint venture by Bombardier Transportation and CNR Changchun. Could we have other editors comment on this naming convention? - Mailer Diablo 16:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Rolfing

Per: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels

1. Is the use of the word "quackery" in this article contentious?
Does the use of the word "quackery" make for a POV that is biased?
If yes, then what would make sense to replace it with?

2. Is the use of the word "pseudoscience" in this article contentious?
Does the use of the word "pseudoscience" make for a POV that is biased?
If yes, then what would make sense to replace it with?

AaronMFeld (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

MOS:KOREA currently says:

In general, use the Revised Romanization system for articles with topics about South Korea and topics about Korea before the division. Use McCune–Reischauer (not the DPRK's official variant) for topics about North Korea.

Should this be replaced with

In general, use the Revised Romanization system for articles with topics about South Korea. Use McCune–Reischauer (not the DPRK's official variant) for topics about North Korea and topics about Korea before the division.

?
06:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Using archive.is

This RfC is to gauge community consensus about the preferred URL format for archive.is and WebCite when used in citations.

Both sites permit two URL formats, a shortened version and a longer version. Examples:

archive.is
WebCite
(pretend they go to the same link)

Which one is preferred, or are either equally appropriate?

Related information:

  • The document Using WebCite says "Either is appropriate for use within Wikipedia," while the document Using archive.is says "The [longer] is preferred for use within Wikipedia because it preserves the source URI."
  • During the archive.is RfC, some users brought up concerns short URLs can hide spam links, noting URL-shortening services such as bit.ly have been blacklisted from Wikipedia.
  • Reverse engineering a shortened link to find the original URI can be done using the WebCite API, or web scraping in archive.is case.
  • WebCite and archive.is default to the shortened version when creating a new link or in page display.

Please leave a !vote below, such as short or long or either. -- GreenC 21:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Kingdom of Ulidia

Should this article be replaced with a redirect to Ulaid. Both articles are about the exact same topic. Rationale given above request. Mabuska (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Order of Friars Minor

How should the various articles on different Franciscan orders, movements, and spirituality, and the overview article on Franciscans in general, be named and organized?; with particular attention to recent discussion here, here, and here (listed in reverse-chronological order). Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 01:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Galleries currently use mode=traditional by default, producing a gallery like this:

Should they be change to use mode=packed by default, as below?

(pictures from Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Fungi) —  crh 23  (Talk) 12:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)



RFCs - Wikipedia policies, guidelines and proposals

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Proposed: All articles created on or after October 1, 2016 must specifically cite at least one independent (non-affiliated) reliable source in support of at least one claim or assertion of fact within the article. Articles created after this date that do not cite any reliable sources may be proposed for deletion using the same procedure employed for WP:BLPPROD. For the purposes of discussion we may refer to the as yet to be created tag and guideline as VPROD. Any editor including the article creator, may remove the VPROD tag as soon as a single independent reliable source is added to the article. Reviewing editors and in particular New Page Patrolers are strongly encouraged to look for a reliable source before adding the VPROD tag, especially in cases where commonsense would suggest the likely notability of the subject. Ultimately however, it is the responsibility of the creator of the article and any editors adding material to ensure that all claims are properly referenced to reliable sources. Articles created prior to October 1, 2016 are not subject to VPROD, although they remain subject to the provisions of WP:V and may be nominated for deletion via WP:AfD if it is believed that they fail to meet minimal standards for sourcing.

OP's Statement There are simply too many unsourced articles out there and more are getting through all the time. WP:V is mocked by the existence of unsourced articles, and the credibility of the project is undermined. There aren't enough editors working on NPP as evidenced by the perpetual backlog. And while one would hope that they will try to fix deficiencies in articles they are reviewing, especially serious ones, the reality is that again there aren't enough of them to get every new article up to snuff without the entire system of review grinding to a halt. Yes, I know that one can always later send a problematic article to AfD but that is not a practical solution. AfD is already barely functional from a lack of participation. Articles sent there routinely languish for weeks without a !vote. We need to streamline the process and shore up WP:V. There is no reason why the same standard, which is shockingly minimal, that is applied to BLPs should not be applied to all articles. If requiring editors creating an article to cite just one source is too onerous then it is time to stop calling this an encyclopedia. In closing, I wish to say that I know this will be controversial. All I ask is that the discussion stay calm and polite. (And a support !vote would be nice too.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Alyson Hannigan

I'm raising an RfC question about the appropriateness of including information about a subject's stalker in a biography, in all cases. I see two issues:
  • First, are we giving unwarranted recognition to the stalker?
  • Second, are we inflicting low-value trivia on the reader, if there is no unusual or noteworthy content to relate, beyond the basic existence of a stalker?

The alternative POV is that including stalker info is generally appropriate, based on precedent and custom. It is not disputed that stalker cases that result in serious crimes or other notable consequences, including wide public notice, may be appropriate content.Regionrat1234 (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation

The question on the table is, generally
What guidance should WP:Disambiguation give for article titles that do not result in a conflict between two or more articles, but which may not be inherently unambiguous to a general audience?

and specifically, which of these passages is preferred in the rule (the bolded text is just to highlight the addition, not intended to be bolded in the actual rule):

  1. Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia. (A "topic covered by Wikipedia" is either the main subject of an article, or a minor subject covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject.) For example, the word "Mercury" can refer to a chemical element, a planet, a Roman god, and many other things.
  2. Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous. This is most often when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia, either as the main topic of an article, or a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject. For example, the word "Mercury" can refer to a chemical element, a planet, a Roman god, and many other things. Disambiguation may also be applied to a title that inherently lacks precision and would be likely to confuse readers if it is not clarified, even it does not presently result in a titling conflict between two or more articles.

and the bolded section is called the "additional guidance" for the purposes of discussion. Herostratus (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Following the closure at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_128#RfC:_Proposed_draftspace_deletion, and no review, I've created Wikipedia:Proposed draftspace deletion as a proposed process. Given that there is consensus that the policy should be adopted, I'd like to see if we could move it to a policy at this point. Some people express some concerns about the time limits listed so I'll add that. Please vote in the subheaders about (a) the length of inactivity; (b) the length of review; and finally (c) whether to adopt as policy. I figured I'd see where we are before starting on the templates and categories. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers

Is there sufficient evidence supported by reliable sources to add Ethnic hatred or Race hatred (both link to the same article) to the Motive section of the Info Box? -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Moderators/Straw poll

* A Request for Comment on a proposal to create a new user group with an abbreviated set of content-related administrator user-rights (NOT block or protect), requested through RfA-like process. I welcome everyone's thoughts on this. - jc37 19:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Rolfing

Per: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels

1. Is the use of the word "quackery" in this article contentious?
Does the use of the word "quackery" make for a POV that is biased?
If yes, then what would make sense to replace it with?

2. Is the use of the word "pseudoscience" in this article contentious?
Does the use of the word "pseudoscience" make for a POV that is biased?
If yes, then what would make sense to replace it with?

AaronMFeld (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

MOS:KOREA currently says:

In general, use the Revised Romanization system for articles with topics about South Korea and topics about Korea before the division. Use McCune–Reischauer (not the DPRK's official variant) for topics about North Korea.

Should this be replaced with

In general, use the Revised Romanization system for articles with topics about South Korea. Use McCune–Reischauer (not the DPRK's official variant) for topics about North Korea and topics about Korea before the division.

?
06:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Using archive.is

This RfC is to gauge community consensus about the preferred URL format for archive.is and WebCite when used in citations.

Both sites permit two URL formats, a shortened version and a longer version. Examples:

archive.is
WebCite
(pretend they go to the same link)

Which one is preferred, or are either equally appropriate?

Related information:

  • The document Using WebCite says "Either is appropriate for use within Wikipedia," while the document Using archive.is says "The [longer] is preferred for use within Wikipedia because it preserves the source URI."
  • During the archive.is RfC, some users brought up concerns short URLs can hide spam links, noting URL-shortening services such as bit.ly have been blacklisted from Wikipedia.
  • Reverse engineering a shortened link to find the original URI can be done using the WebCite API, or web scraping in archive.is case.
  • WebCite and archive.is default to the shortened version when creating a new link or in page display.

Please leave a !vote below, such as short or long or either. -- GreenC 21:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability

I am not happy with the RfC as proposed above, because it is the typical "let's dumb down the standard" phrasing that does not solve the problem of systemic bias. I'm rephrasing the problem: Two recent AfDs jump out at me as illustrative of Systemic Bias based on gender, race and national origin; far, far more articles are proposed for deletion, and most of the arguments advanced are based upon a list of outcomes. Where we have AfDs on minor pornstars being routinely kept because they "won an industry award", while women with doctorates and academic careers are routinely deleted as "not notable," we have a serious problem with the interpretation of WP:N.

So this is my proposal:

  • Shall WP:N include a section on how to assess issues of possible systemic bias in notability discussions?
  • Clearly, the devil is in the details, and this is not about "relaxing the standards," but rather it is about refining them so they do not exacerbate the problem of the legitimate systemic bias concern, which is sometimes expressed in articles about women being deemed "non-notable", particularly when the standards set for men often reflect their increased ability to gain promotion and recognition more than actual accomplishment or ability. Montanabw(talk) 22:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability

Recent AfDs related to Systemic Bias:

I recently participated in the above AfDs and there seem to be 2 opposing views - 1. Notability guidelines need to be applied equally regardless and 2. In cases of systemic bias, notability guidelines need to be relaxed. I'm wondering what are the community's thoughts on this. Specifically I'm trying to find out "would the community support a relaxation of notability guidelines in cases of subjects affected by systemic bias"? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Extended confirmed protection policy

Background

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of article protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibit editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas. The Arbitration Committee recently passed a motion that established expectations for use of the protection within the scope of arbitration enforcement.

The protection policy currently states that extended confirmed protection may only be applied in topic areas authorized by the Arbitration Committee or as a result of community consensus (per this discussion). However, it also states that Criteria for community use have not been established. This request for comment seeks to establish such a community process for the use of extended confirmed protection. A discussion at the village pump ideas lab produced the following options.

Options

  • Option A: Allow use only for topics authorized by the Arbitration Committee (current policy).
  • Option B: Allow use only for topics authorized by the Arbitration Committee or for persistent sockpuppetry where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective (similar to what ArbCom stipulated for arbitration enforcement and discretionary sanctions 30/500 applications). Notification is to be posted in a subsection of AN for review, unless the topic is already authorized for 30/500 protection by the Arbitration Committee.
  • Option C: Allow use to combat any form of disruption (such as vandalism, edit wars, etc.) on any topic, given that semi-protection has proven to be ineffective. Notification is to be posted in a subsection of AN for review, unless the topic is already authorized for 30/500 protection by the Arbitration Committee.

Regarding the duration of the protection, extended confirmed protection does not differ from semi or other forms of protection in that the duration is proportional to the disruption observed. The one exception is topics authorized by the Arbitration Committee, which are often protected indefinitely.

For clarity, please support only one option. Supporters of option C may inherently support option B unless stated otherwise. Katietalk 00:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Harassment

This article has contained the follow text for a fair amount of time "Posting links to other accounts on other websites may be allowable on a case-by-case basis."

With respect to providing links, one reason to do this would be:

a) someone posts a job offer money for article X on Elance

b) an editor notifies WT:COIN of that fact and provides the Elance link as proof, people than watch the article that does not yet exist

c) someone on Elance wins the job, creates a new Wikipedia account, and than creates the article.

This is something which is done on a regular basis such as in this example here where I added the following note in 2015:

Here we have someone who is buying an article on Anthony LaPine. They have already bought an article on HipLink and this sock created it UserJuliecameo3 who is already blocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Karen Stollznow

The sexual harassment section of this BLP continues to be contentious on certain points. Currently there seem to be 2 citations in question. The first is to a blog article at Scientific American, where the Living Person (Karen Stollznow) made claims about sexual harassment. That is the foundation of this section. But Scientific American deleted that blog article shortly after publishing it without comment and it exists now only at internet archive. So does that source still meet the BLP-level requirements for a reliable source, especially considering Scientific Amercican no longer stands behind it?

The second is a response citation to this article, where the head of the organization she accused gives his response. Is that a self-published source, and does it meet the same requirements needed?

And finally, the whole section is basically about Stollznow making this claim, and the claim being denied. There have been other links to court documents and twitter documents, which have been removed due to their ineligibility here. So is what is left a reasonable item for this BLP? Does the weak sourcing lean toward WP:BLPGOSSIP or WP:BLPCRIME? It would be great to get some other comments here! Rjmail (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Kodak Black

 ::* Fourth, and finally, I know I have been on a soapbox for the last few paragraphs and I want to be sure it is not just my opinion that is presented here. You said above "Please get input from other editors before adding the stub status." I'll go you one better and try and get input from many editors on both (A) the stub status of this article and (B) whether or not my position on Wikipedia policies and guidelines is correct. I am going to tag this talk page with {{rfc}} and ask for input on what I just wrote so that it is not just one editor's opinion. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 23:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup

It is proposed that WP:WikiProject Popular Culture (formerly WP:WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture) and WP:WikiProject Laundromat be merged into WP:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup, the best-established and most clearly named project for this work.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

User sub-pages

User talk sub-pages