Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 37

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

Barnstars[edit]

Wikipedia is now at least 5 years old. The encyclopedia has clearly achieved its objectives in becoming a functioning and high-quality wiki-encyclopedia. Early on, it probably needed to have "fun" things to "award" users to keep interest. However, now, Wikipedia should generate enough interest in and of itself. That is why the time has come to delete all the superfluous foolishness that has worn out its usefulness.

I propose eliminating "barnstars." Deleting them from our database. They just waste time, space, and give editors a false sense of accomplishment that impedes their future efforts. I am testing out reaction here first before presenting this as a formal proposal. Any feedback would be appreciated. Discharging P (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you feel a false sense of accomplishment impedes further efforts? -Freekee (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It causes editors to "rest on their laurels" so to speak. They won't be as eager to strive for better if they are rewarded for the mediocre. Discharging P (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's really strange you think that. -Freekee (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I TOTALLY disagree. If I got a barnstar today, it'd make me feel like I was getting something done and probably work on it harder. Also, I don't think any non-vandal editor should be classified as "mediocre." Sure, everyone may not have the grasp of the English language required to write brilliant prose nor the patience to go new page or recent change patrolling but every little bit helps. --Evan ¤ Seeds 03:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Barnstars just seem to be a way to thank an editor for faithful service to Wikipedia. I see no downside to them. --SMP0328. (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. He's just trying to have some fun. -Freekee (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Just what do you mean by that sir? I am only trying to help. Discharging P (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Early on, it probably needed to have "fun" things to "award" users to keep interest. However, now, Wikipedia should generate enough interest in and of itself. - How has Wikipedia changed so much that people no longer need any awards or incentives? You say it happened but present no evidence of it or reason why it would be true. If anything, since we're about out of core encyclopedic topics to write about, its harder to keep interest. Yes, the users who have been around since 2003/2004 are so hopelessly addicted that they probably don't need awards, but it certainly helps everyone, especially users who have only been here for a couple months. The benefit of the barnstars is whatever effect they have on morale and whatever positive effects that might result from that morale boost (a user stays with the project for another few days, but they might get hopelessly addicted in those few days and stay for a year). The cost is a few hundred megabytes of text and images in the servers. A drop in the ocean compared to the whole thing (about 3 Terabytes uncompressed just for text and revision histories). It looks to me like the benefits still outweigh the costs, not even taking into consideration the cost (in time spent arguing and deleting) of a ban. Mr.Z-man 04:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The simple act of saying "Thank you" and "Good work" never go out of style. You should not underestimate the value of barnstars. AgneCheese/Wine 13:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
You know, it's hard to take this post seriously considering the user who initiated it has a user page like this... anyway, poor idea. If you don't like barnstars, don't give them out, and remove them if people give them to you. There's no worry about disk space. Majorly (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
What, you have a problem with slugs? [1] Darkspots (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
If you wanted to make a POINT you could make a list of all the editors/admins who say "WP NOT socialnetwork" and with many barnstars and raise an RFC about double standards. Dan Beale-Cocks 15:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Barnstars are very different from being a social network. Barnstars are to help editors (new and old alike) feel good about the work they've done towards improving WP, though I'm sure there are some handed out frivolously, and those, we should discourage, but from what I've seen, most that are given seem to be for very valid reasons. --MASEM 16:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for removing a lot of non-collaboration-oriented stuff like autograph pages and useless Wikipedian fan categories, but barnstars are a harmless and indeed often helpful thing. Granted, barnstars are often awarded only because of an a priori agreement by one editor with what another editor did. But so what? Dorftrottel (ask) 17:07, February 25, 2008
I agree with several other editors above: Barnstars are a great thank you and encouragement to give to people. There should be no question of deleting them. • Anakin (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I completely disagree. Barnstars and other awards, while they could use some cleanup (as I've proposed long time ago) are very useful as tools to motivate editors to continue contributing. I believe telling people that they did good motivates them to do better; ignoring them has an opposite effect.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd say barnstars are much less of a distraction than frivolous userboxes. As long as barnstars don't turn into a joke or become excessively prominent, they are harmless at worst and useful at best. (in my opinion userboxes have crossed these threshholds) ike9898 (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is serious business.   Zenwhat (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, original poster of this section has been blocked as a sock. This was possibly a bit of trolling. CredoFromStart talk 20:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Wiki is serious (although its not a business!) and as such people should be regonized for their acoplishments. Cheers! Skeletor 0 (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Too much help[edit]

I'm working over at WP:Admin coaching to overhaul the program and as part of it, decided to collect a list of places people who weren't ready to be admins could help out. Is it me or is there a lot of duplication (and I didn't include all the places I could've)?

Other options[edit]

MBisanz talk 06:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Off topic, but I love that description of XfD: "Set of forums for discussion on whether or not specific content on Wikipedia should be retained." Makes it sound almost civilized. -- Visviva (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd add WP:RM, where non-admins can close move requests in no consensus cases, or in cases where the move is unobstructed. I've even seen adminsnon-admins declare consensus in cases requiring buttons, thus doing all the work up to deleting the target page. This can simplify the job for an admin who completes the move later. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)corrected text above GTBacchus(talk) 08:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, interesting idea. Any of the above that you think RM could replace? Maybe WP:AFC? MBisanz talk 17:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know... several of those up there I've never even heard of. I suppose WP:BACKLOG has pointers to pages such as WP:RM when they develop a backlog, so perhaps anything that's regularly listed there could be removed from the list as redundant? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I've figured out a way to include them all. Its live now! MBisanz talk 00:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
PLEASE don't suggest that editors should scan new users checking for username policy violations. That's incredibly bitey, and many people checking usernames appear to have little idea about what the actual policy says. Dan Beale-Cocks 12:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Well ideally these are semi-experienced editors looking to become admins. If they don't scan as a non-admin, and start once they pass RfA, and start screwing it up by blocking names they don't like, then we have lots of drama. And they report to a central location where admins make the call, so I see the bite but not much more than a flesh wound. Feel free to be WP:BOLD though, it is in the project space now. MBisanz talk 02:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes doesn't address "what if you get no reply"[edit]

Apologies if this is a newbie mistake in raising this issue here:

A newbie edits a page. An experienced editor removes that edit. The newbie asks the experienced editor "why?", on the experienced editor's discussion page. No reply is forthcoming, for many weeks.

Newbie checks Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes but can find nothing about what to do if you just get no reply. Couldn't it say something about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craytina (talkcontribs) 13:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Try raising the issue on the associated article's talk page instead, where there are likely more eyes watching to be able to respond. --MASEM 14:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Another suggestion from a mere mortal like you: fight back the reversion (i.e. create an edit war), thus forcing the offending editor to lower himself from his half-god glory and justify himself. In the vast majority of cases, a compromise text can be found, the article will be improved and the editor will (very temporarily) reconnect with his human half. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
From the editor's contribution history, this could be about the notability of a band called Arco. It should not take starting an edit war to get a comment on that issue. Consider making a request at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, which is a good place for people to go who are not that familiar with how issues get resolved. There is also WP:MUSIC to see if the band has enough notability to deserve an article. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou all very much - I will try the article's talk page first, and failing that, Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. Much appreciated --Craytina (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Life (EOL)[edit]

1. What content can be copied from the EOL into Wikipedia? Much of the content is Creative Commons (CC) licensed.

2. What content can be copied from Wikipedia into the EOL? As I understand it, all Wikipedia content is GFDL, but some is also multi-licensed with CC.

Also, I encourage you analyze the site (especially their exemplar pages), then fill out their survey and suggest collaboration with Wikipedia and Wikispecies. Here are links for their institutional partners and data partners. Also note previous discussion at the WikiEN-l Archives. -kslays (talk, contribs) 19:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed Theobroma cacao pulls extensive text from Wikipedia already. -kslays (talk, contribs) 19:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
http://www.eol.org/terms_of_use lists the various Creative Commons licenses under which its content is released, and it looks like different articles and images use different CC licenses, depending on the author's preference? The non-commercial licenses are not compatible with Wikipedia, so we unfortunately would have to determine case-by-case what could be copied and what couldn't, rather than somehow importing the whole site's content. Postdlf (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
As things stand right now, only CC-BY content can be copied to Wikipedia. --Carnildo (talk) 06:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We could also walk through wikipedia content and ask authors to dual license with CC. How's the FSF deal for GFDL/CC compatibility coming along? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Since when are personal attacks permitted?[edit]

I have been contributing to WP for about two years. During that time, I have been openly and publicly personally attacked by another user. He is also stalking me, which is why I am posting this anonymously. Why has nothing ever been done about this? And what can be done about this now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.126.66.106 (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, personal attacks are not permitted. You should really post this at WP:ANI. Step 2 would be to tell them who's stalking you and what your username is. I wouldn't be too afraid of revealing your username, as your stalker can't do much to you there. It's the administrators' noticeboard, so anything inappropriate will be removed, and can only hurt the stalker as it provides further evidence of the stalking. Equazcion /C 10:42, 4 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I still do not understand why his personal attacks have gone unnoticed for almost two years. IAC, I will look into WP:ANI, however, I still have very little faith since he has been able to carry on this behaviour with no consequences for so long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.126.66.106 (talk) 10:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Well without knowing who you are or the nature of the attacks, I really couldn't say. But ANI should be able to help you, if they are indeed personal attacks. Good luck. Equazcion /C 10:54, 4 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Military operational names[edit]

Hello.

Would anyone mind giving some input over at naming conventions regarding English / foreign military operational names? Over at WP:Military history we've run into a snag that we were hoping could be resolved there, and any additional feedback is welcome. 20:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion closing[edit]

Due to some confusion and problems this practice has caused in the past, I've started a policy-in-progress regarding it. I'm not quite sure how it should work specifically, so everyone is welcome to chime in: Wikipedia:Discussion closing. Thanks. Equazcion /C 06:51, 3 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit troubled by the tone of this. "Closings are meant to stop discussions from continuing." This wording implies stifling and censorship, which is not what Wikipedia is about. Wikipoedia is intended to be about consensus, and Wikipedia entrusts administrators to decide when consensus has been reached or not. Yes consensus can change, (and often does,) but the appropriate venue is not to reopen a particular closed discussion, but to start a new one. I do not believe that the admins need a new policy to tell them how to do their job, in fact this a form of instruction creep. You might want to read Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure and Wikipedia:Deletion process to see where much of the scope of your proposed policy already is covered. -- RoninBK T C 08:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignore all rules[edit]

Hi, there is currently a discussion going on at pt:Wikipedia:Ignore todas as regras about the Wikipedia:Ignore all rules policy. I've seen this rule in several languages, but I am a bit confused whether this is one of the pillars of Wikipedia or not, the French wikipedia for instance, says that it is an unchangeable rule, here it says that Jimbo Wales says it is and always has been, which is almost the same, but in other wikipedias like the Catalán one, it only says it is policy. Now, I am beeing accused by some over there of disturbing the peace for bringing that policy into the portuguese wikipedia, but that is the furthest from the truth. Can anyone recommend how I should proceed? Should I just drop this? GoEThe (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

On the english wikipedia, IAR is the 5th pillar. It is also one of the 4 "pillars" on the german wikipedia, IIRC. But different wikis have different systems of rules. IAR may or may not fit in with those rulesets. It is up to the Portuguese wikipedia community to decide what the rules are on the Portugese wikipedia. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
OK! Thanks for the clarification! GoEThe (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Requesting opinions regarding IAR[edit]

We are attempting to determine where consensus lies at the talk page for Ignore all rules.

Please give your opinion here: Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules#Confirming existing consensus. (1 == 2)Until 17:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for changes in the WMF privacy policy.[edit]

I have posted several suggestions for changes in the WMF privacy policy at the WMF site: [2]. The gist of the suggestions is to institute a requirement for notifying those registered users whose identifying info is being sought by subpoenas in third-party lawsuits. These suggestions are motivated in large part by a discussion that took place in January 2008 on this page,[3] in relation to an incident where identifying IP data of sixteen Wikipedia users was released in response to such a subpoena. I hope that those people who took part in the January discussion here, as well as other interested wikipedians, will participate in the discussion of these suggestions at the WMF website, [4]. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for help on mission statements policy[edit]

Does anyone know what the standard is for leading articles on organizations with their own misson statement? In my opinion it is not appropriate because mission statements only serve to promote the organization, and encyclopedias are supposed to be nuetral. I do not recall ever seeing mission statements in other encyclopedias such as World Book and Britticana, However they are much more prevalent on Wikipedia. Please respond on my talk page. Thanks for the help! Richprentice (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Richprentice

Ipblock exempt proposal[edit]

A proposal has started to allow established or trusted editors to edit via Tor, or other anon proxy. This discussion is located at

talk page

The proposed policy in its “needs to be worked on” form is located at

project page

Regards, M-ercury at 23:22, January 14, 2008

Anyone still strongly opposed? Last call before we take this one to the devs! --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Going once! --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Going Twice!. Seriously, I'm about to declare this policy! --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The proposal is that logged-in editors could edit through Tor, provided they can convince an administrator that their situation requires it? So it's like rollback in that admins can give it out, and presumably can monitor its misuse. Permission is granted by turning on 'ipblockexempt' for the account of the applicant. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability for Role-Playing Games[edit]

Some users have begun tagging RPG-related articles indiscriminately with the Notability-Books tag. Given that RPGs are indisputably popular, but that they appeal to a specific subculture and thus references to them do not frequently appear in more mainstream, widely acceptable articles, is there a way to create a more industry-specific notability guideline for these games and their spinoffs? Thanks. Snuppy 15:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Indiscriminately is a value judgment. If you feel like users are tagging articles haphazardly and not discriminating between those that assert notability and those that do not, you should make a report to WP:AN/I, preferably with diffs that show tags on articles that indisputably meet the standard of Wikipedia:Notability (books).
That out of the way, you should check out the proposal: Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games/Notability. Darkspots (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks. Snuppy 18:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the term "some users" actually only refers to me: see my talk page for the ongoing discussion. The allegation that the Notability cleanup template in question has been placed "indiscriminately" is not supported by any evidence. For an example of its application, have a look at the role-playing game Via Prudensiae for an example. Clearly this is a role-playing game, but the article itself describes it a a book, and there is a picture of the book cover in the article. Hence I have used the notability template that refers to WP:BK which I think is entirely reasonable to do so. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the article refers to it being "published as a book", not being a book. A subtle distinction perhaps, but one that most roleplayers will make without a thought. You play the game, you read or refer to the book. The words "book" and "game" in that phrase would make no sense if they were swapped. What's wrong with just using plain notability in the absence of an appropriate specific guidelines? SamBC(talk) 14:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The difference is almost jesuitical, but I am not disagreeing with you. Nothing is wrong about using more general notability criteria, but my view is that WP:BK is the closest specific guideline as the game comes in a book format, is marketed like a book and used like a book (although it is a game). It is therefore not unreasonable to apply the Notability (books) template to highlight the cleanup issue which this article has. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Given that you were tagging them with the book version while that was proposed, IIRC, why not tag them with the proposed RPG version? It's quite mature and reasonable now. One point some of us have been trying to make to you, Gavin, is that tagging them as books when people (who know more about the subject) have told you they find it inappropriate just gets people's backs up, and it's worth doing things a little differently just to avoid that. SamBC(talk) 15:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
      • So do I read this correctly, that the objection is not that they are being tagged, but they are being tagged incorrectly? And if so, is there a specific reason that Gavin objects to using the proposed RPG guideline? -- RoninBK T C 14:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, some things were notability tags were laughable to anyone who knows the subject, but that's really neither here nor there. There were also lots of other inappropriate taggings, which Gavin admits were caused by "copy and paste errors" (quote not necessarily exact, but close enough to work with), but that is pretty much the heart of one major aspect of the problem. SamBC(talk) 20:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Inevitable vs. Official[edit]

When someone is about to win an election or nomination, but has not do so officially, is it permissible to place such information in that person's article? For example, yesterday Senator John McCain clinched the Republican Party nomination for President (he now has a majority of the Republican delegates). Of course, he does not officially become the nominee until those delegates vote at the Republican National Convention (in September). It's possible he could die or decline the nomination. So far two editors have placed McCain's name in as the new nominee of the Republican party, because he has clinched the nomination. Two other editors have reverted those edits, because he is not officially the nominee until the Republican National Convention. Which two editors are correct? For the record, I am not a member of either pair of those editors and I am not attempting to cause a change of policy. I just want to know if there is such policy and, if so, what is that policy. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Calls like that have to be made by WP:CONSENSUS; there are no policies explicit one way or another. What I would suggest is that the truth, as you correctly explain it above, be inserted into the relevant articles, but there is no officially "right" way to resolve this (although as I understand American politics, the term "presumptive nominee" exists for exactly this purpose). If problems continue, I'd suggest making use of WP:RFC. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the use of the term "presumptive", as per major news outlet policies, because there are indeed a multitude of things that "could" happen between now and the Republican Convention, including a possible challenge over whether his place of birth qualifies him under the citizenship clause. When in doubt, in dealing with a contentious page such as this, I vote to go with the most factaully accurate position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roninbk (talkcontribs) 04:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
...oops... -- RoninBK T C 04:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of what "consensus" might be, we cannot call him the "nominee" without qualifying it somehow, and "presumptive" (which is an unofficial, media-created usage) is probably the way to go. He is not the "nominee" until the votes are cast at the convention, and possibly not until he accepts the nomination, depending on what the convention rules actually say. (By the way, there is an explicit policy, and that is that we only make statements supported by reliable sources, and there can be no reliable source stating that McCain is already the "nominee".) 6SJ7 (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Citing emails sent to people considered reliable sources[edit]

Hello, I am editing Liechtenstein and it says:

According to the CIA World Factbook, defense is the responsibility of Switzerland. However, this can be considered a myth since no official sources of either Switzerland or Liechtenstein supporting this claim are published. Specifically, no defense treaty is mentioned in the very detailed description of the bilateral relationships of the two countries provided on Liechtenstein's official website.

I argued that the second sentence was unverifiable and unsourced and should be removed because absence of evidence does not prove one fact or another, it simply proves that it is a subject that requires more research. In any case, I emailed the Embassies of Liechtenstein and Switzerland in Washington, D.C. and asked them if the CIA World Factbook was correct. I received a reply from both embassies that it was in fact incorrect and Switzerland was not responsible for the defense of Liechtenstein. I was wondering how I would go about citing the email and what policies would apply to research done in this manner. Is WP:OTRS set up to handle these sort of things or is there some other policy page I should go visit? Copysan (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You're going to get a bunch of responses claiming this is Original Research. Which is, a rather silly interpretation of OR. You're not making the claim, the embassy is, which is fundamentally what OR is about: "who makes the claim." I've corrected things that the CIA World book gets wrong as well, via email to embassies. I simply copied the text I received back to the talk page, which satisfied everyone except a particularly stubborn belligerent. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
I was afraid of the OR charge. What did you do to mollify the "particularly stubborn belligerent"? Copysan (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Nothing on that issue. Consensus was that the email was good enough. Over the next two years, that belligerent (who had a specific POV to push) continued the behavior across hundreds of other articles and was eventually banned. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Category deletion[edit]

Deletion of a category following a consensus discussion at CFD or UCFD has traditionally meant that all pages must be removed from the category, and restoring the category to pages (even without creating the category page) is considered disruptive. That's recently apparently changed, and the people who are trying to change it are also trying to rewrite history to claim that was never the case. I'd like some clarification. —Random832 20:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I fully sympathize with the above comment and think that re-adding a deleted category is ill-advised, but this is a WP:DEADHORSE that has been beaten more than enough -- hell, it's horse powder at this point. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is, the issue is not resolved. Either we allow everyone to put on whatever user categories they want (in which case, what's the point of UCFD), we don't allow anyone to, or we have a different standard for admins than for regular users. People seem to be in favor of the third, which is very troubling. —Random832 20:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
As somebody who is apparently "trying to rewrite history" I still don't understand what disruption is caused by adding a redlinked category such as Category:Wikipedians who like 300 to a user/talk page. It does not affect the Encyclopedia, it doesn't affect the administration of the project, it doesn't affect editors' abilities to communicate. What does it affect/disrupt? The page for Category:Rouge admins is gone, and it can no longer be found through Wikipedia's category tree. I tend to agree with Black Falcon, and would suggest that its time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. - auburnpilot talk 20:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Most people don't care when a user category disappears from their page. In the few cases where they do care, they generally do not re-add the category. In the very few cases where they do re-add the category, we should probably find something else to focus on... Out of tens of thousands of user category changes, only a handful are reverted. Don't you think it's a bit of an overreaction to claim that this makes UCFD obsolete and useless? Black Falcon (Talk) 20:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Either it's deleted or it's not. If it's deleted, it shouldn't exist in any form. If it's not, why is it protected from recreation? —Random832 20:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It is deleted: the page does not exist and it is not indexed in Wikipedia's category structure. It is protected so that someone does not recreate it. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It is also, however, indexed in the categorylinks table exactly as any other category with members is indexed. Thus it will continue to show up on wantedcategories etc. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
That's true, but I suppose it's the lesser of two problems: a deleted category is not quite as visible and/or easy to find as an existing category. I would, of course, like for people to remove deleted categories (non-created categories are OK, of course) from their user pages voluntarily so that Special:Wantedcategories could function more efficiently, but I'm not sure that 100% enforcment is worth the effort. If this starts to become a more widespread problem, perhaps then it ought to be revisited. Black Falcon (Talk) 00:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • As I noted in the discussion on Random832's page, the category was recreated bu Hu12, who apparently had not followed the acrimonious debate. When it was speedied (G4), he went through and removed the redlink from several userpages, and was subjected to invective by a bunch of petulant admins who were sulking over their toy being taken away from them. I am of the mind that redlinked usercats should be deleted on sight, especially if they are links to deleted categories. I have shied away from doing so to this point only because of a dislike of verbal abuse similar to what happened to Hu12. (It's happened to editors who have removed categories due to other UCFD closes as well, and it is unacceptable, especially from people who should know better.) Horologium (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Your flagrant attacks aside, could you provide me with a single diff showing any abuse Hu12 received after removing the category? I've checked the AN/I discussion, and nobody attacked him there, I checked his talk page, and the only questionable comment was this one by FCYTravis. Hell, I don't even see a single uncivil edit summary by those re-adding the category. Seriously, if I'm missing something, please point it out. - auburnpilot talk 21:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right, only the first was strongly aggressive, but the fact remains that three administrators felt the need to crticize him for performing a task which should never be considered controversial. I have struck the needlessly offensive portions of my previous post. Horologium (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm with BF here. Ill-advised, dead horse, etc, etc. Besides, where do you stop? If they can't put their userpage in a red-linked category, can they simply link to it? What about the text with no link? If it shouldn't exist in any form, do we remove references to the now-deleted category in discussions? I say let it go. The category is gone. --Kbdank71 21:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Linking to the category would not cause it to appear in the categorylinks table or, presumably, in the wantedcategories list. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
There are a number of previously deleted categories on Special:Wantedcategories. Category:Rouge admins (19 members) is number 13 on the list updated at 03:10 on 07 March 2008. Also on that list is Category:Queer Wikipedians (5 members, #217), Category:Libertarian Wikipedians (4 members, #278), and Category:User bat-smg-3 (3 members, #387), among others. All of these categories went through at least one UCFD (and all but the last went though at least one DRV), yet they are still on the wantedcategories list. Horologium (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about linking to music videos[edit]

Hi there, I'm Eddie from BlankTV, www.BlankTV.com We're a fully licensed independent music video channel, a BMI/ASCAP/SESAC affiliate, with a library of almost 4,000 indie music videos. We used to use Google Video as a platform and have switched over to YouTube. I'm writing to check on your policay about posting links to a band's music videos on YouTube. Most of our bands do not actually have Wikipedia pages, but the bigger ones all seem to and we thought it would be a cool resource to be able to read the band's history and then click over and see/hear them play. I tried posting a link to a Pulley music video, but one of the bots rejected it. So I just wanted to see if it's something that we can do without violating the policies or spirit of the Wikipedia site. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlankTV (talkcontribs) 01:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at WP:EXTERNAL? that will give you the info on what is and isn't frowned upon as regards external links. In adding links yourself for your own bands it might be worth having a word with the nice people at WP:COI as well. - X201 (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Likely vandalism from Iowa State University this coming weekend[edit]

Every year Iowa State's campus radio station KURE holds a 26 hour trivia marathon Kaleidoquiz. For the last several years there have been reports of vandalism from some teams competing and the station wanted to give Wikipedia the heads up. It's highly likely that edits made between the hours of 5PM CST Friday the 7th of March (tomorrow) and 7PM CST Saturday from Iowa State IP addresses are likely students in residence halls attempting to sabotage other teams. If possible a temporary ban on edits from Iowa State for those hours might be a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.141.88 (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your heart is in a good place, but that would be severely unfair to the overwhelming majority of people from the school. If issues arise, they will be dealt with swiftly. :) Jmlk17 09:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
A better solution is just to get a couple people to watch the article this weekend. Not that I necessarily think that that is the best solution, either. superlusertc 2008 March 07, 19:04 (UTC)
It'll be on my watchlist...although I'm not sure how vandalizing Wikipedia is related to what is happeneing at ISU.--BirdKr (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Propose a modification to Deletion policy (specifically WP:CSD#A7)[edit]

I've proposed to significantly change the way speedy deletions for notability are handled. The discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Propose a modification to Deletion policy (specifically WP:CSD#A7) --barneca (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

RfB passing % discussion[edit]

If you haven't, please consider participating here and adding your view on whether the passing percentage for RfBs should be changed. I'll post this at WP:AN and AN/I, as well, and it has been raised at WP:VP before and is posted on TEMP:CENT. Avruch T 22:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

IP block exemption, last call[edit]

Last call, last call for IP block exemption policy. We have been going once, going twice; on this page, and at Wikipedia_talk:IP_block_exemption#Who_is_strongly_opposed?

If you have any remaining issues with this policy, please say so *now*. I'm posting here to make sure that no one can later claim that "the community has not been heard, and there was no consensus on this". If anyone claims this after tomorrow, we'll all just point and laugh at you. ;-)

  • If no one opposes now, I shall mark this as policy, and forward a developer request. Allright?
  • On the other hand, if people do still have issues, we'd love to hear them. We won't actually take things to the devs until we have issues ironed out, no worries. but this is your last chance to voice them!

--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously no one is going to show up 'till I post a policy tag. Will do so now. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is fine. Since there has been so much furor about Tor in the past, it's hard to believe this could be so quietly adopted. EdJohnston (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Now policy. Those who don't grasp/want wiki-way policy formation cannot claim that "people weren't heard", as they had their chance :-P. I totally expect a number of people who *are* familiar with the wiki-way to still have comments though (I've been around ;-) ). So I'll wait a day or two before going to devs. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Danny Keough[edit]

(This was appended to the previous discussion; I added the header, based on the article name.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horologium (talkcontribs) 14:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC) I noticed looking at the "Danny Keough" article that it was incorrectly formatted. The article was in two columns and the end notes were in one column. That is the opposite of what should have been done. It would have been the right way if the notes were longer than the paragraphs, but such was not the case. The rule is that if you have more than 3 or 4 lines in a one column paragraph, it should be broken into two columns. The number depends on the width of the page. In the case of article with notes, since you don't want to make the formatting too complicated, the number of columns should be one or two in the article but always one in the notes, unless the notes are very long.72.209.202.195 (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Nationality of deceased[edit]

This is about people who held differing nationalities throughout their life. On the biographical article itself one can give all of this information. However in other pages, for example name disambiguation pages, this is not appropriate. However many such pages give the fist name, a nationality and a word or two on their significance.

Example 1: Einstein (surname) where Albert Einstein is listed as German (and also Jewish). Of course he took Swiss and US citizenship later in life.
Example 2: Robinson (name) where Abraham Robinson is listed as American - He was also born in Germany but it seems he took US citizenship too (I am awaiting conformation of this).

In these cases which nationality should be chosen. Where is the correct place to find existing guidelines or otherwise address this concern? Thehalfone (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not just hyphenate? Robinson would be "German-American". For Einstein, I'd say also "German-American", but I was unaware of the Swiss connection. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This will usually be a good solution. With Einstein it may be a problem though! It currently reads German-Jew, and I am sure many people would be offended I removed the Jewish reference. Still I will make that change for Robinson. Thanks. Thehalfone (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


Related question ... how would you classify people when the nation they were born and lived on got partitioned into two countries? For example, if person X was born in area Y of entity Z, but lived most of his productive life in area Y1 of Z, and later Z gets partitioned into the countries Y and Y1, how would you classify (or categorize) X? These problems turn up very often in South Asia, especially for people who died before the 1947 partition. --Ragib (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we are dealing with several different issues here...
For a disambig page the key is to keep it short and simple. All you need is enough information to identify the various people and distinguish one from the other. Someone like Albert Einstein can probably be listed simply as: "Scientist who developed the theory of relativity" or something... without mentioning his national origin/citizenship/etc.
For an article on the person, we have the luxury of going into his/her national origins, changes in citizenship, etc in more detail. If a country has changed its name, or the borders are now different, we can have a short paragraph explaining this: "Sean Ogg was born in in 1902 in the small village of Badass which, at the time, was part of the Kingdom of Lancre (now part of Uberwald). He migrated to Ankh-Morpork in 1925 and became a Morporkian citizen."
Then there is the issue of categorization... the accepted practice in categorizing someone is to defer to "self-identification"... ie what race/nationality/religion/ etc did the subject claim to have. Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
For the categorization, the "self identification" doesn't solve the problem where the original country is divided. Let me give an example ... the scientist Jagadish_Chandra_Bose was born in Mymensingh District of East Bengal (and his family hailed from, which is now part of Bangladesh, during British Raj. He spent most of his later life in West Bengal which is now in Republic of India. Naturally, Bose has a British Indian passport, and would generally be termed "Indian". However, this "Indian" does not convey the same meaning as "Indian" post 1947 partition (And Bose died before that in 1937).
Now, would it be correct to categorize Bose as "Indian scientist"? That category is for Scientists from "Republic of India". Would it be correct to include Bose as a "Bangladeshi scientist" based on his heritage and birth and native region? Neither Republic of India nor Bangladesh existed when Bose died, and we do not have any category for "British Indian scientists". So, what should be the correct category here? --Ragib (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite of Wikipedia:Protection policy[edit]

A rewrite of this policy, currently at Wikipedia:Protection policy/new, is proposed. As explained on the talk page, the intention is not to change any of the spirit of the policy, but only how it is presented. Comments and criticism are welcome. Happymelon 11:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IP block exemption has been marked as a policy[edit]

Wikipedia:IP block exemption (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

See also: Previous 2 (non-) discussions on this page. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:PW member participation in FLC's and FLA's[edit]

So the problem here is that in the past, there have been pro wrestling articles that were nominated for FA, but they have passed because people said comments like "It looks good, it rocks, its good, support" but without a reason. But now, this is a problem. Feedback nominated New Year's Revolution (2007) for FA, but there were not enough responses, and it failed. About a week ago, I nominated No Way Out (2004) for FA, it failed because there were not enough responses and there were 2 opposes, 1 made no sense, and the other we fixed the problem pointed out but the person did not reply back. Also, List of WCW Hardcore Champions has been nominated for FL, but there have been no responses because people outside the project dont pay attention to pro wrestling articles. If no one outside the WP:PW, then the good articles written here will never have a chance to become Featured articles or Featured Lists, I proposed WT:PW that we should either set up a policy where WP:PW members can participate in FAC's and FLC's where they must give a reason for their support or disapproval, and/or with that policy, the project can set up a list of approved members who can participate in FAC's or FLCs. Suggestions?--TrUCo-X 22:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no rule that prevents members from WP:PW to vote in FACs. The only thing that stops you is the previous consensus taken by WP:PW, which WP:CONSENSUS says can change overtime. 24.139.122.193 (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
There was no such consensus. User:Scorpion0422 decided that should be the policy, but for WP:PW only. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Then there you go! XD No need for this topic. Just start a consensus at WP:PW and if you want approval, discuss it at WT:FAC. Feedback 24.139.122.193 (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Bots and the {{bots}} template[edit]

There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#nobots about whether or not bots should obey the {{bots}} template (especially in regard to user talk pages). Please chime in there. —Locke Coletc 03:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Suicide[edit]

There is a discussion on the Talk:Suicide page about the possibility of placing a banner at the top of the page with a short message and a link to suitable suicide support organisations. Full details of the motivation and the discussion that followed are on Talk:Suicide. There was some consensus that this is something that should be done, however, concerns have been raised that this would contravene WP:NOT and WP:5P which is the motivation for raising the topic here. I personally would like to see this happen. Internet related suicides are becoming more common and while wikipedia is clearly not among the motivating sites it's position at the top of a google search on "suicide" does give it the opportunity to guide people to the kind of advice and help that they might require. --Jackocleebrown (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not needed, but I suppose you could if you want. But those links could be on the article's own page anyway, a lot of browsing users don't even look at or know about talk pages, IMHO. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 21:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
What not create a mainspace list of suicide support organizations or perhaps an article about suicide support organizations? Then the notice can direct them there. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry it was not clearer above, the suggestion is the add a banner to the top of the main suicide page. I think that Obuibo's suggestion is good - to have another page listing organisations. My main query here was whether we can add such a banner or if this will contravene Wikipedia policy or if we can do this in this instance because of exceptional circumstances. --Jackocleebrown (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I would say so. Be bold and go ahead. We'll do the WP:BRD thing if it proves problematic. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Strongly disagree as discussed on Talk:Suicide. This user has already been bold and been reverted. It is a bad idea as it endorses one point of view, not a good thing on such a controversial topic. But I suggest keeping the discussion on the article talk page. I'm not sure of the purpose of bringing it up here. Fritter (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been largely resolved on Talk:Suicide. Please use the Talk:Suicide page to add to the conversation so that we don't have two parallel topics on different pages. Thanks Jackocleebrown (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)