Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 50

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Village pump (policy) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196

Category diffusion overview

I was concerned that some categories are getting diffused unnecessarily, and that we might be hurting ordinary users' ability to search intuitively. So I made an overview-table of the current "diffusion-state" (with suggested "improvements") of major biography categories here: Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Category diffusion overview. -84user (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I just saw the much-discussed Wikipedia:Category intersection proposal (talk page). Part of that proposal expresses better than I could what I mean, and more. My favourite quote: ::Categories help users browse through similar articles. When you remove a redundant categorization, you make it much harder to browse through similar articles.
-84user (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions

Up until 7 October 2004 Wikipedia:Naming conventions carried a top note that said

One of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines

This was removed by user:UninvitedCompany and relpaced with Category:Wikipedia official policy. On 12 May 2005 user: Radiant! removed the category and added a {{policy}} top box.

I have put in a WP:RM to move Wikipedia:Naming conventions to some other name, because before Wikipedia:Naming conventions became policy, the page used to say "Naming conventions is a list of guidelines on how to appropriately create and name pages." so the current name was appropriate, but once it became policy, the name is not as clear as it could be. In line with the hierarchy that other policies and guidelines have, I suggest that this page becomes the unambiguous policy page and that the guidelines remain clearly guidelines. Currently it is difficult for a new editor to see clearly that the naming convention is policy with detailed guidelines to explain the policy page rather than a sometimes conflicting amorphous mass.

The discussion for the requested move is at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Requested move—Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

False alarms

I've demoted the following three sections as false alarms; the {policy} template format was tweaked slightly, but the policies have not been demoted. Nothing to see here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion as the bot operator is to remove the sections if they are incorrect. I do believe these messages were due to bad edits to the policy template. The pages really were no longer marked as policy, but they should not have changed. At least the messages might have the side effect of pointing out the problem with the policy template. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content no longer marked as a policy

Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a policy. It was previously marked as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Libel no longer marked as a policy

Wikipedia:Libel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a policy. It was previously marked as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Privacy policy no longer marked as a policy

Wikipedia:Privacy policy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a policy. It was previously marked as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to change CSD G7

Please see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposal to change CSD G7. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 06:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

UCSC Wikipedia Trust Project

What is this page?

Not within wikipedia, and I think not realistic to be implemented here ever. Arnoutf (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I asked what it was, what are you talking about? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 01:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The page you linked says what it is: it's a fork of en.wikipedia from Feb 2007 with a 'trust coloring' gimmick. It's also possibly in violation of the GFDL (doesn't have full article histories) and in flagrant violation of the Wikimedia foundation's trademarks and copyrights (the logo's right there in the top left). Algebraist 01:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw histories on the examples I checked, back to 2003. I wonder how they ended up mirroring the logo. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article Criteria

For featured articles, is there a limit to how noteworthy a topic can be before it has much of a chance at gaining FA status. For instance, if a random un-notable village was detailed enough to provide all the information it could possibly provide from the very limited sources out there on it, then could that article reach FA status? I know that FAs tend to be long, but hypothetically, is what I ask, possible? Deamon138 (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing in the featured article criteria about notability. As long the subject is notable enough for Wikipedia and meets the criteria, it's a potential candidate to be a featured article. The general consensus is that all villages are notable. Harryboyles 01:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity! Deamon138 (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Technically there is no rule saying an FA can't be short, but in reality it probably won't pass if its short. Mr.Z-man 19:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Policy on conveying unnecessarily risky behavior?

In Ventilation (architecture), there is an image showing how air goes in some vents and out others. I was concerned, however, when I saw how the demonstration was done: by holding a flame up to the ventilator. The "air going in" image shows the flame actually disappearing between the louvers of the vent.

Allowing a flame to be sucked into a ventilator is an extremely foolhardy thing to do. Add some dust (which vent ducts are often filled with) and a bit of bad luck, and you've got a very rapidly-building and hard-to-fight fire. If I advocated that technique to someone, and they then burned down their house, I could probably be found liable. Even if I couldn't be found legally culpable (e.g. I offered an effective disclaimer) it still would seem to be a bad thing to do.

So, here's the policy question: should there be a policy to avoid describing or showing risky behavior when that behavior does not usefully promote the message of the article? Here, for instance, the use of flame has nothing to do with the articles that use this picture. As an alternative, the picture could show the smoke from a cigarette, or the movement of a piece of thin foil or cellophane.

Other (perhaps synthetic) examples that would concern me: someone looking down the barrel of a gun to see the bullet, showing the power of electricity by sparking two household-voltage wires together, showing that some clothes are gasoline-proof by pouring gasoline on them while being worn, someone using a wood lathe whose tie is dangling over the rotating piece, working under a car where the car is clearly unsafely supported, etc.

Examples of behaviors that should not be excluded: a bomb disposal technician at work, a forest fire, a battle, an article on extreme sports, emergency surgery.

Does excluding content such as this seem like a worthwhile policy? If so, could the policy be worded so as properly draw the line (wherever that line should be)?

Dan Griscom (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Mmm maybe an idea to develop further. I am not sure this is a widespread issue, in this case the flame example really does not add anything relevant..... In general I think the idea "only use examples that may cause risk as last resort (ie no other example will work)" maybe a good guideline. Arnoutf (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep. IMO, your time would be better spent actually making a replacement image instead of trying to create a policy/guideline about something which is in all likelihood extremely rare. Anomie⚔ 20:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right. I went looking for other similar policies and guidelines that limit the allowable content, and wasn't able to find any that functioned on the same level as my suggestion. The closest I could find was the Attack pages and Neutral point of view policies. If there are so few of them, then this implies that creating a new one would be a drastic step, and I don't think this issue merits a drastic step.
In my original example, though, I'm going to suggest to the article's authors that the flame image doesn't contribute to the article in an appropriate way. That's the kind of judgement that has to happen all the time, and probably doesn't need to be further codified. (Thanks for responding.) Dan Griscom (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer Mr.Z-man 04:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"International reaction" sections

(Apologies if this is the wrong venue.) As you may have noticed, we are faced with a growing number of "international reaction" sections and articles. Some of these are quite useful (International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence), others less enlightening (International reactions to the 2006 North Korean nuclear test). Anyway, I wonder if it would be wise to try and craft some sort of policy indicating that some international reactions simply are not relevant. A good example was on the Main Page recently: 2008 Indian embassy bombing in Kabul. Clearly the reactions of India and Afghanistan matter. Some of those listed, like Pakistan's and the US', may matter. But can we agree that Bulgaria's and Vietnam's, with all due respect, do not matter? Neither country is in the vicinity of the countries involved, neither is a great power, neither has especially close relations with either, neither said anything remotely unexpected, etc.

Now, I know the obvious question is how exactly one chooses which reactions are notable without violating WP:NPOV. To be sure, there will always be a grey area. But I think it's worth the effort; otherwise we'll see increasing numbers of lists like the North Korea one, which essentially consists of dozens of countries either "condemning" or "strongly condemning" the test. Biruitorul Talk 20:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for a new guideline on such things. It's a content debate, and if you find such a section is not a useful addition to an article, feel free to discuss the merits of that section on the article talk page. Resolute 21:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Fine, but it's not just an article we're talking about, it's many. Biruitorul Talk 00:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The reactions of minor countries is nothing more than cruft. Homotlfqa83 (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


I think that I, and probably a few others such as Dab, Pax, and BalkanFever, am/are in the unique position to inform the pump about such things. The International Reaction to Kosovo article is a fantastic article that allows the main articles such as Kosovo, and Serbia, to remain clutter and clusterf*ck free. It is so vital, and I suggest that no one take any action against the International Reaction article, at least for Kosovo. Please. Beam 01:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for new guidelines or policy for such articles. That's Instruction Creep, and it's baaaa baaaa baaaaad. Beam 01:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, the Kosovo article is a worthy exception to the rule, though it might equally well have a less unwieldy title, like "Diplomatic recognition of the Republic of Kosovo". As for the rest, though... Although you do raise a good point about instruction creep. Biruitorul Talk 14:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reliable source examples#Religious sources proposal

Proposing clarification of when religious sources can be used as reliable sources for religious subjects and viewpoints. The intent of the proposed example is to clarify and explain existing policy, not to make a change. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographical optout

I've created an RfC on this one, and attempted to illustrate what I view as the key issue to address in evolving Wikipedia's management of biographies of living people through a conversation you can see here - all thoughts most welcome... Privatemusings (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Barbara Bauer

With the defamation suit finished and dismissed, there is no longer any rationale for keeping the Barbara Bauer article deleted, unless we are establishing a policy that no critical information about living persons may be included. The article was sourced, and there was a consensus to keep, but it was deleted. I would like to propose that we either follow policy and restore this article, or create new policy under which its continued deletion might be legitimate. Mr. IP (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't properly sourced. The article was sourced only by blogs; no reliable secondary sources or proof that she had received significant (any?) media or academic attention. This was deleted per AFD, and not on the basis that it presented critical information, but because of failure to establish notability through reliable sources. If you wish to contest that (which, from my read of the AFD and the deleted history of the article, I would recommend against), then WP:DRV is the proper place to do so. Postdlf (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
It's very difficult to say much about the article or the deletion process, as both have been hidden from view; I'm going just on my memory of the former article here. I appreciate your input, and believe I will indeed take this up at DR. At the very least, we need an examination of what happened here. Mr. IP (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Only an admin can look at the history of the deleted article, but anyone can read the AFD prior to its blanking by looking at its edit history. FYI, the article has already been the subject of unsuccessful DRV. Unless you can show something has changed (e.g., you have located new or additional reliable sources), you really shouldn't try to "relitigate." Postdlf (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Wait for the suit against the other defendants to finish: that should provide plenty of reliable sources, and by then it should be clear if this person is notable or not. --Carnildo (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The best thing to do here is to write a new article in your userspace (User:Mr. IP/Barbara Bauer) and then submit it to DRV for review. If it's approved, it can be moved to article space; if not, it would likely be deleted out of userspace, given the circumstances of the ongoing lawsuit against other companies. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
And note that even if the lawsuit gets plenty of media coverage, it doesn't necessarily follow that the plantiff herself is notable. If (as is my impression) there never were any reliable sources for the original article, then what is available after the lawsuit is over is essentially a bunch of information about the lawsuit - and arguably that is what is notable, not the person filing the suit. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

On the AFD, I said I wanted to keep article but I did not put bold "keep". Now the next couple people did, some bold "delete" so it looks like a vote roster. why do they do that? Does my comment count less or won't be counted if i dont stick to the format? Homotlfqa83 (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the competence of the person closing the discussion. If they have any sense, they will be weighing the arguments rather than counting them. — CharlotteWebb 14:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I rarely (if ever) use bold votes either. The practice is a holdover from the old Wikipedia:Votes for deletion process, before the changes to the modern setup that were supposed to foster discussion over voting. Unfortunately it hasn't died out yet. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 07:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Commentary within an article

Earlier today, I came across an article that had commentary added right in the middle of it (not as invisible comments, but as article text). I replaced this all with a {{dubious}} tag—it was basically a debate of the validity of a piece of information, with both sides having added references into the article as footnotes—and moved all this commentary to the talk page. I'd like to be able to cite the appropriate policy to show that comments such as these are to be placed on the talk page and not within the article. However, I'm not finding a policy that says anything like this at all! Is this just an unwritten rule, or is it documented somewhere? The commentary isn't an NPOV issue, which would be easier to deal with; rather, it is somewhat an issue of verifiability. The type of argument is irrelevant though, as it is not being dealt with in the appropriate manner. A reference to any policy, guideline, anything at ALL would be lovely! —Skittleys (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't need policies to do things; if someone adds commentary about an article in that article then that is a pretty clear case to move it to the talk page. If a piece of information in the article is uncertain, then tag it and discuss on the talk page, as you said. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 07:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mining/Assessment has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mining/Assessment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. Evidently the user writing the page copied part of it from WP:ASSESS and included the guideline tag. Hut 8.5 19:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you know of any cases where editors were blocked for deleting referenced content?

Does anyone know of any cases on any pages were editors were blocked for deleting referenced content?

I am not referring to simple vandalism: I am talking about an editor removing a large section of referenced text against consensus repeatedly.

What policy would this fall under?

I am not looking for reasons why blocking is not possible here, I am looking for cases and policy when blocking editors for deleting referenced content is possible.

If you are not familiar with any cases or policies, I kindly request that you please don't respond. thank you. 76.111.17.14 (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Depending on the circumstances, it could be a block for repeated violations of the 3 revert rule (unless it's a living person's biography, which get whitewashed frequently under an exemption of that rule); blocks for edit warring occur pretty regularly; are you trying to determine whether or not you should take a problem at an article to the administrator's noticeboard? Celarnor Talk to me 04:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
If you really need an example of someone who has been blocked in the past for such behavior, this user has been blocked a number of times under those policies, and the editor is currently being discussed at ANI here.) Celarnor Talk to me 04:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
It is likely that we will be better able to help you if you tell us what article you have in mind. (It is also possible that we won't be able to help you — the editor with whom you are in conflict may well be acting in the best interests of the project. The existence of references for material does not guarantee that that material belongs in Wikipedia. The fact that Jane Doe of New York City has telephone number 212-555-1234 is easily supported by reference to the telephone book, but that fact has no place in Wikipedia.) It is difficult to answer these sorts of questions – which boil down to 'How may I get this other editor blocked for doing something I don't agree with?' – without detailed reference to the specific situation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Theme Song

Is there a Wikipedia theme song? If not, we should write one. It would foster our sense of a community, like a fraternity song. Homotlfqa83 (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The official song is m:Hotel Wikipedia. There's some others at Wikipedia:Song. Hut 8.5 09:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh thanks. But those are all jokey songs set to popular tunes. I was wondering if we had an original community song, and one with a serious bent. Homotlfqa83 (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If we ever get an official "national anthem", I may have to leave! --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 12:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Correcting errors in spoken quotes

(I couldn't work out which policy this most closely related to - feel free to redirect me if this isn't the best place for this.)

If we include in an article a quote which was originally spoken, and the source from which we obtain it contains a written error, is it OK to correct the error?

The specific example I have in mind is a quote in David Berlinski, which currently reads "The interesting argument about the whale [...] is that if its origins where [sic] land-based originally..." The mistaken "where" is in the written source we have taken the quote from, the [sic] has been added.

It seems clear to me that the error marked with [sic] was introduced in transcription, and is not part of the original quote; the correct word and the mistaken word are pronounced quite similarly, so I don't think it would be possible to definitely determine in speech that one had been used in place of the other. This being the case, it seems wrong to mark it as [sic], suggesting that it is a mistake on the part of the speaker. (This is distinct from the situation if, for example, the quote was "I were [sic] walking down the street", which would probably indicate a mistake in the original speech.)

I'm always wary about altering direct quotes, though, so I thought I'd seek more opinions. Thoughts? TSP (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Cite the audio or video of him speaking it properly. Contrary to popular belief, URLs are not mandatory for ref formats [1]. — CharlotteWebb 12:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Citing the video directly makes sense, but what if the editor does not have the video or audio? The next best would seem to cite an available transcription. And cite the transcriber's name? Ah, wait. The ARN site points to a youtube summary and having just listened to the actual words I see the transcription misses out a repeated clause (it should have used an ellipsis). So, if we have access to the actual words, we should transcribe them ourselves and cite the person speaking? If not then we need to cite the transcriber, errors included?
Template:Sic states that the question mark can be used with "sic" when "[a] quoted passage contains a spelling error but is ambiguous as to whether the statement was originally printed (in which case [sic] may be appropriate), or spoken aloud (in which case the typo should be corrected)." The idea seems to be that an editor familiar with the original source can correct the error. In this case it seems an error of transcription. Meanwhile I have expanded the cite information in that article, but I have not changed the appearance of the quote (which remains erroneous but at least verifiable). Only the Notes section now includes the transcriber's name and date. -84user (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Another discussion re: a transcription error is here: Talk:Natalee Holloway/Archive 4#Punctuation question from SandyGeorgia. I prefer matching the printed source exactly for easy verification, unless the transcription error is confusing. The examples here are grammatically incorrect, but not particularly confusing in meaning. When correction is needed, I would cite both the printed and raw sources, with the verbatim text and an explanation in a <!-- --> block. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I am tending to prefer exact copies of sources, warts and all. In the spirit of WP:Verifiability I have changed the wording of the David Berlinski (abbreviated) transcription. -84user (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I came across Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Typos in quotes, which is a simpler variant of this question. I haven't searched the archives there, but I would not be surprised if it's come up before. Flatscan (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

en.wikipedia clarification or us.wikipedia proposal

  • The follwing issue affects the entity named "English Wikipedia" currently located at en.wikipedia.com .
  • A huge issue exists with vast implications raising issues of ambiguity foremost , and which stems with the majority of contributors to the english wikipedia being from US supposedly (i am using US as a example , it could be very well UK or another english speaking country with no wikipedia subdomain , and i suspect the same issue impacts the french wikipedia for example given the multitude of french speaking countries)
  • And i am posting this because the issue from the above example can be found on 1 in 100 or maybe 1 in 10 random pages on en.wikipedia , and whilst i have no idea how this could be addressed , i strongly believe that something needs to be done about if for the sake of clarity and unambiguity something that a encyclopedia must posses.
  • I believe the new content that is being added the posters need to me made aware of this issue , and the old content to be fixed with the existing {{worldwide}} system referenced here

--Mancini (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what you are proposing here, but if you want a new Wikipedia project, you will have to discuss the matter on Meta- not sure where precisely. If you're discussing new policies or practices within the English Wikipedia, the appropriate village pump would be the best bet. Unless what you are posting is directly related to the main page, here is not the place. J Milburn (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The person is suggesting that there should be an "en-us.wikipedia.org" for english speaking americans and an "en-global.wikipedia.org" for the english-as-a-foreign-language speaking rest-of-the-world. Most americans have never been abroad and often do not realize there exists anything beyond the atlantic and pacific oceans. Their anglo-saxon ideals of life, individualism and their general legalistic approach to matters around them, no matter how successful in practice, remain totally alien and often perceived uncomprehensible to the rest of the world.
These two groups, americans and "rest of the world" will never understand each other, therefore they should be separated into two distinct english-language wikipedias, which either side can edit to their liking, without hurting the other. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
You can always update the article or if you lack the knowledge of the area you can tag it with {{worldwide}} and explain on the talk page your issues. I don't think this justifies a fork as even the US version ideally should mention worldwide aspects of a topic. GameKeeper (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
What i am saying is that there is now way to discern if a article (or more specifically a paragraph in a article) is pertaining only to the US or to the entire world , and that posters are not made aware that this is the Worldwide Wikipedia in English , not the Wikipedia with contents pertaining to English speaking countries , (including US) , or US Wikipedia , if some paragraphs or pages pertain only to US or another english speaking country it should be clearly noted , as opposed to what pertains to worldwide or all english speaking countries and whatnot.--Mancini (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion each and every article that may needs a {{worldwide}} is inherently presenting a point of view (ie violates neutral point of view) and should be amended. Whether this article is in Chinese, Dutch, Zimbabwean, or any type of English wiki; this means there is a problem with the article which should be fixed. Splitting English wiki in separate versions will only result in self-confirmation of stereotypes (ie non-neutral points of view), and would in my view degrade the whole spirit of this project. Presenting US (or UK or any other) readers with a global take on these issues is a strength of the project we should be proud of. Arnoutf (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
WE ARE NOT talking about bias here , we are talking about a article that say states : "THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE IS 20" in reference to say the US average temperature or the worldwide temperature or the UK temperature , WITHOUT stating the context/zone.--Mancini (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
{{sofixit}}? I don't think forking the encyclopedia would be a very good idea at all. Talk about a huge duplication of efforts! What about Canadians? We see a lot of things from the American-point-of-view, but we also like to use "u" in words like colour, humour, favour... so, do we edit the british english wikipedia or the american english wikipedia? –xeno (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Just before I go to bed, this idea takes my eye! And what an idea! I recall this uk.wiki... vs us.wiki argument surfacing every so often, usually when posters were bored/drunk/irritated by some 3RR incident or somesuch, and often would be never seen again. It is a crazy idea, because of so many reasons (not least ownership- how would you fork or divide or copy en.wiki... stuff without an insane amount of trouble even with the GFDL rules?). If an article seems US-centric, or UK-centric, or such - fix it! The whole point of this project is to fix these things. Causing splits within the English language Wiki, the largest of its kind and if the "create an article for every village on Earth" idea goes ahead, this thing will only get larger, would be an insult to the millions of edits and editors who have made the project so reliable, relied upon, respected, and renowned. If you think an article could do with context, add it. A page on a Bill going through the US Congress to wordy? Edit it. Be Bold. Change It. Don't take the ball home with you (be it soccer, foot, or base =)) when the solution is a lot easier than the problem. We have a massive project to be proud of, one of the fastest growing English language projects on-line, and anyone from Baltimore to Blackpool, or for that matter Tarleton to Toronto, or if you like from St Kilda to St Helens, can get involved. Let us not talk about causing some "walled garden" for editors living in the 50 States or under Brittania's watchful eye, for it will only cause divisions we do not need. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
/applause. Very well said. Any wikipedia should be providing a worldwide view - the distinct en-wiki, de-wiki, fr-wiki, es-wiki etc are separated by language, not by country. As, for now, people in the USA, Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and many other countries all speak broadly the same language, it makes entire sense to combine the effort here. If an article is unnecessarily US-centric, fix it or tag it as such - because it shouldn't be (unless, of course, it's actually discussing something specifically American). ~ mazca t | c 13:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the example of Gold standard#Advocates of a renewed gold standard, IMO it's obvious that it is referring to the global monetary system (the statement may be dated, as recent developments may indicate a move away from the US Dollar to the Euro or other currencies). Regarding the people who continue to whine that "there is no way to tell if something is written to refer to the US or worldwide": Sure there is! Decent writing should make it abundantly clear to anyone with decent reading skills. Anomie⚔ 12:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The more pernicious problem is that the various language wikipedias each use distinct editorial policies and guidelines. Few look for the level of attribution seen on en, resulting in article translations into English that are often of disappointing quality.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

AFD

Whats up with people "voting" in bold at the start of each comment on afd? I thought it was not a vote. Or is a vote it is? I'm confused. What is VFD? Whats wrong with that man.Homotlfqa83 (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a vote since the closing admin will look at all the responses to decide which side has consensus. However, users help the admin by bolding their recommended outcome of the AFD, setting the stage to understand where the rest of their arguments come from -- otherwise some responses could be seen as vague as to the recommended course of action. --MASEM 22:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Your earlier post on the same question is still unarchived, by the way. :-P --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 12:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I find it's just generally courteous - while you hope the admin who closes it will read and consider each comment rather than just counting "keeps" and "deletes", it's nice for people just browsing AfD to summarise your vote. The fact remains that there are only a few possible outcomes from an AfD, and it makes it a lot easier to get a rough feel for where the discussion is headed if people bold the word that summarises their opinion. Obviously, if your opinion can't be summarised by Keep, Delete, Merge etc then it's no problem at all to not bold anything, but if your comment does happen to be summed up by Keep, why not bold it? ~ mazca t | c 13:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The "Fair" Tax as feated article

Why does an article about a partisan tax proposal get to be "featured article" in the English Wikipedia?

A consumption tax is just a way to give rich people yet another tax break see http://www.geocities.com/agihard/flattax.html

But even if the "fair" tax really were fair, or even if the article started out with a reasonable criticism of the idea (which actually comes only after a lot of reading), I would not support giving ANY new political policy proposal free exposure by making it "featured article" in a not-for-profit venture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agihard (talk • contribs) 18:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

We produce articles about notable articles - we don't care of the impact of the notable item or who would benefit or lose - it's not our purpose. In addition, we select our featured articles on the basis of the quality of the article, but the ideological or political considerations of the subject contained within the article. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no featured article criteria related to "notability". Otherwise your explanation is correct. — CharlotteWebb 19:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Allemandtando said "we produce articles about notable articles" (not featured, although I suppose the second articles should be subjects). Waltham, The Duke of 00:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a featured article because it's a well-written article. It has nothing to do with promoting a specific concept, but all to do with showing off what an article should look like on Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

wondering if there's a policy on this...

There is a user who pops up infrequently and does nothing but foment arguments on user talk and article talk pages. I checked his contribs, and of the 150 edits (roughly) that are there, only one is not a userpage or talk page of some type (and that was a TfD comment). It's not quite NOT#SOCIAL, but it's clearly something that's not related to writing an encyclopedia. Do we have a policy that covers nonconstructive use of WP? MSJapan (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, I was wondering about this myself the other day - here's how I think it is - if an editor is spending all of his time on talk and article pages and does nothing but talk in a fairly non-constructive way, then WP:NOTASOCIALNETWORK is likely to apply.
The next question is - but what does that mean for remedies? Well if it came to the attention of the community, I would guess that an admin would politely ask him to contribute to the core purpose of the project (creating an encyclopaedia) and if that failed, I'm guessing he would politely asked to leave.
It's a difficult one to legislate for because all edits are contextual - and some of our best people spend a lot of their time sorting out disputes and fire fighting and I feel that does assist in our core purpose because it makes it easier for the rest of us to go about adding content. On the other hand, we have a class of editors who think that article editing is beneath them and look at article editors with contempt because they are too busy "solving the problems of wikipedia" - those people should be (metaphorically) pushed against the walls of the encyclopaedia and shot. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
There are many types of editors; in an ideal world, we wouldn't have to do anything but contribute to the mainspace, but it goes without saying that we don't live in an ideal world. As such, there are many types of users who do various things to improve the project; while someone who spends all their time contributing to the mainspace may be working toward achieving our goal in the most direct sense, he would be remiss in his editorial responsibilities if he didn't participate in the policy discussions that would affect his future edits. By the same token, someone who spends all their time at XfD should probably spend more time in the mainspace to better understand content issues.
You seem to have it stuck in your head that solely-mainspace editors are somehow 'better' than solely-projectspace editors, and that's something you should immediately throw out the window. All parts of the project need the attention of editors, and being involved primarily in the project space, sorting out disputes, discussing new policies, participating in deletion debates, doesn't make you any better or worse than someone who contributes text and references to articles. It just makes you different. Both are needed.
Also, I think you've got a pretty severe misunderstanding of NOT#SOCIAL. That's more geared toward me going around every editor's talk page and posting "Hey, whassup?" every couple of days and not doing anything else. All of the activities which occur in the talk namespace (for the most part, barring the above) are constructive; not immediately constructive in the sense that contributing a paragraph to an article is constructive, so I can see where a mild case of immediate-mindedness may cause that particular misconception, but constructive nonetheless; sorting out problems so the regular editors know what to do is just as important as doing it. Celarnor Talk to me 23:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
No, you're making a comment without being aware of the situation. You assume the editor in question does something other than edit mainspace, when my point is that the editor does nothing but cause arguments on talk and user talk pages that don't lead to any edits whatsoever. He has over 150 contribs, and not one was productive (see User:Cantikadam, after which I expect you'll change your mind about what you said and retract the statement you've made). However, the reason I didn't give specifics is because I wanted a generic answer about what policy had to say without the bias of knowing the behavior pattern. MSJapan (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Not looking at the user but looking at your comments, maybe you're looking more for WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND? That said, users that don't add content but do point out errors, problems with NPOV, or otherwise add feedback are not a problem. It may be an issue with WP:TALK, specifically

Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.

If the comments are about improving the article, I see no problem with that. SDY (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Different policies for different sectors of wikipedia?

I think we should carve wikipedia up into different sectors, like a politics sector, a general sector, a science sector, etc.. Each sector will have their own version of the wiki rules. Articles wil belong to the general sector by default. Articles can be moved to a different sector by consensus of the editors.

This may reduce some persistent disputes on some articles. E.g. the wiki articles on scientific topics have a different standard for reliable sources and verifiability than articles on politics. Usually this is not a problem, as on each article there is a consensus for using a different standard (e.g to only allow peer reviewed sources published in the leading journals).

In case of some scientific articles that attract editors who usually edit politics articles we see persistent poblems, e.g. global warming and evolution. On the Global Warming page we end up having to defend the consensus about appropriate sources over and over again. The editor who dissents in this case may have the wiki law on his side, so he can disregard the consensus. This then leads to RFCs like this one, but the outcome is usually that we are wrong as "it is merely a content dispute" :( .

So, it would be better if we had the wiki law on our side. By consensus, the global warming and all other science article would belong to a science sector of wikipedia and dissenting editors who would like some editorial by a global warming sceptic in the Wall Street Journal (a reliable source according to wikipedia) to be included, would either have to change the wiki rules for the science sector (unlikely that he would succeed in that), or find a consensus to move the article from the science sector to, e.g. the politics sector.

There are also other benifits. We can e.g. be more strict with articles about pseudoscienctific topics. They sometimes have a majority of editors who are believers in the theory. But if the article is in the science category, they would have to stick to the more stringent rules for sourcing. If they don't like that, then they can always move their article to a non-scientific sector of wikipedia. The end result is that all the articles in the science sector can be trusted to contain reliable scientific information.

Count Iblis (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Op ed articles are reliable sources for opinion. For example, a Wikipedia article about global warming could say "George Bush thinks we should / should not invest in energy conservation" if he said that in his radio broadcast, citing the transcript (opinion). But the article should not say "The Southern Ocean increased in temperature by 0.5 degrees" even if Bush said so: he is a President, not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
I have no opinion about separate sectors.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Policies/guidelines can already be written to address specific categories of articles (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is probably the most obvious example), so if "sector"-specific rules are needed we can already create them. I think splitting up into disjoint sets would create too many problems while not adding any new abilities. Should Political science be in Category:Politics sector or Category:Science sector, for example? As another example, is Vatican in Category:Religion sector, Category:Politics sector, Category:Art sector? Problems with "multiple inheritance" are actually why we invented categories in the first place. :-) Sorry! --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 14:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
One of the enormous benefits of Wikipedia is that editors with different outlooks and worldviews who might normally never meet have to negotiate with and listen to each other on the many kinds of articles where overlap is relevant. This can be a hassle, but it can also be a tremendous benefit. Rules that tend to set up silos so that different kinds of people never have to deal with each other would defeat a lot of Wikipedia's vitality as a community and a social experiment. I'm not convinced it would lead to better articles, either. This is not to say we shouldn't have guidelines for types of sources etc. appropriate in different fields, but these guidelines shouldn't be hard-and-fast. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Some wikiprojects have more restrictive guidelines on reliable sources, such as WP:MEDRS. I doubt they'd hold up as absolute in an arbitration, but they're a standard to aspire to. SDY (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Are student branches of IEEE (i.e. local chapters) notable?

I have noticed 3 articles on local student chapters of IEEE.

Are these notable enough, per WP:N? --Ragib (talk) 06:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally local chapters are not notable. I don't see these being an exception. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The lack of any secondary sources (with the exception of one, which is mentioned in an article covering the IEEE generally) answers that question rather easily. If they haven't received sufficient independent coverage in any reliable sources, then they don't merit stand-alone coverage, and any "article" we tolerate will just be inflated by meaningless puffery ("They try to liven up members' both technical and social lives during their studentship period with fun and educational activities" -- from the Bilkent article). Postdlf (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Safeguards against lampooning of religious icons

The objective behind striving for a more civilized society is to ensure security to people in all spheres of life. Recently, the world witnessed the tragic attempts, on the part of a few irrational and extremist groups, to lampoon personalities and concepts that are sacred to over a billion muslims worldwide. Perhaps those who would like to argue for "freedom of speech" should look at such problems in a broader perspective. Freedom is a beautiful concept. Yet rape, assault and murder are still considered crimes no matter how much a criminal argues that he is "free to live and do as he wills". Point being, FREEDOM is a collective concept whereby an individual is free only as long as he respects the rights of others. Hence the golden rule: Live, and let live. Similarly, it is expected of any civilized society, organization or individual to actively discourage that which is unethical.

Keeping it short and to the point, I would, in light of the above mentioned reasoning, like to propose that WIKIPEDIA make it a policy to remove any content from its webpages and online media that is repulsive to people from any religious, ethnic or racial background IF they protest and appeal for its removal.

I hope that other WIKI users will also second this proposal with the intention of respecting the sentiments of others.

Thankyou,

M M Sheikh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.44.242.18 (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Hello! Thank you for your thoughts on this matter. One of the most important goals of Wikipedia is that all articles must be neutral, and therefore articles on offensive situations are supposed to restrict themselves to discussing that such a situation exists, and documenting the notable views of various sources on the matter. In other words, Wikipedia should never create offense, but only, at most, report on offense created elsewhere. If you feel that any particular article is not adhering to these rules, you should immediately raise the issue on that article's talk page to bring it to the attention of other editors who can help you find a better way to discuss the subject. Articles might sometimes be deleted outright if it is determined that the subject matter is inherently unsuitable for an encyclopaedia, but you should be aware that this is not usually done for censorious reasons, except in the special case of certain biographical information. I hope this answers your questions. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 11:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Freedom to kill or rape is not the same as freedom of speech. — chandler — 11:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a complete non-starter and will never happen for a number of reasons. First, if we removed articles because various religious groups asked us to - this would breach our own core rules on neutrality. We don't take sides on matters of rebellious offence, we just report on them when they are notable. If we put your proposal into action - we would have to remove articles such as Piss Christ, Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy because the images and language used in the articles are offensive to some people. Extending the chain, we could be asked to remove Harry Potter simply because some religious people think that it promotes the devil. Simply put - wikipedia is a secular encyclopaedia with a neutral point of view - and there is no change of this proposal being adopted. --Allemandtando (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It depends exactly what he means — if somebody was using Wikipedia as an activist platform to promote something offensive, then that should properly be removed, again because of our neutrality policy. To borrow one of your examples, I am sure there have been plenty of things added to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article that were correctly removed for being, well, just plain rude. :-) At the end of the day it's all about "What makes a good encyclopaedia". --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 11:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure but that's covered by existing policy and our commitment to neutrality and WP:UNDUE - if I wanted to add a picture of a religious icon having sex with a pig to the top of an article it would be quickly removed as WP:UNDUE, WP:POV etc. However, this proposal is suggesting that if a picture of a religious icon having sex with a pig became world famous and was massive world news and was covered in multiple reliable sources that we should not cover it or include the picture. That's a line we simply cannot cross. We look at the story, the facts and the narrative and construct our article accordingly, we *cannot* and *will not* spike content on the basis of perceived offence. The day we do, we are finished. --Allemandtando (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
We are agreeing on that point (although I don't think that will be the death of Wikipedia, but that's another essay), but at the centre of my comment was that I'm not sure which of those two things M M Sheikh means. He may be unaware of the policies Wikipedia has to ensure that such matters are treated fairly, in which case we need only point out that this is already dealt with. I hope you don't mind, I have wikilinked the "WP:" shortcuts in your above post for his convenience. I suppose ultimately the only way to "really" know what he means is to ask him. :-)
It wouldn't be the first time someone has been confused about what Wikipedia actually does behind the scenes to arrive at decisions about content. Many people think we just keep up whatever text any passing maniac types in. Sometimes it's easy to forget that our content policies are largely opaque to the casual reader, and so they might have a concern even when it is unwarranted.
Oh, and if I wanted a page to back up removal of such an image as you suggest, I would probably go with Wikipedia:Use common sense! :-D
--tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 12:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear and explicit what he wants

like to propose that WIKIPEDIA make it a policy to remove any content from its webpages and online media that is repulsive to people from any religious, ethnic or racial background IF they protest and appeal for its removal. That all seems fairly clear to me. --Allemandtando (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No. That's pretty stupid. Beam 13:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
That would be the most obvious interpretation, and may well have been what he meant when he wrote that. Maybe he will see our point of view if we politely explain how the system works? With that information, he may accept the Wikipedian solution. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 13:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
As long as it's understood that a policy of that nature would spit in the face of everything Wikipedia, and freedom of expression in general, is about. Beam 13:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Removing material that is repulsive to some people is repulsive to me. DID I JUST BLOW YOUR MIND? — chandler — 14:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
While I agree that in general Wikipedia should not be offensive, Wikipedia must also not practice censorship for its own sake. What is objectionable to some people is merely informational to others, and it's important to make the distinction between that which is offensive for its own sake and that which is offensive as a side affect of being informative. The former is unacceptable while the latter is merely unfortunate, as the goal here is information.
In particular, I have a feeling what M M Sheikh is talking about is offenses against Muslim iconoclasm, in particular the requests to remove things from Wikipedia like Image:Maome.jpg and the Depiction of Muhammad article's images, or the inclusion of information on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. While I recognize that some of these topics are uncomfortable for Muslims, they are valid and relevant subjects within a comprehensive encyclopedia.
Ultimately, information must be taken as above offense—would we argue against including things that happened in 1989 to avoid offending the Chinese government which prefers to ignore that year? Would we argue against including depictions of nudity because it is theoretically morally offensive to some despite that much timeless art has included it? Censorship which eliminates information, where the same information cannot be given in a way that would otherwise satisfy the censor, is to be avoided. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 14:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
... the Chinese government which prefers to ignore that year? got me to think of "Yeah, about your pamphlet... uh, I'm not seeing anything about German history between 1939 and 1945. There's just a big gap." "Everyone vas on vacation." — chandler — 14:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh and before anyone suggests it - both article disclaimers and clickable boxes to hide content have been shot down so often that they are refusing to fly any more. --Allemandtando (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Just tossing my voice in as another oppose to such a policy. Though I am certain some groups and cults, such as Scientology would love it. Resolute 16:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Observing the initial poster's policy would inevitably result in the removal of all content related to Islam, the very principles and existence of which offend many practitioners of other competing faiths. I think we'd eventually have a Wikipedia consisting of nothing but kitten and rainbow articles. But even then we couldn't explain where kittens or rainbows came from, because that's going to offend someone. Postdlf (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Even more interesting, it might imply removal of all religion linked information (offensive to radical atheists) and all non religious contents (offensive to radical theists) leaving nothing whatsoever. Arnoutf (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
So we'd end up with this is wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone could edit. However ask that you do not add any content as somebody somewhere might be offended. We hope your found this frontpage helpful - would you like to view a pokemon article? --Allemandtando (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
My answer would be: I am offended by the Pokemon article, please remove it ;-) But indeed, that would be the final result. Arnoutf (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, our rule of neutral point of view are non-negotiable. Whitewashing religious articles for no other reason than the fact that the (insert religious text here)-thumpers see some negative material makes no sense. I find your comparisons of documenting criticism of a religion to rape, assault and murder quite amusing; the two are so separate, they don't even begin to intersect. Those are crimes. They cause physical harm to people. Documenting religious criticism in an encyclopedia only causes harm to you if you have some pretty severe psychological issues, and you'd be pretty hard-pressed to get the jurisdiction Wikipedia's servers are hosted on to make that connection. They don't operate under Sharia law there (yet).

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia without any particular religious affiliation or bias. Allowing a "Protect teh Muslimz" screen leads down a slippery slope. We aren't going to bind ourselves to some super-conservative ultra-religious viewpoint for no reason. [Conservapedia|The only religiously-affiliated encyclopedia] I know of is a complete and utter failure because of its unwillingness to follow a neutral point of view, which is necessary in any useful academic pursuit.

So, no, we aren't going to throw the principles upon which we stand for the benefit of a particular subset of readers (i.e, religious folk) who find negative material offensive. Welcome to real life; not everyone shares your personal opinion about everything, there are bound to be academic, physical, philosophical, etc, conflicts. One of the functions we have is to document those conflicts, regardless of the opinions of any of the parties involved. Celarnor Talk to me 04:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


For an example of compromise on such an issue done right (at least in my opinion), please see Bahá'u'lláh, in the "Photograph" section. This is of course different from the Muhammad situation in that the image in question is a photograph (an accurate depiction) rather than a painting, but I really think the editors at Bahá'u'lláh have managed to get an "everybody wins" situation here. Bahá'í readers get some warning (the presence of a "Photograph" heading in the table of contents should ring alarm bells), and the encyclopaedia gets a photograph of the subject. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 12:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Any need to distinguish policies from guidelines?

Is there really any need to have these two separate categories? Is there any practical difference between them except for slightly different location on a sliding scale of ignorability? I quite often see debates as to whether particular pages (I think it was WP:Naming conventions most recently) ought to be marked as policies or guidelines, and I was wondering whether it made any practical difference (if not, then it's a waste of people's time maintaining and arguing about the distinction). --Kotniski (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup guidelines have a range of levels of ignoreability. Policy rather less so.Geni 11:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
How's this for the "sliding scale"?:
   WP:IAR:     (                                        #)
   Policies:   (                                 ####### )
   Guidelines: (          ######################         )
   Essays:     ( #############                           )
--tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 11:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This diagram seems to imply that the cut-off between policies and guidelines comes at a fairly random and indefinable point. Hence my point about the distinction being rather meaningless.--Kotniski (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
There's a big difference. Policies are non-negotiable must-haves. Guidelines apply most of the time and are subject to judgment and exceptions. Essays are simply someone's opinion with no community acceptance or official status. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
According to WP:IAR, there are no non-negotiable must-haves. The only "policies" according to that definition would probably be foundation policies, or things that depend on the software and its configuration, or the law. In any case much of what is labelled "policy" is too unspecific to serve as any more than rough advice.--Kotniski (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I would say the cutoff point comes when something both should and can be enforced, at which point it can be made policy with the community's consent. There can be legitimate grey areas, and on the "ignorability" scale there's a continuum, but there is still a valid difference in my mind. Arguably the "immutable" policies that you mention could deserve a distinct classification of their own, I'll grant. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 13:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
They're called the five pillars and those are basically beyond the scope of WP:IAR (notably, WP:IAR is one of them). Most policies are there to make the encyclopedia consistent and easy to use or to clarify extensions of the pillars (WP:NC is based in WP:NPOV and WP:V, for example). WP:IAR is there to silence policy wonks who insist that the rules must always be followed even when it violates common sense. SDY (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
So how do guidelines differ from policies on that interpretation?--Kotniski (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Technically only foundation issues are beyond the scope of IAR. — CharlotteWebb 15:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected. There's a fair amount of overlap, and WP:V and WP:NPOV are hard to accomplish separately. My bellyfeeling is that policies reflect current interpretation of the five pillars, such as WP:AGF being a logical extension of WP:CIVIL. Compliance with policy ensures compliance with the pillars. There are other ways to meet the standard expressed in the pillar, but if it's policy-compliant, it's pillar-compliant. Guidelines are less tightly linked to the fundamentals and are more "we've all decided to do it this way for consistency since the question comes up a lot." I have no assurances that this is correct, but this is how I interpret the system. SDY (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the WP:Policies and guidelines page (WP:Policies and guidelines#Policy and guideline pages) to take account of the views expressed here. Further tweaks welcome.--Kotniski (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested Articles

Can a Wikipedia have an article that asks visitors to submit the titles of new articles they want written?

Dylan Borg (talk) 10:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

We already do! It's called Requested Articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

WT:NPOV#Religion section - Disputes between historians or scientists and religious views

Because this issue comes up often and can be a source of contention, I am proposing adding a paragraph to the existing WP:NPOV/FAQ#religion with a more careful and clearer explanation of language to use and how to present the subject to implement WP:NPOV in articles involving disputes between religious views and historians/scientists etc. Doubtless the proposal can be improved. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to semiprotect the Template: namespace

I've posted a proposal to semiprotect the Template: namespace at the proposals section of the Village pump. Please comment there. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Unprotecting difficult pages

This is a proposal for a method that could allow controversial pages under long-term protection to be unprotected without falling back into edit-warring.

The problem of continued protection came to my attention regarding What the Bleep Do We Know!?; that article has been protected since February, resulting in a stalled article. I first proposed this method on the Bleep talk page. There were questions about related policy issues, so I thought of proposing this procedure here, to find out if it might be a good plan for long-term protected articles in general; and also to request comment on the situation at that particular article (I'll also add a link to this section on the article talk page).

Background: Page protection due to edit-warring is intended to cool the situation so that after a short time the page can return to normal editing. Some pages have so much entrenched controversy that edit-warring returns immediately, resulting in long-term protection. But long-term page protection is incompatible with the basic idea of Wikipedia, so it's preferable to find a way to unprotect those pages, if that can be done without giving in to disruption.

Milestone consensus versions: A big issue with unprotecting during edit wars is that when pages are re-protected, they can end up in worse condition than when the prior protection was removed. Admins protecting a page in emergency situations can't be expected to know the content issues, and are expected not to impose their own ideas about which is the best version.

This can be addressed by identifying the most recent milestone version for an article, so that if the page must be re-protected, the admin is provided with a specific diff to revert to, as part of the protection process.

Proposed procedure:

  • Talk page editors first agree to milestone-version unprotection. If they don't, then the process is not engaged.
  • Talk page section is added with clear section heading to identify the milestone-version agreement.
  • The protected version is defined as the first milestone version.
  • Page is unprotected, normal editing resumes.
  • If edit warring immediately resumes, page is re-protected as usual, however it is reverted to the same previously protected version, so no advantage accrues due to the edit warring.
  • When there are article changes without edit warring, after a while, editors can agree on a new milestone version by entering that diff in the milestone-agreement section of the talk page, with sign-offs to show it's accepted.
  • Later if edit warring resumes, when the page is re-protected, it is also reverted to the most recent milestone version, according to the diff identified in the talk page "milestone agreement" section. If no new milestone has been agreed, that diff will be the same as the prior protected version.
  • (To make it easier for admins and content editors to know that a page is under "milestone version agreement", a template could be made for use at the top of the talk page).

Milestone versions would allow unprotection without allowing edit-warriors to try and impose non-consensed changes to get the page protected on a preferred version, because any protection would always revert to an agreed version. If there is no agreed-version, then it would remain stuck at the random one that was initially protected.

Perhaps it would be useful to test this method at What the Bleep Do We Know!? to find out how it works. Maybe it has hidden problems that would be revealed in a test, but if it works, it could be applied to various articles with long-term edit warring issues. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems like this person is infected with WP:The Wrong Version ideas. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
ScienceApologist makes in interesting point here, although as he does so often, he stated it in an uncivil way. This proposal is specifically designed to address concerns about the WP:The Wrong Version. The wrong version happens when an admin either is not familiar with the article and a random version is protected, or if an admin has personal ideas about which version is best. The purpose of this proposal is to allow the protected version to change, subject to consensus, which is an improvement over the problems of "the wrong version". --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, protection is not supposed to protect the "right version". Protection is a temporary measure. That's the end of it. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection is intended to be a temporary measure. An article that has been protected for five months is not under "temporary" protection. My sense is that Jack-A-Roe is trying to find a solution to what is clearly not a desirable state. Powers T 23:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)\
Yes, that is my intent. Constant protection of pages is not what Wikipedia is about; so I came up with the above suggestion that could help in difficult situations.
Since the time I posted this, I've reviewed the list of indef protected articles. Some have been protected for months but most of those are probably ready for unprotection; I've posted a note about that at the RFPP talk page. There seem to be very few that have actual long-term edit wars requiring continued protection. For those few though, a procedure like the above could be helpful. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I made a template in my userspace in an attempt to help User:Jack-A-Roe explain, anybody may edit that page if they think it'll help the discussion. I agree that long-term protection is a pain when it gets beyond a temporary measure, so a proposal that helps alleviate that would be nice. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 09:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Grey Knight, that provides an excellent example of how this can work and an effective tool to make it easy to implement. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like it's worth a try. What's the worst that can happen? Cheers, Ben Aveling 13:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think it is worth a try, however there is a possible "worst that can happen" that we would need to be ready for in advance. The test would need to be done with emphasis on the step of the procedure that reverts to the previously protected version if no new milestone version is agreed in case of resumed edit warring. It's important not to protect whatever current version it happens to be on, so that editors engaging in edit-warring can't manipulate a change followed by edit warring and protection, to get their preferred edit-war version to be the protected one. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess the most obvious application of such an approach would be for biographic articles where having a "known-good" version would be pretty handy for avoiding legal quandaries. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 12:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point, legal/BLP issues could be well-served by a procedure that allows measured progress. We might not be able to get to a known-good version, because the edit-warring editors often can't agree to that extent. But it might be possible to find a way for them to agree on a milestone version that has a temporary compromise in place, even as the arguments continue. If that can be done in a repetitive fashion, some progress might be possible. Ultimately it will depend on the article editors. If a page is edited by people who absolutely refuse to compromise in any way, it's could be that nothing would work if they interfere with the consensus process. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The What the Bleep Do We Know!? article was unprotected today. Perhaps this method can be used there if edit warring resumes. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC) I've posted a note for the protecting/unprotecting admin, with a link to this discussion. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that this is a reasonable idea; the one potential problem I see is that there may be no version that everyone agrees upon. I can see mediation being used to create such an agreed-upon version by consensus, but that can be a long and painful process. I would be willing to give it a try with What the Bleep, should it become a problem again, but that would depend on the editors' agreement to participate in such a process. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of the proposal was that, if no version can be agreed on, normal protection rules apply. In fact, normal rules can still be applied even if there ostenibly is an agreed version; it's just an advisory notice to protecting administrators that there is a particular m:Wrong Version that all the editors would prefer. ;-) I don't think it's workable to wait until there's a need for protection before trying to agree a version, that sounds like a bad idea; it might be a lot easier to agree on something as soon as the previous protection is over, and then update to more recently-agreed versions as editing trundles along. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 07:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I added a note to the test template to clarify that it's still a "Wrong Version" and administrators can try to find another wrong version that's less of a headache if they want. I intend to move that template to either {{article milestone}} or {{article milestone version}} and assemble the various comments from this thread into Wikpedia:Article milestone versions sometime this week, without one objection. I won't propose Wikpedia:Article milestone versions as a guideline at this time until some test info comes in from some experiments "in the field" :-) I'll ask the people at What the Bleep Do We Know!? if they want to be guinea-pigs. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 07:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the identification of milestone versions, it's unlikely there will be unanimous agreement. I suggest that the we refer to the WP:Consensus policy for this. Basically, it would be similar to the process of using {{editprotected}}, which does not require the admin see a unanimous agreement for a change, but there does need to be a clear consensus. If no consensus occurs, then the previously protected version is available as a fallback milestone, even if it was the wrong version. The advantage to using that version as the failsafe is that editors will know that edit-warring will not result in a version protected on their newly edit-warred version. It's not completely immune from manipulation, but could be helpful in some situations. Of course, this is not a policy, so admins can make a different decision if the specific situation requires it. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I think "works by consensus" is the default assumption on Wikipedia. Of course, unanimous consensus is the best kind of consensus, so if you can pull it off it's preferable. ;-) --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 07:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability, GA and such...

I've recently started to get involved in reviewing articles for GA status, and I ran across FBI Buffalo Field Office, which doesn't appear to meet notability criteria since it's a branch of a larger organization. It had some media coverage for involvement with the Buffalo Six, but as far as I can tell that was an FBI operation generally that happened to involve this branch and the notability is "credited" to the main organization.

1. Is the topic notable enough for an article generally? 2. Is strict compliance with notability guidelines a requirement for good articles? 3. Is a parent article's notability sufficient to give notability to daughter articles in this case? (i.e. FBI is notable->FBI field offices notable->specific FBI field office notable).

Thoughts? SDY (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Probably, though "notability" means different things to different people. 2. No. 3. Mu.
I've never done "GA work" but given the choice I would likely fail it for lack of secondary (i.e. non-FBI) sources. This is a verifiability issue but at the same time equivalent to some interpretations of "notability". — CharlotteWebb 16:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes to WP:NPOV

Some changes have been proposed to WP:NPOV, particularly the "tone" section. Please join the discussion at WT:NPOV. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Policy proposal regarding obscure sources

Please see: Wikipedia:Obscure public information. Please direct discussion to the talk page. --Tango (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Stub categories

Shouldn't stub categories be hidden as they are for maintenance purposes? - Icewedge (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: partial protection of health- and safety-critical information

Sorry if this has been suggested before, WP's "search engine" makes me want to kill kittens.

I would like to provoke discussion on this point I was mulling over, and I'm certainly not taking a stand either way as to what or if anything should be done about it, just that it looks like there might be a problem with how Wikipedia handles this: information such as, and this was what caused the thought to occur to me, dosages on medications, strikes me as needing protection. Is the facility for people to edit this quickly more important than the off-chance that someone opens a page a millisecond after a prankster changes a dosage information amount to have two more 0s, and ends up overdosing?

To the "anyone taking medical advice from Wikipedia needs their head checked" point of view - 1. it has been put there which implies its suitability for use, and 2., so what? Should Wikipedia not strive to be better?

I was also thinking about possible implementations of this. Can sub-areas of pages be protected with the current system? I envisage a differently-coloured box around the area on (in this example) dosage information, and edits to it need to be explicitly approved by a few people before they go through.

I have focused on the case of medicine dosages, but I'm sure this idea extends to other areas - I'm just not compos mentis enough at this point to think of any. I'd also like to apologize for not using an account... but I'm a lazy git.

Again, just a thought, I hope something good comes of someone reading it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.146.124 (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Not our problem - end of story. There shouldn't be enough information on medicine doses on Wikipedia to enable someone to do themselves harm, since Wikipedia is not a doctor, and such information is not encyclopaedic. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
That's why we have a disclaimer. Free editing should not be obstructed for some types of information and not others. On the other hand, it might make sense to put some of this information into a template that is transcluded into the article, so that it can be watched independently and changes more carefully scrutinized by interested editors. Dcoetzee 20:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I dont like that idea either. We should have a free editing policy here. And we have too many policies as it is. Read wikipedia at your own risk. but there should not be anything saying that. AdamBraniff75 (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
First, Wikipedia isn't your pharmacist; as it has already been pointed out, we have a medical disclaimer here. Second, no, it being put here does not imply its suitability as anything other than as an entry in an openly-editable encyclopedia. And an openly-editable encyclopedia does not imply suitability as a Physicians desk reference. Third, if you're stupid enough to change the dosing of your oxycodone against the instructions of your physiatrist based on an article in an encyclopedia ("Oh; Dr. Bradburg told me to take 2 of these, but the this says I should probably take 20"), then you have some serious issues; the fact that anyone can edit it doesn't matter in the least. Celarnor Talk to me 02:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Whilst I take the general ghist of the point being raised, in this specific case - just delete the dosage information as per WP:MEDMOS (except in exception circumstances this is not a medication insert leaflet and drug articles generally should not list out dose details that vary by country, patient age (ie children), liver & renal impairment levels etc). David Ruben Talk 02:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Really? I think a sort of "Generally, doses vary between 200 and 600 milligrams per day" sort of statement is appropriate, as well as the dosage at which 50% of subjects experience lethal toxicity would belong in encyclopedia. Celarnor Talk to me 02:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Really bad idea. If we put in a dosage and some anonymous IP editor moves a decimal point how long before the change is spotted and reverted? David is right.LeadSongDog (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
IMHO, general ranges and LD50s not appropriate :-) Sure the standard 500mg a paracetamol and 300mg aspirin (with doses of 50-100mg as low-dose in cardioprotection) are probably notable. But even here there is no fixed dose for paracetamol LD50 - it is so hugely different for a neonate, toddler, child, adult and elderly patient with moderate cirrhosis as to be meaningless (admit to A&E, get a blood test and use the toxicity graph to see if need treatment).
Or take antibiotic flucloxacillin, adult dose in UK is 250-500mg generally, but in severe cases 1000mg, and for a neonate 62.5mg; so use "250-500mg" here in wikipedia and it tells you nothing for a parent looking at their 4month-old wondering whether to follow wikipedia levels and just go with that lower level. Indeed I have never in 20years of Medicine ever come across the LD50 of flucloxacillin, and I can guess the same applies to my community pharmacist wife - I suppose there must be one, but if it has no relevance in day-to-day clinical/pharmacy practice it certainly comes under what WP:NOT excludes as belonging in technical manuals. Whereas LD50 for cyanide or sarin will be notable as its their lethality which makes these compounds notable.David Ruben Talk 03:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, yeah, if it's obscure or generally useless, then no, but if it's something that the LD50 would be useful for (i.e, cyanide, sarin--even though they aren't really pharmaceutical--things that are notable for causing death, and possibly things that are well known to cause death by overdosing, such as oxycodone or a cocktail of SSRIs and alcohol, then I don't see any reason to exclude it. Celarnor Talk to me 03:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
What's absolutely critical when this sort of information is included (I'm not taking a position on when that actually is appropriate) is to include a footnote that has a link to an online reliable source. Vandalism that removes such a source is normally quickly reverted (and is much more obvious than shifting a decimal point); and helping a concerned reader get to a reliable source that provides more details is an important part of what Wikipedia is about - our goal isn't to be self-contained. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I can see a Darwin Award from this information, but it's the sad reality of "Dr. Google" as one person I met put it. Specifically including precise information on lethal doses has sinister overtones, but...
My problem with protecting this information is that it gives some sort of implication that the information is right, which is inappropriate. SDY (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

MEDMOS seems to cover this adequately, saying not to include dosage information except where exceptionally necessary. I can see the 'daily dose of aspirin for heart health' being an exampple of the notable doses exception, with proper citation, for example, but most prescription medicines shouldn't have dosage info per the MEDMOS. It may be necessary to propose a policy adjustment about this point, WP:DOSAGE, perhaps, but I'd check with the legal department first. Protecting the pages however, is a bad idea as it discourages other useful edits. ThuranX (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge policy

  1. Is AfD appropriate for discussing mergers, controversial or otherwise?
  2. Is there need for a formal Mergers for discussion? Would it be sufficiently subscribed?

Flatscan (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Mergers at AfD

Filing an AfD for a contested merge was suggested in this archived AN/I thread and its preceding merge discussion. There has been opposition to taking this content dispute to AfD, which is not a listed dispute resolution step. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations‎ was eventually filed.—add AfD Flatscan (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I was recently involved with a disputed split/merge that was eventually nominated at AfD. Although I thought such a nomination was discouraged, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taser controversy attracted sufficient outside input and resolved the dispute. Steps preceding the nomination:

  1. Article tagging and informal merge discussion per Help:Merging and moving pages, but not the optional listing at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers
  2. Intermittent discussion over a few months
  3. RfC per DR, attracting zero outside input
  4. Suggestion of refiling RfC or seeking mediation per DR

In my opinion, AfD worked well for this example because the merge was argued on Wikipedia policy, not specific and specialized knowledge. My guess is that lack of specific interest and/or reluctance to enter an existing content dispute hurt the RfC's success.

A way of looking at AfD is that it asks this question: "Does Wikipedia need an article on this subject?" Delete and Merge/redirect both answer "no". Flatscan (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: I'm not sure if taking merges to AfD should be encouraged, but I think it's a reasonable forum for at least some cases. Flatscan (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Mergers for discussion

Wikipedia:Proposed mergers already exists, but it is an optional step. My experience is that there is little collected guidelines regarding merge discussions, which may lead to protracted disputes over whether the relevant procedural precedent was followed. Flatscan (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Global rights usage has been marked as a policy

Wikipedia:Global rights usage (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) 18:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not that anyone is counting but, yup, we now have another policy. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguations

It has always been held as standard that disambiguation pages only showed favoritism to a topic if it defines the term. By this I will give an example: U2 (disambiguation) use to look like this. The fact that there is U2, a band, U-2 a plane, and U2, a series of boats, all notable in their individual fields, showed that there is no primary "definition" of U2. Like all other terms, proper nouns are not favored in anyway. For other instances, see this or this. The first line has always been used to define the term, but proper nouns are not definitions. The definition would be "a name".

The reason why this was put in place was to settle various edit wars between people who would think that their page is more notable in another, and the fact that Wikipedia covers the whole planet, it would be almost impossible to tell which "deserves" to be at top. Only on pages like school was a page allowed to be in the definition, since it is not a proper noun.

However, a small group of people at MoS have been trying to change this, even though the wording is quite clear that it is supposed to define the term at the top. MoS is very important, and it is strange that such radical alterations will be made to many pages. The most troubling thing is that their point of view will lead only to future edit warring. As you can see above in the disambiguation pages that I listed, there is quite a lot of standard history and consensus to verify my point, and that such systematizing of the disambiguation page is the only way to keep people from "favoring" certain pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If think there is no primary topic, you should propose moving the U2 to U2 (band) or something similar and at the same time, move U2 (disambiguation) to U2. I'm also not sure "defining" a term is the essence of primary topic as used in WP:D. A primary topic is determined more in terms of degree of usage of a term. --Polaron | Talk 22:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. It should be a disambig by default. Celarnor Talk to me 22:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
That was deemed unfair, because Lockheed U-2, Polikarpov U-2, and Unterseeboot 2 all lacked having the "disambiguation note". Now, for the second point, the definition of a term is the primary usage of the word. George Bush may be mostly used to refer to the current President, however, in all uses, its used as a name. Therefore, its primary usage is always as a name. Now, something like a "triangle" could sometimes be used as a name, but its primary usage would have the basic definition of a shape. Do you understand now? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand about being deemed unfair. If those other topics are also commonly known as simply "U2" or "U-2" then you have a valid argument at WP:RM. It doesn't matter that the other articles are already disambiguated in some way. Regarding the issue of primary topic as something that defines a term, are you saying then that proper names cannot be primary topics? Wikipedia primary topic names have always been about usage rather than dictionary definitions. What you're proposing is a major change to how primary topic for the purpose of disambiguation is determined. --Polaron | Talk 23:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm just reporting many of the arguments found on the talk pages or edit logs. :) I don't really care about which is top, as I only deal with pages on Wikipedia that are pre 1900. And Polaron, on primary topics - thats not the case. Look at John Smith. Notice that there is no primary usage. The same is with most of the names. Also, proper nouns that are "used more" tend to be far too subjective and prone to edit war, so that is the flaw in reading the guideline in such a way. Remember, the major use of a proper noun tends to be as a name, not as a specific name. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
And Polaron - "major change", actually, quite the opposite. Look here, here, here. And on and on and on. It seems that the majority of pages, especially FAs, agree with my interpretation. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
But there is no one single entity overwhelmingly associated with "John Smith" so there is no primary usage. In your other examples, the primary usage is listed first, which I believe is what the manual of style prefers. You might also want to look at place names as a counterexample. Also, if there is consistent edit warring over primary usage, that is a good sign that there is no primary usage. --Polaron | Talk 23:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Polaron, with proper names, there is rarely one single entity associated with the item, especially when you factor in subjectiveness and regionalism. The "primary usage" is the definition, how it is used. Please see the triangle as object vs triangle as name. Hence why you have certain things that say this: "Places named Triangle include:" the secondary definition. I think that proves beyond a doubt that what I am saying is correct. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The MOSDAB guidance for primary topics is a fairly mechanical formula. If a disambiguation page has "(disambiguation)" in the title, it means there is a primary topic. The link back to the primary topic is typically placed above the other links on the disambiguation page. In rare cases there may be more than one primary topic as a result of redirects. The guideline makes no distinction regarding what the title is (i.e., proper name, place, thing, etc.). The definitional sense that seems the crux of Ottava's argument is not explicit in the guideline and up till now, no one apart from Ottava has taken that interpretation. That WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which does not follow the guideline does not invalidate the guidance. If there is concern that the band U2 should not be treated as the primary topic for U2, then the proper course is to request that the page be moved. older ≠ wiser 23:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Bkonrad, if your statement was true, then it wouldn't come into effect today, as the language has been there for a very long time. With such high profile pages, these would have conformed to what you say. They do not. Thus, it is evident that your take on what the policy means is wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The solution didn't come into effect today. No, dabs are not high-pofile pages. You do not understand WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or WP:D#Primary topic. Solutions have been proposed at Talk:U2, and again at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Contrary to your claim for proper names, see William Shakespeare (disambiguation), Kevin Smith (disambiguation), Samuel Johnson (disambiguation) (which I just brought into line with WP:MOSDAB, Michael Jordan (disambiguation) (also re-cleaned), and a few hundred others. None of the dabs you link were FAs, and none were in line with WP:MOSDAB. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
(after ec) Sorry Ottava, I don't quite follow the the subtleties of your logic. Are you saying that because there are some pages which do not conform to the guideline the guideline therefore does not actually mean what it quite explicitly says? older ≠ wiser 00:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
There are over a hundred major pages that follow this, and many others that were changed today by JHunter in order to push his take. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Their page views sure seem to suggest that they get quite a few views, especially when they are linked by many articles including FAs. Also, your changes to pages in the middle of a discussion without consensus to verify your changes is troubling, to say the least. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

An example of why JHunter's actions result in something completely wrong: This shows a change. The user JHunter moved just "Sam Johnson" up, so there are two "primary uses" (according to the definition of the term that he uses). This also ignores the variant "Samuel Curtis Johnson, Sr." and "Samuel Curtis Johnson, Jr. " as primary uses, because they claim that anything without a disambiguation note behind it is a primary use.

As you can see from triangle, only definitions are "primary uses" - i.e. this term means "blank" in which field (examples: "Places named Triangle include:" and "Groups named Triangle include:"). Thus, "___ is a name" is a primary use, while "____ did this" is not. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson is at the base name, which makes it the primary topic for Samuel Johnson (disambiguation). Sam Johnson is at the base name, which makes it the primary topic for a hypothetical Sam Johnson (disambiguation). The entries that would be at Sam Johnson (disambiguation) are instead merged with Samuel Johnson (disambiguation), resulting in a second primary topic. Yes, Samuel Curtis Johnson, Jr. would be the primary topic of Samuel Curtis Johnson, Jr. (disambiguation); since there are no other entries for that page, though, there is nothing to merge into the dab. The "small group of people" at WT:MOSDAB have been trying to explain the disambiguation guidelines to you, but rather than adjust your incorrect interpretations and assumptions, you have instead tried to convince the members of the disambiguation project that you know better than the guidelines. Please accept that your experience with getting articles to FA does not make you an expert in disambiguation pages (none of which have ever been FA as far as I know, since they aren't articles). -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
JHunter, introducing completely off topic and personal attacks like you just did are a breach of civility. Not only did you engage in edit warring, which I refused to participate in, you have previously personally attacked me. I ask you to strike your comments immediately. It is extremely wrong for you to resort to such measures to reinforce your point of view when you lack a sufficient argument. Now, as your own later sentences prove, I was completely correct in saying that there are multiple "primary topics", and that proves that "primary use" is not the same as most used topic. Instead, it is the most used definition of the term, as per Triangle. You can say whatever you want about my experience or my character and breach civility, but your own argument proves your actions as incorrect and your previous reading of policy as incorrect. And for your information, when a page is FA, a lot of people notice their disambiguation pages. Your comments on the matter are unfounded. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) JHunter, I disagree with you on this. One of the functions of the primary topic is to move those articles out of the list of disambiguated topics. So users arriving at a page laid out like Samuel Johnson (disambiguation) and expecting to see a dab following MOSDAB will skip both Samuel Johnson and Sam Johnson. I think the hatnote at Sam Johnson should link Samuel Johnson as well as the dab. Unless Samuel Johnson has a hatnote directly to Sam Johnson the latter should not be a primary on Samuel Johnson (disambiguation). Ottave, the primary topic is the topic that you arrive at when you strip (disambiguation) from the title of the dab, it's that simple. Taemyr (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Since there are both Sam Johnson and Sam Johnson (footballer born 1901), a hatnote on Sam Johnson should point to both Sam Johnson (footballer born 1901) and either Samuel Johnson (disambiguation) or Samuel Johnson. Sam Johnson (footballer born 1901) could probably be moved to Sam Johnson (footballer) too. I'll restore the second primary topic to the list; if there were enough "Sam Johnson" entries to warrant Sam Johnson (disambiguation), though, and the dabs were kept combined, I'd still lean with a second primary topic, as discussed on WT:MOSDAB#Primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I think perhaps you are missing my point. The primary topic is treated special on dab pages because we can be reasonably sure that it is not the topic a reader is looking for. This is because every way of arriving at the dab page involves explicitly choosing not to go to the article for the primary topic. So Sam Johnson needs a hatnote to Samuel Johnson to maintain this, and Sam should not be primary as long as arriving via the hatnote at Samuel makes it possible to skip Sam Johnson. Taemyr (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that that's a solution for Sam Johnson. Take a look at HP (disambiguation). Would that be better addressed by expanding the hatnotes at (the targets of) HP and hp to link to each other as well as the dab page? -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I think so, although I am unsure what would happen if you got cases where there was more than two primary topics. Or where the primary topic had other hatnotes already. Taemyr (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
And yet it would directly conflict with the traditional use of over 100 articles, including situations such as triangle. If anything, it should be made clear that nothing goes at the top, unless it is a basic definition, as that is how the page is used throughout. Otherwise, we have the above noted problems and the huge potential for edit warring. Furthermore, the basic reading of: "Since it is unlikely that this well-known meaning" shows that it is definitional, and the well known meaning of a name is "a name" not an individual. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
More examples to prove that Wikipedia wide consensus agrees that it is definitional: ABC defined as the first three letters and an acronym. And if you look at the other examples given on the disambiguation page: Interval no links at the top but a link to wikitionary, which proves definitional. School (disambiguation), a link to wikitionary and definitional. Notice the lack of capitals. John Smith definitional, not linked to a page. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
"If anything, it should be made clear that nothing goes at the top, unless it is a basic definition, as that is how the page is used throughout." Except that that is the incorrect assumption/interpretation of the guidelines that we have been going through great lengths to explain to you. It has been made clear that the primary topic goes at the top, and the primary topic is the topic at the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I think some posts may have been recently lost, so here is what I attempted to say before - I think our arguments will continue to go back and forth through the same things right now ad nauseum. So, I think it would be best for us to wait to hear what other people say, and if there will be any proposals to fix the various problems that I have listed before, unless the consensus turns to say that the problems aren't large enough to need such changes. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda Analysis = Binary (Two Part) Emotional Rhetoric

An actual condensed definition of Propaganda needs only three words Binary Emotional Rhetoric.

binary emotional rhetoric is a short and concise definition of propaganda that is consistent with the seven various forms of propaganda indicated by The Institute For Propaganda Analysis, The Fine Art of Propaganda -- A Study of Father Coughlin's Speeches. The original Institute For Propaganda Analysis, Inc. was located at 130 Morningside Drive, New York, NY and was established in October 1937, to conduct objective, non-partisan studies in the field of propaganda and public opinion. A non-profit organization it sought to help the intelligent citizen detect and analyze propaganda, by revealing the agencies, techniques and devices used by the propagandist.

The Institute For Propaganda Analysis published the results of its researches in monthly bulletins and in special reports, of which "The Fine Art of Propaganda" -- A Study of Father Coughlin's Speeches is one. At the same time, the Institute For Propaganda Analysis conducted an educational program in adult study groups, and in Junior High Schools, High Schools, and Colleges.

Officers at the Institute For Propaganda Analysis, Inc.: President, E. C. Lindeman, New York School of Social Work; Vice President, Kirtley Mather, Harvard University; Executive Secretary, Clyde R. Miller, Teachers College, Columbia University; Treasurer, Ned H. Dearborn, New York University.

Advisory Board: Frank E. Baker, Milwaukee State Teachers College; Charles A. Beard; Hadley Cantril, Princeton University; Edgar Dale, Ohio State University; Leonard Doob, Yale University; Paul Douglas, University of Chicago; Gladys Murphy Graham, University of California at Los Angeles; F. Ernest Johnson, Teachers College, Columbia University; Grayson N. Kefauver, Stanford University; William Heard Kilpatrick; Robert S. Lynd, Columbia University; Malcom S. MacLean, University of Minnesota; Ernest O. Melby, Northwestern University; James E. Mendenhall, Stephens; Robert K. Speer, New York University.

Staff: Editorial Director, Harold Lavine; Educational Director, Violet Edwards

The Institute for Propaganda Analysis, "The Fine Art of Propaganda", A Study of Father Coughlin's Speeches, Edited by Alfred McClung Lee and Elizabeth Briant Lee, Copyright, 1939, Harcourt, Brace and Company, Inc. New York -- Typography by Robert Josephy, Printed in the United States of America by Quinn & Boden Company, Inc., Rahway, N. J.

Binary Emotional Rhetoric was derived from an exhaustive analysis of "The Fine Art of Propaganda", A Study of Father Coughlin's Speeches and each type or use of propaganda can be broken down to three words:

Propaganda = binary emotional rhetoric

Binary emotional rhetoric is a proper easy to understand definition.

Wikipedia's editing out of this simple easy to understand definition of propaganda is obfuscating the definition of propaganda, rather than making the definition easily understood by the common masses for use in propaganda analysis.

It is plain to see that it was the intention of The Institute For Propaganda Analysis to make a way for all U. S. citizens to be able to understand how propaganda is used.

Since it has been determined by Congress that propaganda can no longer be used against American citizens of the United States, it is necessary that an easy definition be available.

No content listed violates any copyright. No text was copied from any other website. There is no reason to delete this content. <personal information redacted> 

MarthaA (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

MarthaA (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What...? This is where we discuss Wikipedia policy. While you're welcome to create an article on the subject, be wary of using us to publish your original research, which isn't allowed here. Celarnor Talk to me 00:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I fixed the formatting so it is more readable, but... yeah, I agree with the above. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Looking at their contribs, I don't think they quite understand what goes on here; without referring to sources, they added that as a definition for propaganda, even adding it into a direct quote taken from a scholarly source. They also added a message to "Wikipedia Editor" on their talk page, which may help to make some sense out of what they're talking about. Celarnor Talk to me 01:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
AN or AN/I? Perhaps some admin should weigh in on this. Confusing to say the least. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Meh. I don't think its become a problem yet; just a case of someone not quite getting what Wikipedia is. I left (them?) a message on their talkpage. Celarnor Talk to me 01:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm hearing bets about the chances of this definition appearing in a policy discussion in the following months. :-D Waltham, The Duke of 22:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Advice on original research in high profile article

The first sentence of the September 11, 2001 attacks article is original research. Please give advice.

In 2004, there was debate on what to call the article. The current article name was the name selected.

Wikipedia Manual of Style suggests that usually we use the title of the article in the first sentence of the article. However, in this case it is original research because if you look at CNN, BBC, CBC, CBS, they do not use the term "September 11, 2001 attacks". WP uses it like a name of a TV episode, very unencyclopedic. Google "September 11, 2001 attacks" and only the wikipedia article shows. On the first google page, there is NO links to CNN, BBC, CBC, CBS, etc.

We should avoid original research and not use the name of a made up title in the first sentence. For example, the original research version reads "The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States. It is OR to use a made up name in this context.

Better suggestions include: On September 11, 2001 (often referred to as 9/11), there were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States.

This is a subtle difference but it avoid the subtle OR. OR, even subtle OR, is strictly prohibited by WP.

The current version is also bad prose because it defines "attacks" as "...attacks". This is bad but not as bad as the OR violation. Presumptive (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The manual of style does not demand that the title be used in the lead; variants are perfectly fine. But I don't think this is even subtly OR, even if it is bad prose. If the name of the article is wrong (or in question again), there are channels for addressing that. -- JHunterJ (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
How is it original research? The lead conforms to information found within the article. Only if it says something controversial (which giving a full detail of a time is not controversial) does it need to be sourced. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
By not using common terminology but making up terminology, it is OR. The name was coined by a WP vote, not by citing references. When wikipedians make up stuff, it is OR. I want precision. That's the best for WP. If the name is close to what reliable sources frequently use, it is not enough. We can't be sloppy. Presumptive (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
It's the best of the possibilities. "9/11/01 attacks" or "9/11 attacks" isn't pretty in prose. The use of numbers in such an abbreviatory way is discouraged in about every manual of style known to mankind. "September 11th attacks" is a bit vague because it could be referring to some other event; it doesn't maintain the precision of "September 11th, 2001" attacks. It combines accuracy and looking good in prose. I don't see how it is OR by any stretch of the concept. Celarnor Talk to me 05:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with aIl of the above responses. I don't see any OR in this case. SMP0328. (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I was involved in the earlier debate. The attacks happened in New York City, Pennsylvania, and Washington DC, all in the United States. The characterization of them by the local and national authorities carries substantial weight in how to describe them in the Wikipedia. It was not an OR synthesis to describe them as it appeared then and now. patsw (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my curiosity, Presumptive, but what would be the ideal title of this article in your opinion? — CharlotteWebb 18:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no dispute with the title. I only think that incorporating the title into the 1st sentence is bad prose and is renaming the event with a different name that is commonly used. We could keep the title but just re-word the first sentence/paragraph. Presumptive (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we use Knol as a source in Wikipedia?

Google introduced Knol. Can we use the information on it and cite it as a reference in Wikipedia? --Quest for Truth (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no blanket yes or no answer to your question. The policy section that applies to this discussion is located at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources:
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
Knol contains submissions from both subject matter experts and from the general public. As such, each individual knol must be examined for potential use as a credible source. An example of a knol that would be acceptable as a source is a medical article written by a professor from a large university research hospital. A knol about the best way to choose a pet written by a person providing no information on their background however would not be acceptable. --Allen3 talk 11:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Its also important to watch for circular references. A knol citing a WP article (or other online user generated source) would not be as reliable as a knol citing a professional journal. Most good knol stuff, by academics, will either assume the cotnent is so widely known is doesn't need to be cited: "the light blue hue of the sky" or cite things to existing journals "In Johnson's study of X". If the person themself is an expert, we might be able to use the former and would certainly be able to use the latter. MBisanz talk 11:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
You can use Knol as a source; it is preferable to go directly to the sources used by Knol, where possible. Note that you cannot literally copy content from Knol to Wikipedia, due to incompatible licenses. Dcoetzee 18:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Verified, well-established academics may make assertions of their own original research on Knol. In such a case, the statements should be treated as a primary source in the sense, e.g. "(Name of academic) from (Institute) said that (assertion)", in the form of assertion not a fact (unless verified by further third-party citations). - Mailer Diablo 05:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Susceptibility to use as a medium for free, quick, untraceable messages?

Resolved
 – just a quick visit from an old friend of VPP. No need for further comment. Darkspots (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Throwaway accounts can be using Wikipedia to transmit secret messages to each other all over the world, By posting them as articles that are going to be speedy deleted. Its a good way to send messages anonymously and secretly. Moop Fan 17 (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Luckily, the same is true for the entire internet. See 4chan for example. Or Craigslist. Nothing we need to lose sleep over. Darkspots (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't someone just leave messages elsewhere in WP, like inactive user's sandboxes? Oh...wait..you did!. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This is, obviously, silly. There's nothing more anonymous or untracable about a Wikipedia edit than there is about anonymous e-mail or simply opening a TCP connection between two entities through a proxy. Perhaps even less anonymous, since we log the IP of all accesses, and these are available to law enforcement under subpoena. The problem of sending an "untraceable" message is actually a very difficult one - offhand the best solution I can think of is using encrypted tunnels in combination with a distributed network of proxies whose identities are only known to you. Dcoetzee 18:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to Speedy deletions

Speedy deletion has a number of benefits to the encyclopædia - the removal of copyright violations and biography of living people violations (either of which, if allowed to remain on Wikipedia, could imperil the project legally), and the removal of patent nonsense, which has no potential to improve the Wikipedia. It also has a number of drawbacks, as its over-zealous use can drive off new editors, or embitter more established editors. I would like to propose that Speedy deletion be restricted to cases of Copyright violation, BLP issues, and patent nonsense/gibberish, and prod adopted in its place where there are questions as to notability. This change would retain the beneficial and protective aspects of the speedy deletion process, while enabling editors to address notability concerns in a more reasonable time-scale. DuncanHill (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be prod-as-prod, I think. There are truly non-notable biographies and context-free articles posted all the time. The ability of the authors of those articles to remove a prod tag and force an AfD would overwhelm AfD. Some kind of slower-speedy for certain types of deletions could be an improvement. Darkspots (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Really, this should already be the case; speedy deletions should only be used if it i s really, really obvious that the subject doesn't assert notability. Celarnor Talk to me 16:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
While I agree wth Celarnor that this should in principle be the case, I have encountered overzealous editors with speedy deletion procedures that were started and completed (ie article deleted) during European night-time for articles that were definitely notable, albeit it not to US citizens....... Arnoutf (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
That's what WP:DRV is for. Corvus cornixtalk 18:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It is preferable to deal with a problem's source rather than it's symptoms. Celarnor Talk to me 18:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
(re Corvus cornix - edit conflict Celarnor) Yes that is what WP:DRV is for, however preventing damage is in general better than repairing. Some self-control for the use of especially the A7 (notability) Speedy deletion criterion may prevent a lot of confusion and bad feelings. Note that appealing in itself maybe confusing and demotivating for many editors (especially newbies - as DuncanHill already notes); also note that by doing so you move the burden of bureaucracy from the deleting admin (who should be considered well-versed in bureaucratic procedures) to the original poster (often a newby).
In my view there are three options: (1) Trust that all editors will understand that something not notable within their own country/culture maybe sufficiently notable within another context. (2) Believe that an editor (not even a newby) will not be offended nor confused by deletion of good faith material and will engage in the WP:DRV procedure (3) Amend speedy deletion criterion A7 to make much clearer that this may not require immediate (ie within hours) acton, but should allow for a reasonable time for the original poster to establish notability (ie still no full AfD, but for this specific criterion a longer time allowance for corrections). Arnoutf (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The reason that A7 was created is to ease the pressure on processes such as PROD and AfD by getting rid of articles that would not pass these processes. Some statistics: in June 2008 Wikipedia deleted about 2600 articles through PROD, and another 2000 through AfD. By contrast, there were about 13500 A7 deletions. If we get rid of A7, then the proposed deletion process will get swamped with articles which have little hope of surviving it, and given that the point of PROD is to ensure other editors get to scrutinise the article this will drastically reduce the process' effectiveness. If we get rid of G11, A1 and A3 (which the proposal seems to imply) then PROD will get further 7000 articles added to it. I see a lot of people removing speedy deletion tags on articles they started, despite the fact that the template explicitly tells them not to do this. The PROD template invites you to remove it and it is displayed for much longer, so I imagine plenty of people will do this and force a full-scale AfD on an article about a 13 year old who has never done anything remotely significant. We do already take measures to ensure that the person reviewing an article has some way of judging whether or not it asserts significance (that's why it only applies to organisations, people, bands and web content, rather than every article). When new editors get confused or offended when their article is deleted through A7 the main problem they see with the system is not that the article was deleted quickly but that it was deleted. Hut 8.5 12:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
We have a minimal standard for stub articles, and articles need to meet them from the first moment of their existence. There is no need to wait for an editor to include information establishing notability ... that information has to be included during article creation.
Kww (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
In my view, only a limited category of articles actually cause demonstrable immediate harm to the encyclopedia justifying immediate deletion. For articles which are not a copyvio, blp violation, or patent nonsense, a slower process that includes notifying the article author and giving the article author some time to attempt to improve the article or discuss the situation prior to taking action would be in the encyclopedia's interest. One objection made to using WP:PROD as this process is that the author has the right to object and take the article to AfD, resulting in flooding the AfD process. One way to address this objection would be to create a procedure between speedy deletion and proposed deletion, which we might call (for want of a better phrase). "Administrative deletion". Administrative deletion would operate similarly to speedy delete by having an administrator handle the process with no recourse except deletion review. However, it would be a slower process than speedy delete, with a requirement to notify the author and some time in between proposal and deletion to permit improving the article and/or discussing the basis of deletion. We might also require a second opinion: one administrator could place the article under administrative delete and start the clock, and a different one could review and delete when the clock expired. A list or category of pending administrative deletes could be maintained, and users interested in article rescue could review the article during the period and attempt to improve it or argue for its retention on the article talk page (no separate discussion page). Such a route would help address the biggest objections that have been raised for the use of CSD to cover material that isn't obviously harmful, and permit notification, a waiting period, and a second opinion, without flooding the AfD process. Bots could be written to automate tagging the article, notifying the user, and identifying articles whose waiting period has expired. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Other articles may not cause actual harm, but what purpose does leaving them up for another few hours serve? All this does is add extra bureaucracy for no real benefit. The vast majority of these articles are completely unsalvageable. The creator will get a notification (which I think most do already), the article will be read by 2 admins instead of one, and the creator might have time to call a friend and say "Look, I'm on Wikipedia" before it gets deleted. But the end result is the same, so why the extra work? All these proposals miss the actual problem. The problem is not the criteria, the problem is overzealous tagging. Mr.Z-man 22:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with that much the problem is overzealous tagging. Adding a second pair of eyes, a chance for the author to explain, and a break before taking action are steps intended to provide a check for overzealous tagging and help keep potentially good articles and editors from being lost early. That's the benefit. No question the majority of the articles tagged this way will go anyway. The really obvious "Look, I'm on Wikipedia" stuff can still be tagged as patent nonsense or vandalism through CSD as before. The slower approach would be for stuff on a subject that's potentially legitimate but not obviously notable or whose notability hasn't been explained. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I have to concur with Shirahadasha. Given the fact that I openly admit my deletionist tendencies, and was even taken to task for them somewhat during my RfA, it might surprise people to know that I have turned down a good half a dozen CSD requests focusing on notability in the past 10 days - or about 10% of the requests I personally reviewed. Copyvios, BLP issues, userpage requests, nonsense - fine. But I like the idea of a somewhat slower pace for non-notability (giving it 24 hours won't kill us), and it is not really extra work; gives a chance to the new editor to learn what is needed, because a surprisingly large number of them simply don't understand WP:N so fail to include the info that is needed. Risker (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps more use of userification by admins would address this problem - that takes articles out of mainspace, while allowing their authors plenty of time to fix them, if they are fixable. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
How will taking a process that already gets backlogged on a regular basis and doubling the number of people who have to review each page not going to create any extra work? Why is the solution to this problem extra bureaucracy? (and don't tell me a whole new set of rules, templates, and bots isn't extra bureaucracy) Mr.Z-man 18:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

New page publication of the deletion log

I'm about to create a new article, and notice that the user interface is helpfully giving me the first sentence from a series of articles that have been deleted. I'll redact the key information: one choice entry reads "??? ??? is a douchebag who goes to ??? High School. He jacks off 5 to 7 times a day and is a flaming homosexual.Furthermore, everone ha...' ".

If I were ??? ???, I might be a bit upset that visitors to this otherwise blank page are greeted with this & four other versions in similar vein - "He tries his hardest to be normal, but never quite succeeds."

Is there a purpose in providing this log at the top of blank pages which have deletion histories? When do privacy concerns outweigh the supposed advantage? Would anyone like to discuss this with the mediawiki developers? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a relevant discussion ongoing at WP:VPR#Log and image oversight. I believe that the text you see there is not necessarily the beginning of the deleted article, but rather the edit summary provided by the deleting admin. The obvious solution is for admins to avoid leaving abuse in the deletion log, but that's not retroactive. Algebraist 21:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Although there is (or was, I wasn't involved and don't know) a proposal to edit your edit summaries. Admins could review their edit summaries to determine whether or not there was anything potentially bad and remove it. Celarnor Talk to me 04:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It's possible that some admins don't (or didn't) realize that entries in deletion logs are visible when someone attempts to re-create an article (they're always visible just by looking at the log, of course, but most editors - and certainly almost all readers - don't know about the log). If the deletion was relatively recent (say in the past 3 months or so), it probably would be nice to drop a note to the admin who did the deletion, reminding him/her that these edit summaries do pop up when someone tries to re-create the article, and therefore should not contain embarrassing - and potentially libelous - details. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Deletion summaries have only been easily visible for less than a year — before that, they were available, but only to those familiar enough with the site to search the deletion log. In general, this change was a good thing, since it prevents needless recreation of deleted pages and makes the deletion process more transparent, but the down side is that the change exposed a whole bunch of deletion summaries that the deleting admin may have never expected to become so visible.
These days, we have a script that usually prevents the content of any pages tagged as attack pages from getting into deletion summaries, but it might still happen if the page hasn't been tagged (or has been tagged wrong) and the deleting admin is careless, and of course it doesn't help with old summaries. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

autoconfirmed admins proposal

There is a proposal to autoconfirm admins. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection Policy vs AFD Process - Conflict and proposed policy solution

I've recently come across problems where there have been conflicts between the Protection system and the AFD process. Articles undergoing the AFD process have been fully protected for other reasons. However as part of the AFD process is to permit the editing of the article in order to improve it so it can be kept. While the 'editprotected' template can be used this is slow, cumbersome, not newbie-friendly and requires an admin to implement which discourages attempts to improve the article. There is also a problem of perceived bias. If an article is AFD'd then protected it could appear that the protection is there to prevent improvement of the article to ensure it's deletion - it would be very easy for an admin with a personal bias against an article to AFD it (or ask another editor to do so), protect the article to prevent improvement and deny 'editprotected' requests in order to get the article deleted.

I believe we must formulate a new policy to prevent this conflict. If an article is undergoing AFD then as a matter of policy Full Protection must NOT be applied to allow all the functions of the AFD process to be exercised. Likewise any attempt to AFD an article via the 'editprotected' template must be denied outright. Semi-protection may be appropiate but should be used with caution if the article is undergoing AFD and should not be used unless absolutely necessary.

I invite all interested editors to comment. Exxolon (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Both forms of protection should be used as briefly as necessary, and only when it would be more amicable and feasible than blocking the users who are causing the problem. A good example of this would be if an article is vandalized by several different IP addresses or usernames (whether or not they are operated by the same person), especially if the vandalism stands unreverted due to lack of attention or because it is thickly interleaved with other users' Good Edits, becoming a greater PITA to clean up.
I agree with your points in general, but common sense needs to be applied. It would be unhelpful to rule out extraordinary situations where there is a good reason for an article to remain fully protected for the entirety of the AFD. Rather than requesting improvements via the talk page it would in this case be much more effective to post your "improved version" draft in your user-space (e.g. User:Exxolon/Sandbox), and prominently link to it in the AFD. — CharlotteWebb 20:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
If someone were nominating a "chronically-protected" page for deletion, they could copy the current text to (e.g.) Talk:The Article/AfD Workshop, and post a notice in their nomination statement. It could then be used to show how the article can be fixed in the usual manner, and the changes implemented via {{editprotected}} en masse if the article succeeded at passing the deletion. (Basically the same as what User:CharlotteWebb said, but in Talk: space :-)). --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 11:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
All of these solutions are cumbersome. How about we add some guidance for admins on careful use of protection on AFDing articles? Something like - "If an article is currently undergoing the AFD process you should only protect it if there is no other option as this can disrupt article improvement as a side effect of the AFD process. Such protection should be for the shortest time possible. Full Protection should only be used in extremis - when there is NO other way to prevent disruption." - Thoughts? Exxolon (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
"Full Protection should only be used in extremis" ← I agree entirely and current policy already says this. Articles listed on AFD are not more special or less special in this regard, so adding extra "guidance" here would (a) be instruction creep, and (b) be misinterpreted as some kind of double standard. — CharlotteWebb 20:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:Fringe -- should it be a guideline or an essay?

Discussion about the real life implementation of this guideline is at its talk page. Please contribute with your comments. Lakinekaki (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You might have valid points, but Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard exists, and it would be awkward to have it premised off of an essay and not a guideline. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Existence of a single page like noticeboard should not justify the existence of a very problematic guideline that is affecting a lot of mainspace article pages, and content within even more articles on Wikipedia. Lakinekaki (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's downgraded to an essay, than we'll truly know something problematic affecting alot of mainspace articles. Beam 03:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Can you clarify?Lakinekaki (talk) 03:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
(God Forsaken Edit Conflict) As it stands there are 100s of "editors" who force fringe theories into articles, breaking WP:Fringe and WP:WEIGHT among other policies. That's with Fringe being a guideline. If Fringe was a simple essay, articles would be savagely assaulted with bullshit fringe garbage, even more so than now. Hence my statement that with a downgrade to essay we would then experience, and "truly know something problematic affecting alot of mainspace articles." Beam 03:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
FRINGE has given the deletionists a lot of ammo lately; I, for one, wouldn't be particularly sad to see it downgraded to an essay. I've never held the belief that simply because a given theory is held by a smaller number of people it should be automatically disregarded and viewed in an inferior light, and I simply can't reconcile that belief with a special discriminatory policy with regards to minority views. We should give everything the same level of attention given to it in acdemia. No more, no less. Celarnor Talk to me 03:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Deletionists shouldn't be able to use a guideline (not a policy), instead, it would have to go to the fringetheories noticeboard where it can be argued out.So I don't understand where the problem is. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
That would be horrible. Read my above comment for a summarization of the horror that would unfold. Beam 03:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
What is fringe to you may be solid logic to someone else. We have a policy here called neutral point of view, and a policy that discriminates against minority viewpoints doesn't move the project toward a neutral point of view; in fact, it moves us farther from that ideal by its very nature. Everything here should be given the same level of attention that it gets in its field, Nothing more than that, nothing less than that. Don't be so prejudicial towards alternative views that aren't your own; rather than "ZOMG!!?FRINGE-DELETE-DELETE-DELETE", why not try to source it further? Celarnor Talk to me 03:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:Weight. You could have 500 sources, if it's WP:Fringe it's fringe. That's what saves the articles from being plagued with every fringe idea on the subject. Beam 04:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
As you just pointed out, we already have undue weight. That simply prevents the Flat earth theory from being all over the article on Earth. If it's a minority viewpoint, its a minority viewpoint, and doesn't need undue weight given to it. Like I said; we should give everything the same level of attention given to it an academia. We don't need extra policycruft for that to work. Celarnor Talk to me 04:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree as I do not feel that "giving everything the same level of attention given to it [at] academia" would work. One reason why is because a lot of fringe items have been extensively spoken about by "academics" without resulting in it being any more important or encyclopedia worthy. Beam 04:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
No, that's what I mean. I don't mean "We need to treat different theories of a subject by giving each one a percentage of page space equal to the percent of journal articles about that theory comprising the whole of the academic discussion about the subject". I don't mean that just because there's a lot of stuff about flat earth theory, I mean that we should cover it extensively.
What I mean when I say "we should give everything the same level of attention given to it in academia", I mean we should go by academic consensus when deciding the majority viewpoint, but at the same time should discuss anything else that has shown up, in smaller portions with respect to the number of prominent acadmics/prominent academic groups relevant to the field. It isn't the number of publications that is relevant to it being a minority viewpoint, its the number of people that adhere to it. Ipso facto, fewer people follow a minority viewpoint.
But anyway, that was a minor point, which we already both agree on (I just don't think you realize that yet). The major point was that we don't need a policy that explicity states these things. NPOV and UNDUE are more than enough for keeping fringe theories at bay while still covering them in appropriate lengths in appropriate places; we don't need to have extra policies that conflict with our core policies at various points of intersection. Doing so causes confusion and more problems than its worth, as has already been pointed out by other editors, and considering that FRINGE doesn't offer us anything substantive other than a long restatement of NOR, NPOV and UNDUE, there really isn't a lot of benefit in keeping it when it doesn't offer anything extra but problems and conflicts. Celarnor Talk to me 04:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Good sir, I assure you, I understand. I feel that WP:Fringe serves a purpose that WP:Weight and WP:NPOV can't serve alone. As i say, someone could base weight on the the amount of google hits or because 40 professors talk about it. That's where WP:Fringe comes in and saves us all. Beam 04:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ghits don't really mean anything. Blogs, a forum, and some geocities pages do not make science. If 40 professors are proponents of a theory, then it should be properly weighted and discussed. However, is 7,162 professors say it's a crackpot theory, then its obviously a minority viewpoint and probably shouldn't be given the weight of the mainstream view. We don't need extra guidelines or policy for that. We have UNDUE for that. Celarnor Talk to me 04:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Now we're back to agree to disagree (or agree that I'm right :D ). I do not think NPOV and UNDUE are proficient at stopping what Fringe thankfully prevents. Beam 04:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
How so? What specific benefits does fringe give us that our core policies do not? What situations have you encountered where our core policies wouldn't be sufficient for dealing with fringe theories? Celarnor Talk to me 05:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Because WEIGHT is good to deal with things like, let's say, talking about the plight of Palestinians too much in the article on Israel. NPOV is simply put: using neutral language when describing anything. Let's take 9/11. WEIGHT doesn't prohibit the article from, at length, discussing something like an "inside job." Undue weight? It's a theory as to how 9/11 happened! It's just as important as the official Govt sequence of events! Look I have 10 documentaries and 3 books written about an "inside job" for 9/11! WEIGHT, imo, doesn't stop that. WP:FRINGE does, because myself or someone else can find sources that legitimately call the "inside job" bullshit a Fringe theory. I feel that you might have had an article deleted using WP:FRINGE. Maybe they used it incorrectly in your case, but I won't stand by and let a vital tool in keeping our articles relatively free from bullshit because WP:FRINGE was used incorrectly once or twice. Beam 12:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I've never had anything deleted under FRINGE myself--I'm not much of a content person anyway--but I spend a lot of time browsing AfD, and FRINGE causes nothing but problems there; it is either a tool in the hands of an overzealous deletionist or used by someone desperately searching for a way to delete something they don't like; for real content disputes and problematic articles, I still don't see how the concept of undue weight; the use that you describe is exactly what it is for, and that is exactly what prevents you talking about an inside job too much on an article on the September 11th attacks. Considering that further, I don't think you quite fully grasp the concept of weight; those 10 documentaries and 3 books written about an inside job are dwarfed by the amount of documentaries and books that support the mainstream view and the amount of people who go by that view. Thus, you can't discuss that fringe theory in too much depth; I don't quite understand what FRINGE adds to that. Celarnor Talk to me 17:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, I don't know what you want me to do to prove it to you, but I do understand Weight. The Weight scenario regarding Israel was brought up, because it is the actual reason given by the owners of that article as to why there is not, and will not be, more time given to the Palestinian issues in that article. Have some good faith that I do understand weight and npov. And really, I'm telling you that in my experience Fringe is good and would prevent the 9/11 scenario I brought up where as weight wouldn't do as good of a job at preventing it. Beam 18:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
You shouldn't let overzealous deletionists dictate our good policy. Beam 18:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep as guideline but modify and improve I believe WP:FRINGE is needed and relevant for the question of when minority opinions belong in articles other subjects (when a point of view is "significant" or includable), although I think the current language could stand improvement. However, I don't believe it has any business being a notability criterion and I would take out the portions that currently talk about notability and about when fringe views should get articles. The standards for notablility should be the ordinary ones. Many fringe views are notable. I think simple notability needs to be the only grounds for inclusion and we need to be strict about this. I don't think articles on views that meet standard notability criteria have any business being deleted on any other grounds, and particularly on grounds that Wikipedia shouldn't promote or give ammunition to such views. This is simply censorship, and Wikipedia is not censored. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 08:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we use Wikipedia as a source for Knol?

Assuming that I'm the primary author, can I re-use an article I've written for Wikipedia for Knol? If so, should I go-about it by getting permission from other invested contributers? 142.9.1.100 (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You can use your own Wikipedia content on Knol, since you own the copyright for it. If you do so, you are effectively multi-licensing your contributions under the GFDL and Creative Commons 3.0. As I understand it, however, these licenses are not compatible, so you may not use others' contributions, even in an article of which you are the primary author, unless they also agree to multi-license their contributions (unless I am mistaken about the licenses' compatibility). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Yea, Steve is right, at this point in time, the licenses are not compatible, so all editors to an article would all need to agree to multi-license it for porting to Knol. MBisanz talk 14:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's an question. I wrote this article pretty much solo. But there are two editors that corrected 4 typos [2] [3]. Now, would I need to get their permission to do something with the non-typo version, or is there some sort of substantative/non-obvious clause that would let me use these typo corrections without asking for permission? Just curious, I don't actually have any plans or anything. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The question is whether a contribution would be independently copyrightable. If not, there's no need for a license, because you don't need permission to use what no one has rights over. Those spelling corrections would not be independently copyrightable. Postdlf (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Obvious in retrospect. Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I asked Mike Godwin this question. The GFDL/CC license incompatibility is a secondary, rather minor, issue. The big issue is that in order to contribute to google knol, you have to grant Google a non-transferable you-can-do-whatever-you-want-with-this style license. If you aren't the copyright holder of the Wikipedia material in question, you cannot do this. Raul654 (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Knol Beam 18:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Either you do not understand what I wrote above, or you do not know what you are talking about: By submitting, posting or displaying content as an Author, Co-Author, Collaborator, Commenter, Reviewer, or User on or through the Service, you grant to Google a non‑exclusive, perpetual, worldwide and royalty-free right and license to (i) use, copy, distribute, transmit, modify, create derivative works based on, publicly perform (including but not limited to by digital audio transmission), and publicly display the content through Google services; (ii) allow other users to access and use the content through Google services; and (iii) permit Google to display advertisements on the Google sites containing the content... - http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/si57lahl1w25/12# -- if you are not the copyright holder of the material in question (for submission to Google Knol), you cannot legally agree to this. Raul654 (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I had read it as you could put into Knol as whatever license you wanted. My mistake, I'm always one to admit when I'm wrong. Sadly I find myself constantly doing this. ;) Beam 15:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability - Places

Following from the WP:GEOBOT proposal a few weeks ago, I'm trying to gather a consensus for a new guideline on [[Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations). I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(Geographic_locations)#Using_an_Atlas_as_a_source_for_notability and would appreciate any comments (there not here!) Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 13:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism of a wiki article

See Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#The name of the publisher, Wikipedia talk:Reusing Wikipedia content, Wikimedia Communications Committee's talk page.

As Wikipedia matures there is a growing problem with plagiarism of Wikipedia articles, and how it affects Wikipedia.


If a reliable sources (not a mirror) uses Wikipedia information and does not cite Wikipedia as a source, unless one is very aware of the history of an article this can lead to loops where information deleted as unsourced, and is then put back on the page in all innocence by a new editor because it is in a reliable source. I think we need a mechanism to record these copies that appear in a reliable source when they do not credit Wikipedia content.

Now there may well be a page that records such usage. But if there is then it needs to be more widely publicised (what is it?). If there is not then I think we need to create one. One possible format would be that of Wikipedia:Press coverage. -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source 2008 is related. I have seen signs of this problem when digging down through cited sources, particularly with IMDB (not a reliable source but used a lot on wikipedia). Tangentially, a more serious example: SL-1 cites this NASA case study which in turn cites wikiepdia! How do we know which claims came from NASA and which from wikipedia? I believe we need to strengthen our own sourcing practices, and also maybe make archives of the news media articles before the inevitable Link rot sets in. -84user (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


So there is no current page. Perhaps Wikipedia:uncited use of Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Plagiarism of a Wikipedia articles. But I hope someone can come up with a better name.
I would propose that the information on the page is in a table format:
Retrieved Date | third party article (see WP:CITE for format)| Date of plagiarised Wikipedia article| Link to version of Wikipedia article that has been plagiarised| Notes.
--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Having though about it a little more I think a better way to go would be to distribute the information by producing a template for the top of the article's talk page (with a category). Then it would be available to editors who edit the page but are not aware of the existence of a particular list page. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Essay on the proper influence of vandalism on policy development

Just a quick announcement; I've written an essay that might be of interest to watchers of this page, whose responses are more than welcome. Thanks, Skomorokh 15:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Recurring items on ITN has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Recurring items on ITN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

ALL disambiguation pages to end "(disambiguation)"

I find that it is quite confusing when a disambiguation page does not end with "(disambiguation)", and especially when the page's title followed by "(disambiguation)" does not redirect to it. For instance, although Mole (disambiguation) redirects to Mole, there is no such page (at time of writing) as Taxi (disambiguation), and the disambiguation page is, instead, Taxi. This is annoying when you are looking for an article in which a word is used in what is not its most obvious context and type Something (disambiguation) hoping that will show you where to go, only to find that in this particular case, Something does not talk about what everyone first thinks of when they think of the word, unlike Thingy, which does; but is, rather, the disambiguation page.

This inconsistency can be quite irritating at times and so I suggest that Something always talk about the most common definition of "Something" and Something (disambiguation) give you a list of "Something"-related articles. So, could someone make a bot that automatically changes disambiguation pages like Something (or, to give a specific example, Taxi) to Something (disambiguation)? It Is Me Here (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if Foo (disambiguation) was always the disambiguation page where one exists, but sometimes we really do want Foo to go to the disambiguation by default, when there is a genuine dilemma. This is easily solved, though, by having Foo (disambiguation) still be the list, and making Foo a redirect to it. This should be easily done by a bot if you can convince the community to go with your idea.
I just found out that current practice is actually the opposite of what you specify! :-) (that is, prefer Foo as the disambiguation page where possible, but Foo (disambiguation) can point to it). Maybe you can discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, where it may even have come up before. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 16:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, there is no reason Taxi (disambiguation) couldn't exist as a redirect to Taxi, it's just that no one has felt the need to create it yet. Anomie⚔ 17:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe the disambiguation guideline even says those redirects should be created. It seems like a simple, non-controversial job for a bot — you might want to request one. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This would be an good idea, even if the only benefit was avoiding duplicate disambig pages. There are other, more subtle ones. — CharlotteWebb 19:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The reason that the most common meaning isn't always at Foo is because there is often (sometimes heated) disagreement as to just what is the most common usage. So, the disambig page goes there. –xeno (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Right, but it could just as well go at Foo (disambiguation), with Foo being a redirect to Foo (disambiguation). It doesn't really make much difference either way. Doing it this way would even have the minor advantage that you could tell immediately from the title if the page you're reading is a disambiguation page, but otherwise it's mostly just a matter of choosing one convention and sticking with it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, indeed, and that is why I am suggesting what I am suggesting as it would make things clearer for the casual Wikipedia reader. It Is Me Here (talk) 08:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
About 150 pages, which are doing what you're suggesting, come up in Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages each month and need to be fixed. Per naming convention, one will find e.g. the TV series at Doctor Who and not at Doctor Who (TV series) (although it redirects there) - same with dab pages. As a long-standing practice, this is unlikely to change. – sgeureka t•c 05:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Taxi (disambiguation). It's not a redlink anymore, because WP:BEANS are cool. SDY (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, I'd rather it had been left until this discussion was over in order to demonstrate my point, but I think you see where I am coming from anyway, and you guys say that there are many such pages so this is a (fairly) big issue. It Is Me Here (talk) 08:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hate to put in a pramgatic issue. Even if we adopt this, how can this ever be consistently implemented. If we cannot enforce it; or "bot" it, I don't think this will fly. Arnoutf (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the current system seems to be working fairly consistently, considering that there's no bot enforcing it, it's just a guideline, and even the guideline only recommends it. People will fix misplaced disambig pages when they see them — often all it takes is a single pagemove. Certainly we could have a bot helping to enforce either system, and I don't think it would even be particularly hard to set up. But we seem to be doing okay without one, and I doubt the proposed change would affect that (except for requiring a bunch of pagemoves to implement the changeover). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
We could ask the developers to have the search function work in such a way that if you enter "Xx (disambiguation)" and click Go, and the page doesn't exist, but "Xx" does, it automatically goes to "Xx". (In the same way that if you enter a title in lower-case, you stand to get taken to an article with different capitalization.) But I don't know if enough people actually do this to make it worthwhile (disambiguation is an awfully long word to type...)--Kotniski (talk) 08:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Well I certainly type "Mole (disambiguation)", say, when looking for the article on the TV series called The Mole, but maybe Xx (d) or Xx (dm) could be made to redirect to Xx (disambiguation), just like WP:Xx? It Is Me Here (talk) 08:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Then that is the problem - users typing "(disambiguation)" when they should be navigating using the hatnotes we so generously provide. :o) 217.36.107.9 (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I cannot see this going far when we have yet to see CAT: made into a pseudo-namespace for the Category namespace. Waltham, The Duke of 21:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Why would we want to do this? This proposal is far more confusing then our current set up --T-rex 14:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so - maybe it's just the way I phrased it (sorry for not using Foo and Bar, by the way, I'm not very clued up on Wikipedia lingo!). Basically, when you type "Something (disambiguation)" at the moment in the hope of finding an article on one of the secondary meanings of Something, there is always a change (as was the case with Taxi (disambiguation)) that that page does not exist and that a page with a normal-looking title (e.g. Taxi) is, in fact, a disambiguation page. Thus, having all normal-looking pages as either articles or redirects to disambiguation pages, which themselves end with "(Disambiguation)", should make things a lot clearer. It Is Me Here (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I shouldn't mind seeing redirects from the names with the "disambiguation" clarifiers to the proper pages, at least where they are in demand (I do not believe we should flood the place with useless redirects). However, I do object to having perfectly good names like Lift and Mercury accompanied by such a clarifier when it is not necessary. It's not just the fact that it will look downright strange for us not to have articles with the plain titles for so famous concepts. In Wikipedia, we operate on an "is it needed?" basis: we use the most common, preferably English, name for something, and if disambiguation is needed, then we paste the parenthetical clarifiers. We do not want to complicate titles without a significant pay-off, and I do not consider standardising disambiguation pages (which all bear appropriate identification by means of a template) such a pay-off. Especially since disambiguation pages are not meant to be accessed directly except a) by general search, b) from a hatnote, or c) from another (disambiguation) page's "See also" section. (Almost all other links should be redirected.) Interesting proposal, but it's more trouble than it's worth. Waltham, The Duke of 21:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
We don't have an article at either Lift or Mercury. What we have at those titles are disambiguation pages, which aren't real articles. Nobody's going to print out Mercury and take it with them to read on a bus trip, thinking "Oh, I so wanna learn that list of all those things named 'Mercury'!" —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, that sounded silly. I've stricken it. You haven't addressed the other arguments, though. Waltham, The Duke of 22:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I think there is some fundamental merit to the suggestion. But I don't think people should ever be expected (or trained) to enter "Some phrase (disambiguation)" in the search box; rather, they should enter "Some phrase", and then click the hatnote link to a disambiguation page if there is an article called "Some phrase" that isn't the meaning they're after. (That's a lot fewer keystrokes.) Rather, I see the merit of the suggestion being that if someone types "Some phrase", and it's been agreed that there is no single meaning of "Some phrase" that is dominant, then Some phrase would be a redirect to Some phrase (disambiguation). Or, to be specific, if Taxi is a disambiguation word, then it should redirect to Taxi (disambiguation), and foo (disambigation) should never point to foo.
The advantages of always having disambiguation pages have "(disambiguation)" in them are several: (a) it would make it clearer that though these are pages in mainspace, they have special rules that apply; (b) if some phrase ever does become a single dominant subject, it's easy to change it from a redirect to an article, with a hatnote on top pointing to some phrase (disambiguation); (c) it's easier to tell when a wikilink in an article links to a disambiguation page (bad), because the link (via a redirect) will be to a page with "disambiguation" in the title (for example, it would be easier to create a gadget that would turn such links a different color, for editors interested in fixing them); and (d) it would make it easier for a change to the "random article" link (never link to any article with "(disambiguation)" in its title).
Granted, these are not overwhelming advantages, and experienced editors are used to the current system. But it certainly simplifies things if some phrase is always, always either an article or a redirect, and never a disambiguation page, and all disambiguation pages have "(disambiguation)" as part of their title. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that it's worth moving all of them, but I do think it would be worthwhile to make sure that if Foo is a disambig page then Foo (disambiguation) always exists and points to it. A bot could create those redirects without much trouble. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback, guys. I shall now try to address the various points that have been raised here which I have not yet addressed:
  1. Regarding the argument that "(disambiguation)" takes too long to type, could a new D: pseudo-namespace not be created for disambiguation pages? Or could Something (d) automatically become Something (Disambiguation) once you hit "Go"? I'm just not sure that pseudo-namespaces can go at the end of something, but both D:... and ...(d) seem to be unused at the moment and so perhaps both systems could be implemented.
  2. There now seems to have emerged two arguments as to what to do with disambiguation pages. The first is my original argument that a certain page which has no article about it without another word after it in brackets because its primary use cannot be agreed upon (such as Foo, say) should automatically redirect to Foo (Disambiguation) to make things clearer for casual readers and stop disambiguation pages from cropping up as random articles. The second argument says that, in fact, Foo (Disambiguation) should redirect to Foo to avoid using words in brackets where it can be avoided. To be honest, I don't mind which way round we do this, but I still maintain that a bot should be set up to do one of those things, so that, in future, typing "Foo (Disambiguation)", or possibly even "d:foo", will always take you to a page rather than taking you to some search results. It Is Me Here (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If agreement forms I can do the bot work. Here are possible options that have been mentioned.

  1. Do nothing.
  2. Move all disambiguation pages to end with the word (disambiguation) if they don't already. This would leave redirects from the present locations.
  3. Ensure that if a redirect page does not end in the word (disambiguation), a redirect is created that does. Example: Foo (disambiguation) redirects to Foo.
  4. Create a new namespace Disambiguation: that would contain all disambiguation pages, with shortcut D:.

I'm interested to know how people feel about those three options. I think that #2 is slightly preferable to #3 because it leaves things in a more uniform state, and that #4 adds unnecessary complexity. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that #2 would require changes to the DAB guideline, which currently specifies that the DAB should be at Foo when there is not a real article there; if that's the route people want then someone should post a note at WT:DAB to notify anyone there about this proposed change.
Any option except #4 would be acceptable to me, although I lean towards #1 because anyone who knows enough about Wikipedia to type in the "(disambiguation)" will probably know enough to create the missing redirect. Also, IMO the "(d)" mentioned above is not necessary. Anomie⚔ 15:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

One problem with reversing the current set up (no primary topic yields a disambiguation page at "base name" and, when needed, a redirect from "base name (disambiguation)") to the new proposal (no primary topic yields a redirect "base name" to "base name (disambiguation)" is that it will likely result in more edit wars at the base name redirect as editors continue to change the target from the redirect (no primary topic) to the article they feel is the primary topic. Since I don't see the additional benefits as described above (the two solutions seem otherwise equivalent), I don't think a change in the setup is needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Re: Anomie, why should we do nothing and hope that people create redirects when they come across them when we could have a bot do the job for us and make sure that every redirect that we need to be created, is created?
  • Re: JHunterJ, again, if you want to reverse my proposal, as it were, and have Foo (Disambiguation) redirect to Foo when Foo isn't an article, I have no problem with that, but if that's the consensus, then let's get on and do it.
  • If you don't like the D: or (d) namespace idea, fair enough.
Also, is now a good time to wrap things up and start a poll to see whether this is going to go through or not, or should we wait for more people to submit their arguments? It Is Me Here (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I may be misunderstanding, It Is Me Here, but your suggestion to JHunterJ of "have Foo (Disambiguation) redirect to Foo when Foo isn't an article" is what we currently have for disambiguation guidelines, and is enforced, as it were. Sometimes we will run into the opposite case, when someone who doesn't know the disambiguation guidelines creates a disambiguation page at "Something (disambiguaiton)" when there is no article at "Something", but those all get listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages (I know someone linked to that before), and get fixed.
As for the suggestion in general... I can see a certain streamlined-ness to having all disambiguation pages at "Term (disambiguation)", but somewhat along the same lines as JHunterJ, I think the current naming conventions for pages allow for the best handling of primary topic situations. It is very clear when there is or is not a primary topic for any given term (if there is an actual article at "Term", or if instead there is a disambiguation page there). Having all disambiguation pages a "Term (disambiguation)" would make this much less clear, and, as JHunterJ mentioned, would probably add to more edit warring over the primary topic (which goodness knows there is already enough of). I don't think that the consistancy provided by all disambiguation pages being located at "Term (disambiguation)" overrides that. -- Natalya 16:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
It Is Me Here, the fallacy in that argument is the assumption that we "need" all those redirects. But I have nothing against such a bot if someone wants to run one, it won't hurt anything. Anomie⚔ 16:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I vote "Do nothing." The naming conventions say to use the simplest name that is not ambiguous as the title of a page. Foo is simpler than Foo (disambiguation). --Russ (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I understand that you do not want the current guidelines changed, but (and this is especially directed at Russ of those who posted after my last post) why not have what is currently a guideline to be observed by users now be enforced by a bot? Creating redirects is rather simple, menial work that could be performed by a bot and creating one to make all these redirects (again, they can be from Foo (Disambiguation) to Foo, if you like) will make sure that people get where they need when they type "Foo (Disambiguation)" in search of an article about a secondary meaning of "Foo". Thus, how can you possibly be against the current guidelines being enforced by a bot (and, presumably, Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages being made redundant, freeing people up to do other things)? It Is Me Here (talk) 08:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't particularly object to having redirects for all disambiguation pages (If I understand correctly, also creating "Term (disambiguation)" to redirect to "Term"), but I personally wouldn't push for it - I don't know how many people actually search for "Term (disambiguation)" in the search bar (although, the fact that you do, It Is Me Here, is kind of impressive :) ). I don't think Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages can be made redundant, though - to fix most of the pages that show up on that list, one has to delete the corresponding redirect (but, for a large portion of the time, that redirect has more than one entry in its history, so you can't just move over the redirect. Also, some of the pages that show up there (thankfully, not all of them) require fixing a cut-and-paste move. Both of these things require an actual person to look at to deicde if/what needs to happen, and an administrator to follow through with them.
That was probably just an unnecessary defence of Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages... but anyway! -- Natalya 18:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
You (It is Me Here) are talking about Option #3, right? I guess I see that as a lot of work for very little benefit, since as Natalya just said it seems doubtful that many people explicitly search for disambig pages. On the other hand, redirects are cheap, so I guess it wouldn't do much harm, either. --Russ (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I am indeed talking about Option #3, and I would have actually said that this would save people a lot of work in the long run as there would be a bot creating all the necessary redirects instead of people, hence freeing editors up to do other things. It Is Me Here (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Do nothing. The fourth option requires assuming every new casual browser to Wikipedia learn a system to fully use our site, which is defintiely not good. rearranging crap just for sake of uniformity isn't needed either. Lift and Mercury are perfect cases for leaving things alone. The casual user comes in, types in one of those, and gets taken right to where they need to be, a list of pages that might be what they need. I personally saw a friend's parent get bounced to a disambig and immediately type in their topic again, not understanding it at first. After explanation, he got it, but why should he have that to begin with? In cases of equal likelihood of intent, then using it as a redirect is fine as is, otherwise hatnote to the disambig, like we already do. Don't mess with success when there are plenty of flaws in this system. ThuranX (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So you wouldn't even support having a bot create Foo (Disambiguation) → Foo redirects (thereby upholding the current guidelines), which could only strengthen the current system? And if not, why not? As many people have said before, it would not do any harm to have a bot enforce the policy. It Is Me Here (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I'll try to argue my case over at WP:BOTREQ too. It Is Me Here (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

For interested parties, a discussion regarding the bot is now going on at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 108#Bot creation of disambiguation redirects. Cheers, --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Not all disambiguation pages should end with "(disambiguation)". Take the Mercury example. I reckon that Mercury (element) and Mercury (planet) are equally popular, and if not, there are other topics that are. If two things are equally notable, then how do you decide which one gets the non-bracketed page, and which gets a bracket? You don't. Both get the brackets and then you get something like Mercury. I don't mind a bot coming along and redirecting Mercury (disambiguation) to Mercury (which already does by the way, but that's just an example. Deamon138 (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Special interest group actions

It appears that whenever articles are published in the Wikipedia that cover certain topics they are attacked by every means from nomination for deletion to making the article so nebulous that it might as well not be published. This effort appears to be carried out by members of various special interest groups for such artificial reasons as "protecting trade secrets" at best and "protecting documentation sales" at worst. Is this particular threat against Wikipedia article existence and viability recognized by the administration of the Wikipedia? -- adaptron (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I know what you're talking about, so unless you give some specifics, I'd say no. Mr.Z-man 14:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, give us an example please. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay... For instance, I know several obscure techniques that I learned from various sources, mainly from dusting off some relic of a printed publication in the basement stacks of some forgotten school library. A question comes up about the topic and when I go online I find only references to it listed on pay per view sites like the IEEE or the ACM web sites. In many cases, however, there is usually a free site from which the information can be obtained but in other cases it has been sequestered and held for ransom by the site. I thought this was in fact one of the reasons the Wikipedia was created; to make available at no charge, except for the voluntary obligation to edit on its behalf, arcane information one might have to otherwise pay and arm and a leg to see. -- adaptron (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Yes, often the boundary between what is acceptable and what is not is fuzzy. But Wikipedia isn't a place to store miscellaneous, minor notes as articles. A sentence or two and a single citation for something that could be an article is only going to result in a deletion if it is an article. As a workaround, you might consider creating a subpage in your user space with notes about things that you think should be articles, but lack enough citations and other information to clearly show notability. Then either you might find time, later, to add to the topic and make it an article, or another editor might come across the information and run with it.
And there isn't anything wrong with adding a link, at the appropriate line within a subpage of Wikipedia:Requested articles, to notes that you're made about a requested topic. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The reason I use an encyclopedia is to have a brief but in depth look at a topic. In most cases the very reason I need an encyclopedia is to find both sources and expansion on a topic which is not notable while leaving notable works for books. In other words the idea here is reversed, use an encyclopedia to expand on notable topics versus touching briefly on any topic at least one person has found notable enough to edit. It is this fundamental difference in concept that sends me first to Google where I must go to find out if a topic exists, to an encyclopedia article next to get a complete summary and next to sources and expanded works via links and citations. In other words Google search to find something, Wikipedia to provide complete summary (if the issue of notability were reversed) and to books and other sources to find expansion of detail. That way, as a reader or researcher, I get everything I need. The question here is whether organizations like the IEEE and the ACM profit by selling articles on information they have sequestered to assure themselves of customers by monopolizing that information through promoting deletions here. Julie Dancer (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_50&oldid=1145855372"