Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 69

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This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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

Why warn IP users?

Just curious, please answer on my talk page if I'm at the wrong place: Why do we post warnings to IP users if they must go out of their way to see their "user page"? It makes no sense to me to write You will be blocked if you continue to... if nobody actually gets these messages. Would it not make more sense to do either of the following:

  1. provide a link to "My Talk" for IP users (technical suggestion)
  2. to just log warnings without the speech like "IP A.B.C.D vandalized Article on date." (policy suggestion}

--Pgallert (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the You have new messages template will show up for unregistered users as well, I believe the truth will set me free. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
It should yes. Prodego talk 17:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I remember getting such a notification once. But once you read the message the alert does not come back, and in an institution it easily happens that someone else gets the warning and you miss it. (I just logged out to check) I do not get any link to the talk page and I know this IP is getting warnings all the time (User talk:196.12.10.5, if our IP has not suddenly changed). --Pgallert (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I may test this out sometime, but I had understood that IP editors did get the orange bar encouraging them to see their talkpage. Also whilst I haven't seen stats as to numbers of level 1, 2 3 and 4 warnings, my assumption is that each level succeeds in deterring a proportion of vandals from continuing. ϢereSpielChequers 17:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it happens. One time I got into wikipedia from a public place and the new messages orange bar was there (clearly, with a message for someone who was sitting there at some point before me). The interesting part would be that I found that, once the message is read and the screen left, theres no intuitive way to go back to that screen other than browsing backwards. MBelgrano (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
There's a link to your IP's discussion page in the upper-right corner, if I remember correctly. Equazcion (talk) 17:30, 30 Oct 2009 (UTC)
No there isn't. "Try Beta" and "Login / Create account" is there. --Pgallert (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly the problem, once this message is read it's gone. In organisations with a proxy the back button doesn't help, either. I mean, templates like {{sharedipedu}} are totally meaningless if the IP users cannot see them. Pgallert (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you do get the bright yellow bar as an IP, as well, and I can attest to that. I got one last week, when, before I logged in, somebody using the IP I operate from at home decided to do a little vandalism. MuZemike 23:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

They are totally meaningless. The warnings are for admins to decide that they have been uselessly warned enough times before a block is enforced. Angryapathy (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah good, at least one other sane person around here;) I was beginning to think I was on my own.--Kotniski (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Yup. I use the warnings to see if the IP is currently active and vandalising, has a record of vandalising etc. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
That bothers me. I always assumed IP editors could easily access their talk pages and view their current warnings. Talk pages don't act as great record keepers, unless everyone who places warnings and requests/makes blocks looks through the page's history to see if any were removed by the IP, and I'm betting the vast majority of vandal-fighters do not. Warnings are supposed to be for the user, not for us; the latter being an incidental convenience. I think the IP interface should be modified to let IPs get to their talk pages more easily. Equazcion (talk) 18:48, 30 Oct 2009 (UTC)
I've started a proposal here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Provide_interface_link_to_talk_page_for_IP_editors Equazcion (talk) 20:26, 30 Oct 2009 (UTC)


An IP user gets the "you have new messages" notification as soon as they open up Wikipedia. I know this because it has happened occasionally to me, before I have logged on as a user, and a message intended for another user has been waiting there. Presumably the notification does not come back once the user talk page has been seen, just as it doesn't for logged on users. However, many IP editors will stick with the same IP address for a long time, either because they have a static IP address or because they have a dynamic IP address but keep connected 24 hours a day; in both these cases the messages will be just as personal to the user as if they were a registered user. In fact it is more certain that they will get the message than if they had been a logged-on registered user, as the message appears, as I have said, as soon as they open Wikipedia, and not only if and when they log on.
As for an IP user who does not have a fixed personal IP address, obviously any message is likely to be read by someone completely different, but what can we do about that? If the user is likely next time to edit with a different IP address then there is no way we can contact them, however much we change the interface, as we have no way of knowing it is the same user. In the case where the user is likely to come back with the same IP address, but others are likely to have used it in the meanwhile (eg a shared computer), we are in a different situation. I agree in a way it might be better in this case to change the interface to make it easier to view messages, but I think there are two other points to bear in mind. Firstly, it would still be impossible to notify a user of a new message. If the "you have new messages" notification did not disappear once the new message had been read then it would become permanent and therefore meaningless. Secondly, I think we should remember that the non-logged-in user interface exists primarily for the majority of Wikipedia editors, who read it and do not edit it, and it might well confuse them to be given a tag labelled "discussion", only to find that it led to a page full of messages they did not understand, quite possibly threatening them with being "blocked" if they continued to do things they had no knowledge of. I am therefore not sure that the change would not do more harm than good. My personal opinion is that the best way to deal with this problem would be to ban all editing by non-registered users, but I know that consensus is against this.
To return to the question at the head of this section, "Why warn IP users?", I think there are several reasons. (1) Many, I strongly suspect most, IP users do keep the same IP address either indefinitely or at least for a long time, and for these users warnings are just as effective as for registered users.We should not forget this. (2) Even in other cases there is a chance that the relevant user may see the message, and it can do no harm to try. (3) The existence of strings of these warnings does help to determine future actions. Equazcion is quite right in pointing out that lists of warnings are not a reliable indicator unless one looks through edit history, but on the other hand many users do not delete old warnings, and also some editors do make a habit of checking edit history before posting warnings: I do, for example. Even though the system is not perfect, it can be very helpful. I don't agree that "warnings are supposed to be for the user, not for us"; they are principally intended for the user, but they are also for us. (4) We have a duty to at least try to give users a warning before blocking them. It would be better if we could guarantee that the message would get through, but we still have to try. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

IP users don't have to go out of their way to see their talk page. I just go to the last page I edited and click on the talk link beside my IP as the editor on the page or in the page history or I can click on my IP as the contributor in the history and see the talk page link in the upper left. I've edited as an IP for years. I have rolling addresses, and sometimes I want to go back and find something. It's not a problem at all. --69.226.106.109 (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Or you can type in Special:Mytalk to get to your talk page, whether you're logged in or not. A direct link to your IP address talk page used to display (and still does on a default installation of MediaWiki), but that was disabled due to the addition of squid caches in 2004 (I can't find the exact link at the moment). Graham87 14:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
And how are new, unlogged-in users supposed to know that? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Enable the 'emailconfirmed" user group

MediaWiki has an "emailconfirmed" group (see mw:Manual:User_rights) which prevents any editing until an email address is confirmed. This is not used on Wikipedia. I would like to see it activated for a trial period to see if it reduces the work on Wikipedia:New pages patrol and vandalism in general. A percentage of new pages by new accounts are vandalism. It is possible that the need to supply an email address will deter vandal accounts (and there are plenty of those - see Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming that's been suggested in the past, and there's some reason it hasn't been done. It does seem to make some sense though, that a registered name should have a verified email, and I don't think it would be any significant burden to the user during registration or to the servers. Someone else that knows the history of this will hopefully be able to enlighten us. Equazcion (talk) 04:52, 1 Nov 2009 (UTC)
The requirement to confirm an email address before it is used was introduced in March 2006, so that the Wikimedia email servers could be unblocked from a spam blacklist; it was never meant as a substitute for the autoconfirmed usergroup. Your proposal would disadvantage people who choose not to attach an email address to their account. There have been proposals to only allow editing from users with registered email addresses, but that's an entirely different kettle of fish. Graham87 13:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The most basic possible point.

Don't get tense but this is not the 'people's encyclopaedia' it's obviously just typed out by the public. By insisting on references you allow power to control the content, because power controls what constitutes a legitimate reference - typically, the often bought and paid for, university academic.

This is just a statement of the undeniably obvious. It you say something like: 'Oh well, if you take that sort of line nothing works.' Then you are just double-thinking as our masters would wish.

This is so fundamental it is absurd I have to bring it up.

The rationale is, as I understand it, to keep out 'physics cranks'. For heaven's sake is that the best you can come up with? In order to keep out 'physics cranks' you sell the thing out to power and betray the demos.

It really isn't good enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sporus (talk • contribs) 03:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ehh... wich is the question or proposal? MBelgrano (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not just physics cranks but every other sort of crank, not to mention spammers, etc. etc. There is system which is free for anyone to post whatever they like with few controls, it's called usenet. But I think Wikipedia has a better reputation for reliability and that's because of the controls it imposes on itself. Perhaps the published sources criterion isn't perfect, but there has to be some objective criterion and so far on one has come up with a better one.--RDBury (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the OP is saying that he doesn't think he should have to provide references. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
What is the distinction between "people's encyclopedia" and that which is "typed out by the public?" It is not clear what you mean by "power." Bus stop (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe they mean "people's" in a communistic sense, as opposed to an encyclopedia by "The Man" or "The system". --Cybercobra (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
But "typed out by the public" does not seem "establishment" oriented either. "Typed out by the public" seems to me to imply pretty much the same thing as "people's encyclopedia." That's why I'm asking what the distinction is between the two. Bus stop (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleting articles that are not sourced

I've idly wondered sometimes about proposals for deleting articles that are not sourced, perhaps within, say, two weeks after they are created. Has this been discussed before? What were the arguments for/against it? Buckshot06(prof) 09:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It probably has but I'd say it's a bad idea simply because of the backlog of perfectly reasonable articles that no one has bothered to look up references for yet. One criticism of the way Wikipedia works is that everyone gets to do what they want to do, so it's like a newspaper where everyone gets to be a reporter and no one wants to be fact checker. It's easy to find lists of articles with no references and you're welcome to start going through them, add references where appropriate and PROD the articles if not. I don't think you'll get a lot of appreciation but I can promise you some good kharma.--RDBury (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't PROD articles, that just an indication of how well known the article is. Take it to afd, as "not sourced" is not a legitimate reason for deletion on its own. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

'Delayed' speedy deletions

This is a proposal to make optionally speedy deletion templates for certain criteria more user-friendly, for those articles that don't obviously meet the criteria or could be improved to no longer meet them. Please see and comment on the proposal here. Cenarium (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conflict no longer marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Naming conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Was apparently merged into Wikipedia:Naming conventions --Cybercobra (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

New essay at Wikipedia:Linkrot

Over the past few weeks, several editors have revamped the Wikipedia:Linkrot essay. Please take a look.--Blargh29 (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Allow new editors to move, but only from user space

One of the more common questions at the various help desks is how to move an article from user space to article space. This type of request will become more common as more people use the New Article Wizard and accept the advice to create a new article in user space. New users do not have the "move" button until they are auto-confirmed. I don't know the complete reasoning behind disallowing moves for four days, but I presume that someone has concluded or observed that one can vandalize by moving existing articles to new locations. If that is the rationale, it might make sense to allow moves from user space to article space, while continuing to disallow moves from article space to article space. I realize this may be technically non-trivial, but before I formally propose the idea, is there something I'm missing? Is there a good reason to disallow moving an article from user space to article space for new editors?--SPhilbrickT 15:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

We have had very real problems with page move vandalism in the past (although it is perfectly easy to fix - did it used to be harder and that's why it was restricted? I can't remember). I don't see any significant problems with allowing new users to move things out of their own user space and I don't see any technical problems with implementing it. --Tango (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Support. Between various pages I monitor such as WP:NCHD, WP:HD, CAT:HM and WP:RM, I am seeing a ten-fold increase in users needing to move pages from their userspace to the mainspace since the article wizard was implemented. It's true, a page move vandal could exploit this, but with the abuse filter's move throttle, we aren't as vulnerable as we once were.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to tell you how to stick beans up your nose, but pagemove vandalism can be a massive disruptive disaster. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 15:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but an ability limited to moving pages out of your userspace to pages that don't exist is merely equivalent to the already existing ability to create new pages. Ergo pagemove vandalism is not an issue for implementing this limited ability. I think implementing this is very helpful, bordering on necessary. Rd232 talk 15:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
That would completely undermine the restriction on new users creating pages in article space, if all they had to do was create it in user space first and then immediately move it. Postdlf (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
It would if such a restriction existed, but currently any registered user can create pages anywhere. Mr.Z-man 19:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, ok. I didn't realize it was just a restriction on unregistered users. Postdlf (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Support as well, this seems like a great move to me. Any info on implementation. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 20:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, implementing this would go nicely with the proposal at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/userfication. Rd232 talk 23:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Most definitely. It's obnoxious of us to tell new users to create something in their userspace instead of the mainspace and then not let them move a good article once they've finished working on it. This absolutely should be allowed for non-autoconfirmed. It might even encourage more users to create articles in userspace if this hole is closed up. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Process question - I posted this in the policy section because I feared there was some nuance of existing policy that would make the idea non-starter. That doesn't appear to be the case, and I'm happy to hear some belief that it wouldn't be a technical nightmare. Should I write this up as a formal proposal in the Proposal section or assume that those who could implement this are reading this thread as well? --SPhilbrickT 12:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it'll need dev action, so it needs someone to file a bug. (a) Need to find someone who can do that. (b) need to show some support for the idea, to make implementation of the bug more likely to happen anytime soonish. Incidentally, I filed the related Wikipedia:Requests for comment/userfication 4 days ago... zero responses so far... what's up with that... Rd232 talk 12:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
RFC? Rd232 talk 14:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that pages created in user space show up as new pages. Do they show up as pages that haven't been patrolled? --Onorem♠Dil 15:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...I do see now that you can filter the New Pages page for userspace. Hadn't noticed that before. I'm sure this would be used to sneak vandalism into article space, but the good may outweigh the bad. Couldn't something be added to the article wizard explaining how moving works, and informing them to ask if someone would be willing to move it for them at 'random noticeboard x' if they just can't wait a few days? --Onorem♠Dil 16:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, I agree that 'how do I move my article' is a very common question on the various boards, but one of the most common answers I've seen is, 'This is how, but if you're talking about the page you created in your userspace, please note (...random reasons why it would not be appropriate to move it into article space...)' --Onorem♠Dil 16:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I noted that this has been an issue. But sometimes when (confirmed) new users move their draft in userspace, they get the title wrong, so they have to move it again. If we allowed for new (unconfirmed) users to move only from their userspace, they couldn't correct it thereafter. There's also the perennial problem of users moving their userpage edited as a 'profile' to article space, or self-renaming, this would increase it. As for patrolling those, I had created Special:AbuseFilter/185 for non-admin cross-namespace moves, this got disabled because it's quite common among users (and also because it rings bells on IRC) but we could re-discuss this, for example using it only on users with less than 100 edits or not autoreviewers. Back on the main point, we may have alternative to this, for example using a template {{move draft}} for new users to request a move. It would be quite simple for new users (much simpler than moving), you put on {{Userspace draft}} and in help pages something like 'to move your draft to article space, add {{move draft}} below.' And {{move draft}} adds a tracking category. Cenarium (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It's used, check out Category:Requests to move a userspace draft. Cenarium (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Do guidelines HAVE to be adhered to

According to WP:ELG, exit lists should use abbreviations. Assuming a cleaner table is made that avoids the need for abbreviations, is it correct to assume that style issues remain the decision of the individual editor? MUST an abbreviation be used, or is it an option, provided the article remains consistent throughout with that decision? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

IAR applies to policies and guidelines. If your change in table format makes it cleaner and makes the article better without the need for abbreviations then you can do whatever you want that improves the article without adhering to the guideline. A guideline is just what it sounds like, it guides you but is not mandatory.Camelbinky (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Thats what I thought. I am being told I HAVE to adhere to the exit guide list and use abbreviations, but I don't wish to, and would prefer to have it spelt out in full. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
WP:IAR is not a license to ignore every single rule; you have to have a pretty darn good reason. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I think consistency across articles is important. That's part of what guidelines are for. You can ignore rules if you have a good reason for thinking it would benefit the encyclopedia overall in a particular situation, but otherwise they should be adhered to. Equazcion (talk) 01:29, 2 Nov 2009 (UTC)
Then I say Floydian should present his case on why the guideline in his opinion is outdated and is it that his new table format already takes care of the problem the guideline was created to rectify? If he can show that, it's my opinion that it would alright for him to change the format per IAR. I work on tables alot (Here and a sandbox here so I'm sort-of an expert on the mark-up for them) and I'm pretty sure that generically at least when going up for a table-based article for a Featured List abbreviations are discouraged since not everyone will know what the full word is (we write for non-specialists remember); I dont know about exit lists though and assume they have different needs but it seems the guideline may violate a broader policy on the use of abbreviations. User:Mitchazenia‎ is an expert on road/highway articles (has created/promoted LOTS of GAs and FAs); I would recommend someone contact him and get his thoughts on whether it should be allowed.Camelbinky (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To answer the question, no. MOS should be followed if you want a GA or FA though.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 01:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I do follow the general WP:MOS, but some of the more obscure guidelines I will throw to the wind if things look better another way. I'm also big on consistency, and if the styles I'm adapting on a few test articles work nicely for me, I'll be extending them across the Canadian roads. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, to make my case (Per Camelbinky's request), I present two versions of one of the articles I've written. The first version is my preference, which doesn't stick to the semantics or lawyered guidelines that WP:USRD members would like me to. The second version - in my userspace - uses abbreviations, as well as featuring the re-distribution of images (The map to the infobox, the image below it. The preference of at least one editor.), which I'm guessing is because its unheard of to put something other than a map in the "map" parameter.
I think you will clearly see which version better presents the infomation. I've checked both on my desktop monitor, and my widescreen laptop monitor, and it appears the same. The first version is very clearly superior, and I believe others (From outside of the American road perspective) will agree with me on that.
Place some votes. Note that there is still more prose to go in the article, so the map won't forever be the furthest item down the page - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm a "USRD member" by what I choose to edit, but I say this as a Wikipedia editor: the first article is one of the strangest I've seen in a while. Seeing "Kawartha Lakes Road x" many times in the table is distracting, less so than a shortened form would be. The junction list notes are for the most part excessive; most of them are better suited for a route description. Also, if you wish to enlarge the map in the infobox, there's always the "map_custom" parameter, which overrides the set height size. There's never a good reason to insert a picture in the infobox in place of a map. Of course, after reading the comments posted above and on other pages, you appear to be so rooted in your stance that I doubt my opinion - which I believe in my heart to be independent - will matter any to you. – TMF 21:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Its not that I'm firmly rooted (perhaps in the abbreviation ordeal), I'd just like to know why, instead of just "because. Yes, perhaps the notes are excessive, but most of their content (esp. the ones regarding the name of the road) will eventually go in a route description paragraph, but why must the map go in the infobox? It pushes important information down due to its position in the infobox. At its current width, it is essentially an extension of the infobox. Why is there 'never a good reason' for this? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 09:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, by not abbreviating the road names, you get needless repetition, which is unprofessional in any case. However when long text strings are included in a table they stretch the table out and, if there's still more text than can fit, start introducing automatic line breaks. This is, frankly, tacky and just looks unorganized.
Consider your article's place within the wider canon of road literature available on this site. With regard to the map, you want to have the map in the same place on every article because then users form the expectation that it can be found there, and if it is not there, they can safely assume no map exists for the article yet. Consider the "Rule of Least Surprise" as outlined in Eric S. Raymond's The Art of UNIX Programming. As you describe yourself as "big on consistency", you should be able to easily understand and apply this concept to the article. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The concept that we can't bring about change because too many things are using the current standard is rediculous. I can keep the consistency as I do these articles throughout Southern Ontario. I'd also rather repeat information than have readers wonder "What does CKL mean?" - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to create guideline regarding reference overkill, i.e. multiple references for a single, simple sentence

Wikipedia has a guideline against WP:Overlinking, but there is no guideline against over-referencing, and I suggest we create one. Responding to a content issue on an article I had been involved with prior to the subject's recent and untimely death, I wrote, "...multiple references for a single statement are only required when that statement is something like 'various sources have...', or '(responses/reviews) were mostly (positive/negative)'. Three and four refs for a single declarative statement of fact is gratuitous and seems to serve no purpose other than to declare that the subject or the story is getting lots of press, which isn't entirely the point."

In fact, among many double-reffed sentences, there are simple and uncontroversial statements of fact with five and even six refs. An example of the sort of sentence being over-referenced: at the end of four paragraphs of amply (indeed over-) referenced coverage of the backlash against a newspaper editorial comes the five-word sentence "Scotland Yard received a complaint." This is followed by four references. Four refs for five words about one complaint, when the whole section is about the general complaint and has almost twenty refs preceding these four.

In response to my talk page comment, an editor responded, "I believe that there is no accepted Wikipedia consensus or guidance as to this point and the reverse may be true (in that editors are encouraged to not remove relevant reliable sources), if you know of some guidance that supports your viewpoint I'd be grateful for a link to it."

Surely the observation "the reverse may be true" cannot be the case. Surely Wikipedia does not intend for sentences that are neither complex nor controversial to be referenced to as many as three, four, five or six sources, as in the article in question. If "the reverse" were true, and applies to six refs, why would an editor stop there? To prove his favorite subject had gotten a lot of press (perhaps more than a competing subject), why wouldn't he prove it by noting every ref he can find, if it be seven, seventeen, or seventy-seven? I despise the "slippery slope" argument, and indeed my problem is not with an imaginary 77 but with so many simple statements actually given two, three, four, five, and six refs each.

I have experience with contentious political articles and I don't argue against multiple refs when there is good reason for them. Of course I realize that good, concise encyclopedia writing would have us crafting sentences that dispense several pieces of information which may require several sources, and there may be cases where editorial consensus could not be reached on which of two or three refs was most appropriate in tone or context and so all are included. However, in the absence of any compelling reason, I suggest the guideline be that when a single reliable source adequately conveys a fact, then adding superfluous additional sources is discouraged.


For full disclosure, I brought this up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2009_October_31#Multiple_references on October 31, 2009, where I inquired if such a guideline existed, if such a discussion had transpired elsewhere, or where I might begin one. Some comment ensued there but the drift was that this is the place to have that discussion.

As this is my first such suggestion, should the community decide it is appropriate to move forward on this, I invite guidance in that process. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't noticed it being a massive problem, and would hope that common sense would prevail. However, almost by definition it never does, and I have encountered over-referencing of a different kind before. See this edit. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Abrazame, I'm very interested in the issue, but still want to more fully understand your concern. See the question on your talk page, for details.--SPhilbrickT 14:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, I've already responded to your comments where you posted them at the Help desk page. If you'd like to transfer that post of yours to continue the conversation here for the benefit of this discussion, I'd transfer my response. Abrazame (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Scroll up one line from Christ_myth_theory#toc for a prime example. 14 references for a single sentence. --King Öomie 13:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Respectfully, the Christ myth theory statement is a broad statement alleging widespread dismissal in academic and other circles is precisely the sort of universal statement about a controversial issue that does justify several refs. Presuming each of those refs introduces a different iteration of the dismissal, I would support 14 refs as one ref could be itself dismissed as a limited point of view. I'm not talking about multiple references to support complex or controversial points of view, I'm talking about multiple references for simple statements of fact. Abrazame (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I've quite often seen such things as a result of some sort of editing dispute - people add multiple references in order to stress the point to other editors that the statement in question is supported. In that sort of case I think people should be encouraged to leave just one reference visible, and leave the rest as comments or on the talk page. --Kotniski (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Leaving of one reference results in it's removal in my experience, especially if there is another conflicting reference. SunCreator (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The List of HTTP status codes edit seems fine. The Christ myth theory one though 13 references to one paragragh that does seem over the top. SunCreator (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a solution to do both things (keep the article legible, and do not reject valid references) can be a template to show/hide references at such cases (like with some navigational templates or wikiproject templates). Hidden would have, instead of many numbers, a single symbol for showing them. MBelgrano (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, I think articles should be presented with no footnotes showing, and a button for the interested reader to turn them on. If you want evidence that footnotes are visually distracting, note the convention to make sure there are no footnotes in the portion of a Featured Article on the Main page. I'm not opposed to referencing articles, it is critical, but I don't see the need to throw it in the face of the reader. I bet the media reader doesn't check a footnote, which, if true, means we enabled a feature for the minority of readers. A toggle allows us to deliver to both camps, those that simply want to read about something, and those others that want to read more, or find out how some fact is supported.--SPhilbrickT 14:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the no-footnotes rule is a technical issue- the software would add the footnotes to the bottom of the main page. --King Öomie 14:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction. I think it looks better without footnotes, but apparently that wasn't the motivation.--SPhilbrickT 15:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Inline citations are not an invention of Wikipedia, I have many books that make deep use of them. MBelgrano (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


The problem isn't at all that multiple references are being used as support for a single sentence; that should always be seen as a good thing, because it allows for more substantial support for a statement (particularly to counter the impression that it's a minority view) and it allows a reader more opportunity to follow up on a given fact through multiple authors.

The problem here is instead the footnoting format the article uses. The use of the "name" parameter in a footnote (<ref name="Foo source />) is popular because it keeps contributors from having to restate the same citation over and over again or from having to use a short form citation for subsequent cites, but I think it has more drawbacks than benefits. As relevant here, it prevents multiple references for the same statement from being combined into one footnote, and it also prevents and discourages explanative notes from being added to the reference, which ideally most (all?) footnotes should include so as to comment on how the source relates to the statement.

In the Christ myth theory article, the fourteen footnotes need to be combined into one footnote, with at least a "see, e.g." preface before listing the fourteen sources, or a concise summary of some kind explaining how those sources support the statement and/or why they are chosen as representative (but not exclusive) supporting references. postdlf (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I would point editors to my initial post. I am not talking about multiple references in support of a point of view, I am talking about multiple references in support of a simple statement of fact. "(Book of Theory) was widely criticized as being unfounded." is the sort of sentence that might well justify more than one reference, as one reference might be a biased minority viewpoint but several references would show that the viewpoint was held by a variety of ideologies, cultures, parties, etc. "(Theory) was the subject of (book) by (Author) published in (year)," however, is the sort of sentence that should not have four or five references. One reliable source is enough for a simple statement of fact. Even that is giving several facts in one sentence [(Theory) was subject of (book); (book) was by (author), (book) was published, year of publication was). The actual sentence used in an actual article is "Scotland Yard received a complaint."{ref][ref][ref][ref] This is absolutely unnecessary, as the details of what was complained about was adequately discussed with twenty references over four paragraphs prior to that sentence. Abrazame (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
My experience around this agrees with Kotniski's comment above: large numbers of references for one point are often added in relation to an editing dispute, to show current and future editors that a point is well supported, so they should think twice about removing it. Obviously in a project this large there will be other situations as well, but if done for this reason I think a few extra refs is much better for an article than an edit war. If the statement is uncontroversial or a summary of points well established elsewhere in the article, then I agree that multiple references is overkill, although I also recognize that it isn't always easy to tell what is controversial unless you are familiar with an article's history. If the visual appearance of a large number of superscript numbers in the body text is the issue, let me point out that there is no requirement that each source be given a distinct footnote number. If all the sources support the same claim at the same point in the article, they could be combined into a single footnote. For example, there is a footnote at Ayn Rand (inspired by an edit war over a single word) that list seven sources. It makes for a long note, but the body is not cluttered with seven footnote numbers. --RL0919 (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The Irish Times reporting that Scotland Yard received a complaint should be sufficient; we needn't elucidate that DigitalSpy and three other outlets also reported this fact. The complaint is not in question. The only purpose four refs serve is to illustrate the reportage of the complaint, which is entirely beside the point. An edit war is what a guideline would prevent. Abrazame (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand, some people find such omnibus footnotes to be worse than multiple reference numbers in the article. YMMV. Anomie⚔ 18:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems this discussion has gotten into the weeds a bit. The examples are useful as indications of the possible problem but this isn't the place to discuss the details of how fix individual articles. To me. the issues to decide here are: 1) Is there an existing guideline or policy that covers this issue? 2) If not, is it really a problem? 3) If it's a problem, is it widespread and serious enough to justify amending the existing guideline? My thinking on these questions is 1) apparently not, 2) in extreme cases yes, 3) not sure.--RDBury (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
PS. If, as RL0919 said that people are adding multiple sources to strengthen support for a disputed claims, it should be pointed out that numbers do not necessarily imply greater reliability. Authors tend to use each other as sources so 14 cited references may all trace back to a single (perhaps unreliable) witness. So I think that multiple references to support a fact should be avoided if they aren't independent. Also, as I pointed out in the original discussion, if a reference from a highly trusted is given then there seems little point in adding references from less trusted ones.--RDBury (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

In general I would think that a single WP:RS ought to be sufficient for any given fact; a second source may be added to corroborate the first in cases where some doubt exists. A statement is either true or not true, and having it supported by fifteen different sources does not make it any more true than having it supported by only one source. Adding multiple sources to emphasize a point seems to be stepping outside the bounds of what we ought to be doing in an encyclopedia; we ought to be limiting which facts we choose to emphasize or else risk running afoul of our neutral point of view policy. I would hope common sense would prevail in these instances of reference-overload and that we would not have to create a general rule to that effect, however. Shereth 15:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that one good RS is enough to support a statement, I am against the idea of something can be 'overreferenced'. If nothing else those sources give indication of where more information on a particular subject can be found. The more the merrier I say. If there are qualms regarding the aesthetic feel (and one supposes that having many ref numbers is against that aesthetic) then perhaps what is really needed is a way to selectively show those inline citations. This would be very easy to do with CSS. Strongest possible opposition to removing or limiting inclusion of RS. Unomi (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
This begs the question of quality versus quantity. I would agree with you that in cases where more sources have more information there ought not be any hesitation about adding them. However, the vast majority of inline citations are not meant to provide new information but are meant to indicate from where a particular piece of information has been found. Finding the same information ten times over does not improve the quality of an article. General information references - the type that convey additional information on a subject and not just citations for specific facts - should be contained within the reference section at the end of an article and not cluttering the article itself with excessive and repetitive inline citations. Shereth 16:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
(EC) To Unomi, we discuss above the validity of 14 refs for a broad statement about a controversial issue (something I support)—but what about 14 refs for a simple statement of fact? "The album was released in 1984," followed by 14 refs. If there is that much that 14 refs each have something unique to say about it, then I say the "more the merrier" aspect would be in putting those details into the Wiki article itself, and referencing the 14 sources each for its unique contribution, not in misleading the reader to believe there are 14 distinct things being said about the album or leading them to click 14 times (and back each time) to discover that each one is a basic template with title, artist and year of release. More refs doesn't necessarily equate to more information for the reader. The very point of superfluousness, of redundancy—which is the point I raise—is that there isn't anything new to report, simply that more than one outlet has acknowledged the same fact. Abrazame (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
(ec)My worry has to do with the loss of (especially offline) sources. People have a tendency, when forced, to retain easily accessible over offline sources, unfortunately for later researchers offline sources are by far the hardest to find. Online sources are blessed with discoverability. Regardless, I agree that finding the same information 10 times over does not improve the article, having 10 different research leads can for the future. If there is an issue with 'cluttering' I think the solution is simply to adopt a stylesheet for 'normal readers' which tones down the cites, or as RL0919 merge cites into a smaler number of cite numbers. I honestly do not see any upside to removing sources. In the case of the 14 sources for a release date, why not simply merge them per RL0919? Unomi (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
There is no upside to removing sources of equal value, but sources rarely are of equal value. Different sources have different advantages: persistence, ease of access, reliable fact-checking, author attribution, free use, inclusion of informed and judicious analysis all come to mind. For something like an album release date, it's redundant to cite the date at all, simply cite the album itself, using the catalogue data from the Library of Congress, British Library, or other major repository library as the best sources where possible. Most of these catalogues are authoritative, readily web accessible, persistent, and carefully checked. They will not often provide the informed or analytical input that other sources might. (Fictional example: Jane Smith of Rolling Stone Magazine learned that the group's third album was released in February 2006, missing the intended Christmas 2005 sales window, in order to include Our Next Big Hit, with guest performer Super Star sitting in.) We use the best sources we can. Sometimes diversity of quality sources helps. But simple replication of equivalent low quality sources adds little and (taken to extremes) may distract the reader from the best sources. LeadSongDog come howl 17:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I think one problem for this discussion, and for any guideline that might be created, is the variety of different situations that can occur. If a sentence contains a composite of claims that come from multiple sources (but not a synthesis of them), then citing each of those sources is a good thing. If several sources are cited in order to stop edit warring, then on balance I think that is good, albeit annoying. If several sources are cited for an uncontroversial fact for no apparent reason, then that is unnecessary clutter. If several sources are cited to prove an in-article point about there being a "consensus of opinion" or "many sources say", then that verges into original research and is outright bad. However, I tend to think that in the big picture, lack of reliable sources in articles is a much more common problem than an excess of them. We should be cautious about introducing guidelines that could inadvertently discourage desirable citations. --RL0919 (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Which is exactly why common sense should prevail in these kinds of situations, rather than an actual guideline :) Shereth 17:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Unnecessary CREEP, just use some common sense, no need for a new rule. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
As I recall, the OP on the Help Desk wanted to apply common sense here but felt that deleting material without some kind of policy to back it up would be controversial. In fact, some of of the responses to the original post and here show that there is at least a minority who feel that the current "editor discretion" wording in the guidelines gives editors free reign to add as many references as they can find to a particular fact and common sense isn't applicable. I think the guidelines as they stand can be interpreted to imply that no removal of references is justified no matter how redundant, and the OP was proposing to change that.--RDBury (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The replies are a bit side-tracked, but I deal with this issue in articles about organisms where simple statements of fact abound. When I first write an article I often include all of the references that deal with a specific point. If I go back to the article, something I used to do, I reduce the references on simple statements of fact to the best single reference on that issue, because I see that as a service to the reader of the article. I sometimes edit organism articles for this, articles written by other editors, for a single best reference to a simple statement of fact. "This obscure species of frog has yellow skin."(1 is enough if the all say it.)
One reason I often add multiple sources, though, is that multiple authors say it the exact same way, and I want it to be clear this is the way everyone says it, it's not plagiarized. This may be part of the issue with current events and controversial subjects, too.
I think it is a matter of common sense, and I think reducing the references for simple statements of fact to the best or a couple of references might work for even controversial articles. I think making it a policy rule itself is just too specific and adds bulk without benefit to the many rules already out there.
Please try removing all but say two or three links, most reputable or largest news agencies from Europe, America, South Asia for example for an international article. Explain in the edit summary, and on the talk page if asked. --69.225.3.198 (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Yet another situation for multiple sourcing: to prove it a common phrasing and not plagiarism. Not sure what I think of that, but still it's one more variant. On the whole, I think this would be a really good topic for an essay, but it does not need to be a guideline. --RL0919 (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I think people are missing the point here, the OP is not proposing a guideline saying that multiple references should not be allowed at all but that it should be modified so that the ridiculous overkill on references, with examples listed above, is discouraged. There are plenty of situations where 2 or even 3 references are appropriate but more than that should be considered carefully. But as I noted above, the current wording of the could be interpreted to mean the more references, the better without any consideration of quality or redundancy.--RDBury (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not opposing the practice of editorial discretion in such matters, discretion is not in evidence viz a viz the multiplicity of references in the article I described and would not be in evidence in the articles to which my proposed guideline would be applied. I don't propose that a guideline remove editorial discretion, I'm suggesting that one illuminate what such discretion might (and what it should not) be. Rules are made to be broken, but for good reason. That's the great thing about Wikipedia, we who are aware of these circumstances would be the ones who devise it; it would be pinpointed to those situations where it is not appropriate and not written to dissuade those where it is, as could be enumerated therein; and any rule we come up with would have the ability to be revised if compelling situations arise which we didn't foresee and which truly justify additional exemption/inclusion/shading.

I think that when several refs are called for, the emphasis given by enumerating those in the body of the text can be a plus. But it's sloppy and irresponsible to have an implicit sky's-the-limit policy regarding multiple references. I have conceded at the article's talk page, at the Help desk, and here at the Village Pump already, that there are circumstances under which more than one reference is called for or even required, be it by the broadness of the statement, a claim of universality, the statement's controversial nature, the inability of the editors involved to reach a consensus about which ref gives the most appropriate tone or context, and other reasons as editors validly contribute here and if we were to move forward in the process of determining such a guideline.

However, other reasons for multiple refs could be zealotry (LOOK at all the articles about my pet subject!!!!!), laziness (they all came up when I Googled it, I didn't have time to read them all and choose), indecision (I'm just gonna throw it all up there because I expect someone else to come along and decide which of this should be whittled down), spamming, me-tooism, etc.

I hope some editors will see the distinction between what I am suggesting and what they were reacting to above, and I invite others to contribute their thoughts on how such a guideline might not only adequately protect but enhance or instill the editorial judgment and common sense they and I value. Abrazame (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Minimum article age before programatically adding maintenance templates.

I need some assistance on deciding an appropriate time for a bot to add maintenance templates. I am currently developing Coreva-Bot, a bot whose task is to check new article's for the need to ask standard maintenance templates. During the development i tried to mimic "Living" new page patrols utilizing tools such as WP:Friendly to tag pages.

To prevent unneeded tags currently wait till an article is at least an hour old before tagging this. This hour was based upon the somewhat average tag time for manual editors. My reasoning for this would be that an hour would give an editor some time to finish his article, while still being sufficient to show new contributers the templates, thus giving them some advice on how to develop the article. At the RFBA a user commented on this and suggested that this time is rather short, and therefor might catch editors midway trough creating an article which is disturbing.

From a technical side this is just a number, so i care little to change it. Yet what would be an appropriate amount of time? Any suggestions? Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Someone writes a terrible article on a living person. Another editor goes to improve it, by, for example, removing words that imply the person in question is, in actual fact, the second coming. The inital writer removes the words. The second editor, declining to get in an edit war, tags the article with whatever tag and goes to the talk page. The initial author removes the tag saying "Waiting period!" Hipocrite (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I presume you misunderstood? What i am talking about is the standard maintenance tags, the ones signaling if an article needs to be wikified, if its an orphan, if it has references et cetera. The limit i mention is solemny for the bot, denoting how old an article is before it will process it. For example, 2009–10 SEC men's basketball season was created on 23:49, meaning the bot will not check it until 00:49 Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 23:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
What templates do you intend to add by bot? Most of them need human checking to decide whenever they should be placed or not MBelgrano (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Coreva will be handling {{Uncategorised}}, {{Unreferenced}}, {{Footnotes}}, {{Wikify}}, {{Orphan}}, {{Sections}} and {{internallinks}}. These are among the most used templates (At least the ones i add most) and the need for them can be reliably detectable trough artificial means. I dropped one or two other templates during the development as even statistical analysis for those left to much false positives - and using a lower threshold resulted in almost only false negatives. Yet the above templates detection routine seems to perform remarkably. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 23:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I would base the time on 2x the average length of time that an article waits in the WP:NPP queue before passed or failed. Now, if this is within minutes, then ignore that, as it should be some done on the hour scale. I'd think somewhere between 3 and 6 hrs is reasonable if the NPP suggestion is shorter than that. --MASEM (t) 23:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
In my experience, WP:NPP usually responds in 15 minutes or less during times of day that Europe and North America are active. This can stretch to several hours during periods of lower activity. For templates of the type being considered, the primary factors in tagging are need for the tag and someone spotting the article while it is still in the most recent 50/100 articles at Special:NewPages. IMHO, a delay of 3 hours after article creation and 1 hour after the most recent edit to the article (in case the article is being actively developed) should be more than sufficient.--Allen3 talk 00:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope it is more than 15 minutes for this bot. I once created an article, with just two sentences, just to get it created, went to another user's talk page to let him know "this is the name of the article and I just created it, so come on and help if you have time" and went back to add much more (the time I was away was maybe 2 minutes) and it had already been labelled with a PROD, and orphan tag. And I dont think it was a bot that did it. So obviously just a few minutes isnt enough. And it PISSED me off royally, if a bot starts tagging articles I create after a few minutes because I'm at work and I didnt have time to flesh out the article before saving it quickly I will start screaming at someone. I'm sure I'm not the only one who will get angry, but I will be the most vocal.Camelbinky (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that i cannot support the "X after last edit" part as that would result in a mountain of extra code and added complexity. Coreva handles article's based upon creation time, so if it hits an article that isn't old enough it knows that the entire queue after that is newer then that article - thus it will just sleep for a short time till it is allowed to tag again.
If i would have to support "X after last edit" Coreva would need another queue to track article's that are being actively developed, which means that i need to query the server each hour to see if it meets the above criteria. This would result in more server traffic alongside a more complex method to handle Coreva's basic queue that currently just needs linear iteration. If the above would be a problem i prefer simply upping its basic tag time to prevent this from happening in the first place.Remember that newpage patrols simply tag after, say, 15 minutes without considering development as well :) (*Cough*, me, for example) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference related templates shouldn't be added by bots. There are many potencial false positives: the sources are "mentioned" in text or in an unconventional manner, sources are added as raw links in the middle of the text, the article is a stub without any potencially questionable information (such as "X is a city in the Foo province of Fooland"), etc. MBelgrano (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Part of these can actually be caught pretty easily. Finding links in the text, even if not marked as being external links, isn't that difficult and virtually completely reliable. (Thus, i could direct Coreva to ignore these articles) Furthermore i inquired some time ago if stubs should be excluded from a check for templates which ended up with a "No". Potentially everything has to be sourced. I do not know how many articles creations on Indian villages i have seen: Searching for reliable sources i often ended up with no result whatsoever - similarly searching for them on a map proved to be futile as several maps didn't show them at all. Keep in mind that WP:GNG requires coverage in reliable sources; If nothing appears to have been written about village X it simply fails verifiability - and if something has been written it should be simple to add a source and remove the tag, actually improving the article.
I cannot refute your reasoning that someone might state "As written in XYZ" in text, something which would be near impossible to detect reliably trough a program. Yet basing myself on my experiences as a new page patrol this is exceedingly rare; frankly, i cannot remember seeing a case of this recently. Thus i would argue that the amount of correct tags would greatly outweigh the amount of incorrect tags - and even living new page patrols aren't flawless. At least im certainly not ;). And yes, i know i'm rather... lets call it "Enthusiastic" in this defense on utilizing the unref tag, but based on tests i honestly belief the amount of mis tags would be minimal. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 17:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

To get back to the original question, I would suggest 1 day from the date of creation. That would be plenty of time for the author of the article to put it everything that needs to be there. The type of tags you're talking about (orphan, no categories etc.) are more or less just reminders, not major problems that need to be corrected as soon as possible. In my experience with creating new articles these reminders can be helpful but are sometimes annoying when they are being added while you are still actively editing the article. I think a day gives enough time to presume that the first draft is complete and any omissions won't be fixed without a reminder.--RDBury (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Swiss municipalities/Article title conventions has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:WikiProject Swiss municipalities/Article title conventions (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) 02:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Afd Heather Harmon

Resolved

I would like to request that User:Epbr123 be removed as moderator for the Aft discussion of Heather Harmon and an administrator of proven neutrality be put in his place. Epbr123 has proven to be very opinionated and uncooperative. He has failed to answer my questions and complaints about his practices. Please note that he deleted most of my posts to his talk page without responding to my concerns. -Stillwaterising (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an AfD moderator. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that there is no such thing as an AFD moderator - as cybercobra already pointed out - anyone is free to add an article to an AFD for deletion discussion. You can do it, i can do it, epbr123 can do it. As long as the editor can provide a valid rationale as to why an article should be removed it may be nominated. The ensuing discusion will then decide if the article should be removed or if it should be kept. This is all quite standard procedure.
I see you have created three sections on epbr's talk page in two days, of which two are more in my eyes or less inappropriate warnings. Why an immediate COI template? Unless the COI is obvious (Which i doubt, i don't think ebpr is actually Heather Harmon :P ) it would be prudent to add some diffs demonstrating that COI. Second, an editor is completely within rights to remove a discussion from his talk page. Your quotation of WP:UP#DELTALK is completely not appropriate as this deals with the removal of a talk page trough having an admin remove it. The page has retained its history so ebpr didn't remove your comments - he merely decided not to display / archive him for perceived personal attacks.
If you believe there is an issue with epbr123, you should take it up at WP:RFC/USER or WP:third. However, that requires proof, of which you currently have provided none i'm afraid to say. Unless you can back up your COI, inappropriate removal\AFD claim with diffs epbr123 is completely within rights to remove a discussion from his talk page, and to nominate an article for removal. Hence, i would currently say that this AFD currently follows the standard procedure quite well. if the AFD ends as a keep the article will be kept, and it should not be renominated for some time. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 11:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I am cancelling my request as the issue seems to be resolved for the time being. I have been informed about how warnings templates are inappropiate for experienced users on another thread. I had never used them before so I thought they were required in order to build a case against a user. I have also never participated in Afd before so please understand my confusion. --Stillwaterising (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Page blanking has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Page blanking (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) 02:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact, what has really happened was that Wikipedia:No page blanks has been moved to this new name MBelgrano (talk) 02:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

One event loopholes

I'm not sure if this is entirely the right place to raise this, but I'm curious about a bit of a loophole that is created by the current One Event wording in both WP:BLP and WP:Notability (People). In the case where an event concerns an otherwise non-notable person, WP:BLP1E would recommend creating an article on the event rather than the individual. I see this as a good thing, as it means that we avoid problems of balance - in many cases, writing a fair and neutral article would be impossible, as we only have coverage of the person in regard to this one event. If we place the person in the context of the event, though, their actions are shown to be part of bigger things, and, presumably, the event itself warrants coverage.

However, if the event is entirely based around the individual's actions, then the event article may portray the individual even more negatively that a BLP would. For example, 2009 Louisiana interracial marriage incident. When taken to AfD as a biography, consensus was to delete as a 1E violation. When reworded to become about the event, the content remains virtually the same, but now there is less of an opportunity to balance this account of an aspect of the person's life with more general details about him. Not that there was much of a chance before, of course, due the issues raised above. (And I'm not really concerned specifically about this article, but more the situation it describes).

In short, in the case where a person would not warrant a bio according to 1E but where the event is intrinsically about them, we can simply rename the article and trim details about the person to produce an article that is within policy. My concern is whether or not such an article remains within the spirit of 1E, and if there is any means of balancing this - or, indeed, if we need to be concerned at all. - Bilby (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If it's pretty much the same, tag it for recreation speedy deletion using {{db-g4|discussionlink}}.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 03:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. But it isn't really that which is my main concern, but 1E's focus on biographies, which may be problematic. Or it may not. :) A bio gives more room to move when we're discussing someone than an event intrinsically about the person, but 1E leans towards the creation of events over bios. - Bilby (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
1E is perhaps the most misunderstood/ambiguous policy on Wikipedia. I'm am pretty sure its original intent was to keep people who were merely mentioned as part of some news story off Wikipedia. That is to say, it was supposed to be the BIO version of WP:NOTNEWS. Instead it has been twisted to the point where people often argue for deletion of some bio b/c the person is notable for only one thing - no matter what that one thing is, and often even if it occurred over a long period of time. The guideline is so highly subjective that there is almost no consistency with how it is applied. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
"twisted" is a bit harsh. You could argue that human beings are just really "twisted" versions of amoebas... All Wikipedia policies and guidelines evolve in content and interpretation, and (partly as a result) are applied inconsistently. That said, the inconsistency for 1E is worse than most. Rd232 talk 14:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

BLP extremism and Commonwealth editors?

I'm putting on my asbestos suit for this one, but over the past few months I've seen quite a bit of overapplication of BLP. Particularly in articles about crime, and almost always editors coming from the UK, Canada, or Australia. More generally, the "deletionist" editors on the BLP noticeboard all seem to come from Commonwealth countries. I'm curious if there's an unacknowledged cultural difference between the US and the UK on what's "fair game" to include in crime reporting. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think its "cultural" in that it is probably based on the fact that the defamation laws in the UK and most other Commonwealth nations are more strict than in the US. This means that newspapers and other media organisations have to be very careful as to how they describe alleged victims and alleged perpetrators (see I just did it too; I am a Brit lawyer so even more sensitive to these issues). To that extent, editors with that background are used to seeing alleged crimes reported in a particular way, at least until there is a definitive verdict. But legal differences aside, IMHO with WP:BLP matters we should err on the side of caution. – ukexpat (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm aware that in the U.S., it's very difficult for a "public figure" to win a defamation suit because they have to show "actual malice", which is not true of the U.K. But it seems that Commonwealth editors are also used to press blackouts of various sorts, where in many cases it's forbidden to bring up even previously published facts. This is very different from the U.S., where for the most part, once something gets leaked to the press, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Politeness Police

The Politeness Police will be admins who have regard to the important part of the pillars which is civility. HarryAlffa (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone was suggesting that this infant proposal be deleted! Please ride to the rescue! We simply can't have enough policies to enforce civility! HarryAlffa (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Forced civility? Well, I suppose *something* needs to be done, but....pietopper (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
This is little more than a poor attempt at being funny and bordering on a WP:POINT disruption ... Shereth 20:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a "junior Jon Stewart" go at Wikipedia's first satirical policy. And read satire for the seriousness of this endeavour. I flat out refute the WP:Point accusation. HarryAlffa (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
An attempt at a satirical policy would be a POINT violation by definition. That's exactly what POINT exists to prevent. Equazcion (talk) 21:41, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC)
Bingo. You (HarryAlffa) are disrupting things by proposing your "satirical" policy for the purpose of making a point. That's the very definition of WP:POINT. Shereth 21:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) See MFD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Politeness Police SpitfireTally-ho! 21:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I'm more offended and disgusted that Harry thinks he's a junior Jon Stewart than I am at his proposal that it be policy just to have the first "satirical policy". Jon Stewart is funny and witty; Harry is not. "I watch Jon Stewart, Jon Stewart is a friend of mine, you sir are no Jon Stewart". I found it wasnt very effective or "smart" satire and it was crappy and actually something I could see some real editors seriously proposing (which doesnt make it satire btw).Camelbinky (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Page has been deleted via MFD process, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Concern over corporate hijacking of building and event names

There has been growing controversy around the current convention of allowing corporate entities to buy the right to advertise through the name of buildings and events, particularly when those buildings or events have been built with public funds. I have noticed that Wikipedia appears to use the official corporate names when referring to buildings and events, and it makes me wonder whether this is not a case of de facto (if not de jure) spamming. Does Wikipedia have any policy with regard to the appearance of corporate advertising in its articles and, if not, should there be? Beyond the ethical issue, there is also the matter that as time passes, the names of these buildings and events change as their corporate sponsorship changes. It is especially egregious for editors to have to waste their time to make sure the correct corporate entity is receiving the advertising for which it has paid. SmashTheState (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

WP tends to use official names. If the corperate one is the official one, that's what's used. It's not WP's fault that they are called that, and it's certainly hardly 'spamming'. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Melodia. Corporate "sponsorship" of buildings or putting their names on buildings they own is hardly a new phenomenon, see- Chrysler Building, Sears Tower (or whatever they call it now), the GE building (former RCA building at Rockefeller Plaza). Sure its controversial when its a municipal building but the article on the Times Union Center in little Albany, New York has had no trouble in keeping up with the name changes from Knickerbocker Arena, to Pepsi Arena, to Times Union Center. I see no undue burden on editors. As for giving "free advertising" through Wikipedia by using their names... that's kinda the purpose of them spending all that money, so news organizations, ticket sellers, maps, Wikipedia, etc all have to label these buildings with the name they paid good money for. In the example I gave, Times Union is a newspaper, do you think the three other major newspapers for the Albany area like using the Times Union Center name, in essence advertising their competitor? Probably not but they do anyways when reporting an event, concert, sport event, convention, etc. It is no different than naming a government building after a dead politician and then his son (or daughter) gets the "free name recognition" along with it when he/she runs for office. Its the way the world works.Camelbinky (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
(EC) I don't know what else we should call something if the general public knows it as a corporate name. Just because it's popular at the moment to bash corporations doesn't mean we should allow some apolitical correctness to force us to find some other name to give to these things. The Chrysler Building...shall we call it the mini Empire State Building now that some bondholders are angry about Chrysler? Maybe we could call Lincoln Center the Prius Hybrid Center? There are a lot of people feeling quite happy about the Yankees in NYC today, but if we're to be even-handed, should we call the new Yankee Stadium the New York Taxpayer Stadium? However people feel about it, if a company, team, government or entity purchases or otherwise claims the naming rights, that's a fact, that is the name, and for us to call an encyclopedia article about it anything else because of our personal feelings about it would not mitigate anything unethical that may or may not have transpired. Personally, I still call the Met Life Building the Pan Am Building and can't quite bring myself to say "the Izod Center"—Continental Arena took enough getting used to when I knew it as the Brendan Byrne Arena. But I bet there were some people who weren't too keen on Brendan Byrne. Wait'll they name something after George W. Bush. Obviously any former names of any of these places should continue to link to the article with the new name. Abrazame (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
"That's just the way it is," is not a proper rationalization. Furthermore, it's not even consistent on Wikipedia. For example: Ottawa Bluesfest is the article name, while Cisco Ottawa Bluesfest leads to a red link (as of this posting). Since Wikipedia is not the recipient of the financial largesse forked out to slap corporate advertising all over a building or event, I see no reason why Wikipedia should be forced to follow around behind a pack of Madison Avenue bagmen and do their job for them. SmashTheState (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
"Beyond the ethical issue, there is also the matter that as time passes, the names of these buildings and events change as their corporate sponsorship changes." Personally, I think events should keep their normal name (i.e. Ottawa Bluesfest) but buildings should be renamed, as, with events, the event name is still there, but with building names, the old building name is no longer accurate. For example, no matter how much Chicago wishes it were so, the name of a particular building is no longer Sears Tower, and to call it that would be inaccurate. Either way, your "spamming" argument is completely nonsensical. --Golbez (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
(EC) If the owners of a building agree to name that building something - for any reason, including money - then that's the name of the building, like it or not. LadyofShalott 23:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Buildings generally have addresses. For example, the address of the Sears Tower is 233 South Wacker Drive. Perhaps a more appropriate policy would be to categorize buildings by their addresses, then redirect the alternate building names as they occur to the address name. SmashTheState (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's a fun one: FedExField. You could just use its address... 1600 FedEx Way. How do you get around that one? (Ignoring that it had a previous, non-sponsored name, though being named after the rich owner of the team could be painted as sponsorship) --Golbez (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
How many people do you think would actually refer to the address of a famous landmark instead of the actual name? Better yet, how many could you think of without looking it up? There is no need to be politically correct about building names. The building has a name and Wikipedia reflects that, regardless of who or what may be promoted by the building name. To call such buildings by street address would be ridiculous. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
You mean like 30 Rock? (As in, 30 Rockefeller Plaza)Drvoke (talk) 03:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Let's not call this proposal by Smash "politically correct", its that type of thinking that caused the term "polically correct" to get a bad reputation. This is not being politically correct, this is being ridiculous (and much harsher terms I'd love to use but afraid I'd be brought to the incivility police). As an example- just because someone happens to be liberal doesnt make all their personal ideas liberal. There's no way this proposal can gain traction, lets end it now and close out the discussion. Our naming policy is clear that it is the official name unless there is a more popular "average joe" name that is used, using the street address is not how we do it. SmashTheState, if by the proposal and your username, I am correct to believe that you have an anti-establishment belief (which is not a liberal ideaology btw) then keep it to yourself, Wikipedia is not the place to begin with in order to "change the world" or bring down "the Man", we report and write our articles as the world is and operates, not how we all wish it would.Camelbinky (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
FYI, "Sears Tower" was renamed "Willis Tower" several months ago :) MuZemike 03:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, we use WP:COMMONNAME for naming articles. That's why Sears Tower is still Sears Tower (so ok, it's not, but it should be! ;-), and Allianz-Arena is Allianz-Arena. If a new name catches on, we can move he article - if the old name stays the most popular one, we stick with it as well. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree that we should be following WP:COMMONNAME. If the Super Bowl were officially renamed the "Viagra Super Bowl" due a sponsorship, that wouldn't mean we should immediately move the article (although adding a redirect would be appropriate). But if after several years almost everyone was calling it by the new name (unlikely but conceivable), then we would rename the article. Common usage in the real world (as reflected in our sources) should be our guide, not official naming or political activism. As with most things on Wikipedia, I'm sure the guideline hasn't been followed consistently, but that's why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad type of argument to make here. --RL0919 (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
It also says to spell trademarks correctly, though otherwise doesn't mention the issue of corperate names vs. old/generic names. I know with the Sears Tower there was a long debate (I never was involved nor stayed to watch all) but obviously Wilis won. It seems to me, though, that since sources and such will use the official name, it's what we should use too. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
In that case, "Super Bowl" would still be accurate. Calling that building "Sears Tower" is no longer accurate. We cannot allow the public imagination to trump fact. --Golbez (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The person or entity with the most money determines what is fact? Wikiality indeed. SmashTheState (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The person who owns the structure determines its name, yes. I don't see how that's difficult to understand. --Golbez (talk) 07:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
As a communist, I can understand Smash's feelings; however the person or entity with the most money DOES often determine what is "fact" when it comes to building names. That is a fact of life, one that the ideology of communism does not dispute but only wants to change and eliminate. But again Wikipedia is not the place to change the world. If you want to change the world, the best way to do that is to vote and become active in the real world. Wikipedia reports the way the world is, not how it should be. I empathize with you on how the world should be, but not on how Wikipedia should be.Camelbinky (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I have to amend my earlier comment to say I agree with SmashTheState about the Ottawa Bluesfest example. If sponsors come and go with regularity and/or the event began and was notable and increasingly popular for several years sans sponsorship, it seems worth noting latter-day sponsorship in the text but not in the title. Arguably there could be a fine line in determining whether it's corporate promotion that is getting reliable sources to call it by the corporate name, and whether or how frequently the popular use of the name includes the corporate sponsor. In cases where it doesn't, is it merely shorthand, like when one says they're going to "the beach" or "the country"?
New York's Thanksgiving Day Parade was initially conceived and sponsored by a corporation, the same one that has presented it each year since, and so is commonly known as the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade even if some people omit the name or substitute "New York's" for "Macy's". At the other extreme, the title of Detroit's America's Thanksgiving Parade, despite not mentioning a sponsor, strikes me as pretentious in its patriotism, and Philadelphia's 6abc IKEA Thanksgiving Day Parade sounds absolutely ridiculous.
As to the evils of corporate sponsorship, I'd point out that our taxes and our discretionary income are only going to pay for so much in this life and especially given credit tightening lately, the burden of organizing a yearly event is made bloody difficult without the ability to pay in advance for permits, promotion, entertainment, etc. Without a corporation looking at it as either a marketing opportunity or a tax loss, some of these events might have been dropped last year or this year, if not earlier. A sports team is essentially a corporation. Those music artists at the Ottawa Bluesfest required corporate record companies to start and maintain their careers. I doubt people attending are all drinking tap water or cider made from local orchards (and if it were the latter, it would soon be a corporation itself). Particularly in cities where land is at a premium, there would hardly be any buildings without banks to make loans and mortgages, and architects and contractors to build them. Then there's the real estate agencies and the tenants, which if they are not themselves corporations are individuals who in many cases work for corporations. I'm sympathetic to the concept STS raises, but the determination seems best handled on a case-by-case basis to determine actual usage rather than project-wide to create usage. If something is generic, we represent that; if something was conceived of by and identified with one or more individuals, we represent that (Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In); if something is civic or of the state, we represent that; if something is corporate, we represent that, too. Abrazame (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no single rule that can be applied. Allow me to demonstrate using car races. We have the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. However, this year's full, current, sponsored name, was the I Etihad Airways Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. However, we omit sponsors in these cases because, while sponsors come and go, the locale doesn't change. The sponsor is secondary to the race. It is referred to among people with only the year and the locale. No one cares that Santander sponsored this year's British Grand Prix.

However, then we have something like the Coca Cola 600. This has been branded by Coke since 1985; before then it was the "World 600", a fact I did not know til I checked it out. However, this has no possible other name. What would you call it? "The annual 600-mile race at Lowe's Motor Speedway"? (Which of course runs into further problems; I guess we'd have to use its old name, Charlotte Motor Speedway) We couldn't call it "Lowe's Motor Speedway race"; there are four or so races that take place there each year. (And a fun one: What would we have called The Winston?) The Coca Cola in the name is a fundamental part of its identity. The same with most other NASCAR races, though most of them change names on a far more regular basis than the Coca Cola 600.

With stadiums, generally the naming rights become a fundamental part of the name. The stadium the Carolina Panthers played in was initially named Ericsson Stadium; now it is Bank of America Stadium. I know no one who refers to it as Ericsson, or as "Panthers" Stadium. The latter would be, in fact, incorrect. It is not our job to make up names because we find the concept of corporate sponsorship distasteful. However, with events like the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade or the aforementioned Ottawa Blues Fest, you could get away with omitting the sponsor. It's not fundamental to an understanding of the subject at hand. Naming the article FedExField is, however.

I guess that's the point: If the sponsor/name (and really, these aren't just sponsorships - many times they are NAMES, like with stadiums and such) is absolutely necessary to an understanding of what subject we're talking about (like Qualcomm Stadium or the Coca Cola 600) then include it. If it's secondary (i.e. people will still know what Ottawa Bluesfest is without the Cisco; people will still know what the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix is without Etihad; but they will not know what the Coca Cola 600 is without the Coca Cola), then it can and perahps should be omitted.

And doing it for ideological reasons is just crazy talk. --Golbez (talk) 10:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that we're discussing potential article name changes, I have to take issue with what Golbez is suggesting, i.e. if someone would understand what you're talking about without the sponsorship name, then omit the sponsorship name. Given that you mentioned Macy's, I have to reiterate my point that the parade exists because of Macy's. Macy's conceived of the parade in 1924 and has presented it each year since. To suggest that their name be omitted from an article title because there's only one Thanksgiving Day parade in NYC and people will understand which one you mean is missing the point that a company gets to brand the name of the event if the company is the one who conceived of and continues to sponsor the event, just like the company gets to brand the name of the building if the company built and continues to occupy the building. We have articles about advertising campaigns, such as Get a Mac; what you're suggesting is tantamount to saying we should genericize that to "those computer commercials with the geek as the one brand and the Gen-Y dude as the other," or whatever was indicative enough of what we were talking about. I'm not saying the parade is merely a commercial, but then some commercials are not merely advertisements, they're comedy, they're sobering, they're soft-core porn. Corporations, like individuals, governments and nature, do good things and they do bad things. It's not our place to arbitrate whether a parade is a good or a bad thing, or whether its sponsorship is a good or a bad thing. But we have to respect the facts, and sometimes those facts are that the corporation is solely responsible for the thing or event and has been since the day it began. Ottawa Bluesfest existed for several successful years prior to sole official corporate sponsorship. New York's Thanksgiving Day parade did not. Ergo, Ottawa Bluesfest and Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. Abrazame (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Corporate sponsors haven't spammed Wikipedia; they've spammed reality. Wikipedia is not a forum for changing that, and it can't ignore it, particularly given that the sources we must use to build Wikipedia do not.

One thing you could do here, however, is work to improve topics such as Anti-consumerism, to further Wikipedia's coverage of those concepts, movements, and activists. postdlf (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's not make this a debate over consumerism. The issue is that Wikipedia should provide maximum utility for everybody, and part of that is adhering to the most common name for an encyclopedic subject. I don't know what the "Willis Tower" is. Maybe it was the building they lived in on Diff'rent Strokes. But I know what the Sears tower is. Something similar has happened with names of people, if they change their name or even if they simply declare they want to be known under a different title (you see this a lot with figures in "new religious movements"). A lot of editors will go ahead and move the page even if the person became famous under their original name. It would be like if I was a notable figure and legally changed my name to Squidfryerchef. Should my article be retitled? No, of course not, that would be silly. The issues are covered at WP:COMMON and WP:RECENTISM. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

For your attention - DBpedia templates

I'm not sure where the best place for this is, but there is a discussion at ANI that some here may find of interest. I'm also going to post this at WP:VPT, but please feel free to move the discussion to the most appropriate venue. Thanks! TNXMan 19:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Subject has been moved, please discuss here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#DBpedia_Template_AnnotationsSebastianHellmann (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Banning from user talk pages

Question: Occasionally users will declare that some user they have a dispute with should never post to their talk page again. My impression is that it's becoming more common; that the meme of making such declarations is slowly spreading. Yet talk pages are there for communication, and such declarations may make future drama more likely, by forcing the "banned" user to avoid the primary dispute resolution route. Of course we shouldn't permit harassment, but, such general, open-ended declarations seem very unhelpful. General requests, or demands if limited in time or by subject, might be OK. Thoughts? Rd232 talk 14:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I received such an open-ended request a few months ago. I acquiesced, but noted that I might leave notifications when required by formal Wikipedia process. I have interacted with this user on other pages, and have only rarely considered direct messages and have left none. I weigh the time elapsed since the request against the importance of the message. On a general note, if the haranguing or wikihounding can be substantiated, the editor may appeal to AN/I for relief, which seems to lead to mutual interaction bans. Flatscan (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
As someone who does make the statement to other users "dont comment on my talk page if your going to bring drama" when I do say that I have a damn good reason and when it is ignored it shows exactly why I say it. Bringing things to my talk page regarding issues you may have about what I said in a talk page or noticeboard is bringing drama directly at me, I do not want drama on my talk page and my talk page is not the place to argue about something said in a noticeboard or discussion page. My talk page is there for communication regarding EDITING and improving Wikipedia pages, not to tell me that you personally have a problem with what I said somewhere else. If you have a problem regarding something serious that requires a warning template, make sure you have a damn good reason for the template and stick the template on and go away. If I make a comment to someone that "here's my statement and I dont want to get into drama over it, just read it and dont respond back on my talk page" then what is the problem with that? I am trying to avoid drama. Too many editors want the last word and want to bring it to other editor's talk pages for the express purpose of embarrassing them. Embarrassment and harrassment is not the purpose of posting on an editor's talk page, and if I tell someone to stay off it in order to keep that from happening, that is my right, and I'll defend to my last keystroke anyone else's right to do so as well.Camelbinky (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Can winery articles get a free pass on WP:CORP?

There is a lot of discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wineries and vineyards in Maine regarding what to do with list articles that are essentially a WP:DIRECTORY listings of mostly non-notable wineries. The vast, vast majority of these wineries would not pass WP:CORP and have an article which would help these list fulfill 2 of the 3 main purposes of a list according to WP:LIST--Navigational and Developmental. A consistent question that is coming up is the "special place" that wineries have in the world that would make a list of non-notable wineries different than articles like List of unsigned rock bands in California, List of autoparts stores in Chicago, List of mustard producers or List of pizza shops in New York. Wine has a lot of romantic connotations attached to is, but is this an area that we can get community consensus to give a "free pass" to winery articles when it comes to notability? It is not unprecedented as WP:SCHOOL and WP:ATHLETE give similar "free passes", so to speak, to school and athlete articles when it comes to establishing notability. AgneCheese/Wine 15:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the "special place" argument is BS. We have a guideline for corporations and other organizations and that's WP:CORP - if some editors don't like it, amendments can be discussed but there is no "free pass" for particular industries. And with respect to WP:SCHOOL and WP:ATHLETE, those are not "free passes", they just set a threshold above which a subject is prima facie deemed to be notable, they still require adequate sourcing to support that prima facie notability. – ukexpat (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, SCHOOL doesn't give a free pass to anybody, it just takes into account that a town's high school likely has enough material written about it to start work on an article. Anyway, notability is for articles, not article content such as list elements. What we'd have to examine is whether it's practical to have state lists of wineries. Are there few enough wineries that they can be handled in a list? Are at least some of the wineries going to be notable enough for their own article, so the list can serve a navigational purpose? Is there a lot of overhead in establishing a winery so that our lists are manageable? How complete are the lists now? Basically the question is to decide whether wineries are something like airports or radio stations, or whether they are more like pizza shops or gas stations. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
What I'm trying to suggest here is that we need to consider what is indiscriminate and what isn't. Because it is very easy to become one's own winery, simply the virtue of existing is not a good measure for inclusion; this I contrast with schools (which require accreditation and licenses) or athletes (which require becoming a paid professional). It may end up these lists are 100% inclusive (such as schools), but most of the time they will be a subset of the whole. At the same time, there are probably enough wineries that are given due more than their existence but not to a level where there would be an article on it. I've suggested that such lists should include those wineries that have articles, and any wineries that have received some attention (but more than just a trivial listing in a directory or guide). All the fake examples given by Ange can follow this same relatively simple rule: a list of mustard producers would not be a complete list but certainly those that have be noted by third-party sources to make a partial, non-indiscriminate list. As an example of such a list in action, I point to List of Internet phenomena which could be flooded with every possible meme, but in this case we require the demonstration of being an "internet phenomena" via a reputable source. --MASEM (t) 17:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I concur with the previous comments. In order to become a school or athlete man must put significant effort into doing so, with plenty of prerequisites that have to be dealt with. As for wineries being special, i disagree. While some people may associate certain feelings with a certain industries, it doesn't change the fact that their basics are identical to any other corporation. A bakery, butcher, metalworker or supermarket are quite similar when you think about it. Furthermore a winery requires little else then registering the company and beginning operations in a random area. Technically taken someone can register two square feet of grapes as a company, and start selling 10 bottles of exclusive wine a year; and i hasten to say that would be quite clearly not notable. On the other hand man can't just do the same with a school. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Please doublecheck whether someone can really register two square feet of grapes and sell 10 bottles of wine a year. I was of the opinion that there was a lot of overhead in getting BATF to approve wine labels, etc. So the list of wineries may be more finite than some of the editors are asserting. For instance, you can find restaurants that brew their own beer but for some reason I havent seen that with wine, at least not in the United States. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a fair amount of paperwork and bureaucracy but theoretically, yes, if someone wanted to make a super cult wine of 10 bottles a year-they could. AgneCheese/Wine 22:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I think some of the editors wanting to delete were assuming that because making wine is not normally notable, it wouldn't make sense to have a list of wineries. But this is where the paperwork comes in. My great-grandfather used to make wine in his basement for the family, but that doesn't make his house a winery.
Is there any way to find out how many wineries in the U.S. have completed the "red tape"? If there's fewer than, say, 1000 active, registered wineries it would make sense to have lists by state.
Another solution would be a compromise stipulating that the wineries in the list must have at least one secondary-source footnote. This goes further than the minimum notability guidelines, which are for articles as a whole not list items, while on the other hand it prevents a mass creation of stubs to show some bluelinks in the list. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Do rules of English Wikipedia prevail over rules of national Wikipedias?

I am interested in this rule: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag which is explicitly rejected by administrators of Russian wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergei Gutnikov (talk • contribs) 14:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The policies and guidlelines of the English Wikipedia do not override the policies and guidelines of the other Wikipedias. Each one creates their own policies and guidelines. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 15:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Any reference for this? Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's explicitly written down anywhere. If it is it would have to be at meta or wikimedia. But it really boils down to wikipedia as a consensus driven process. Our policies and guidelines are discussed here, and not at the russian wikipedia. As such we can not say that there is any consensus for them on the russian wikipedia. However, if you implement prod without the provision that anyone can remove the tag I think you are missing the point. The prod tag is there for deletions that are uncontroversial. If an editor disagrees with the deletion then it isn't uncontroversial and you get in a position where administrators have the power to override debate. Which is contrary to our mission as an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Taemyr (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I couldn't find a good such reference on meta.wikimedia.org, probably because it's always taken for granted. Power structures and processes are often radically different between different Wikipedias. I became somewhat active on the German Wikipedia almost 2 years after I started here, but had serious trouble understanding how it worked. Also some technical features are enabled only on some of the language versions. Hans Adler 15:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I see. The Russians have taken the German model of Wikipedia - more control from the administrators and tough inclusion criteria. As a result, many stubs are deleted instead of gradual development. That what I challenged in Russia (and failed to win the argument with the administrators despite support from a number of wikipedians). Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC) (UK)
No, we do not have the "German model" on the policies.--Yaroslav Blanter (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The only rules that prevail over local rules are foundation rules. As long as they stay in line with the foundation policies, the German Wikipedia seems to be quite a bit of a testing ground for experimental practices, like no non-free content at all (although they still have stuff that is "non-free" here cause they have a pretty wide PD-ineligible rule up there), flagged revisions, no stubs, no bot generated articles, etc. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe User:Dmcq once was interested in doing a cross-Wikipedia study on how the different Wikipedias function. Is there anyone interested in taking an in-depth large N study of various "national" Wikipedia's on how they function compared to each other, and also in-depth case-studies of the four or five largest (or oldest) wp's and compare how each one was structured at "birth" and how each one is today, along with how they function compared to common perception of their culture? I find it funny that the German Wp is more strict and organized than that of English, as if Prussian militaristic culture still lives on (and probably does influence on a subconcious level wp consensus) versus English-speaking nations having more of a history of democratic and laizze faire.Camelbinky (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Please don't mention the war. MuZemike 22:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Just another point: the other Wikipedias are for other languages, not nations. Russian Wikipedia is written in the Russian language, but does not belong to Russia, nor is it to be used exclusively by Russians. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Huh. All this time I was thinking the English Wikipedia was only for Belize. postdlf (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Some rules should be decided at project-specific levels, but some other core policies (such as neutral point of view, verifiability, no original research, biographies of living people, What Wikipedia is not, for example) should be universal, written in detail at meta and apply for everybody. There has to be some cohesion among projects, and smaller ones shouldn't take advantage of not being checked by enough people in order to redefine things at unacceptable levels. MBelgrano (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

MBelgrano, I disagree; I dont know what people at Meta do (and could care less as it doesnt affect my editing ever); but should a "national" (and yea yea its by language not nationality, whatever) want to be laxer regarding NOR, V, NPOV, or whatever (but still within legal constraints) then let them be less reliable than other WPs. That's their own fault. We can take care of ourselves, let them take care of theirselves. Otherwise we get into arguments over who is right and who is wrong about being too lax, too strict.Camelbinky (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


  • Thank you all for your comments. I asked that question because there is a strong bias towards deletionism in Russian Wikipedia: stubs and one-sentence sub-stubs are routinely deleted by administrators (sometimes within minutes of creation), and many articles are deleted on pretext of "unsufficient notability" which is often defined by a single administator in accordance with only his/her own views. Tags "for improvement" are deliberately not included in the quick editing tools, while two versions of tags "for deletion" are there. When an aricle is deleted by an administrator, an ordinary user has no mechanism to get it back apart from long begging the administrators for restoration. In my view, istitutionalising such rules is a violation of the basic common Wikipedia principles: "all (good faith) editors are equal" and "any editing can be reversed". Am I right or wrong? Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Russian Wikipedia policies have nothing to do with English Wikipedia policies. English Wikipedia policies do not overrule any policies at the local wikis. If you want to discuss Russian Wikipedia policy, do it there, not here.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 02:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I would advise the following: if an administrator deletes something, you don't agree with the deleting, and explaining the issue to the administrator doesn't work, tell so at the administrators noticeboard, if there is any, or contact another administrator for a second opinion. MBelgrano (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
You could also start a policy discussion on Russian Wikipedia, for which you could draw on policies here as ideas - being clear that they have no authority of course. A bit like governments sometimes send delegations to other countries to look at how they do things. Rd232 talk 09:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deprecation of alma mater in infoboxes

Not sure if this is completely the right place for this. I initially posted this on the talk page of the template, but it has been a week, and only one person has responded (and has supported the notion). Here is my original post:

The current problem that I see with alma mater is that is is ambiguous. The dictionary definition isn't precise (using words like "usually"), and can cause confusion. For example many people have been awarded honorary diplomas and some have not finished college (hence dropped out, or currently enrolled). Some articles consider this to be an alma mater, while some use "Education".

Completely unrelated, if one were to have multiple alma maters, it would be gramatically incorrect to include multiple colleges in the section alma mater, since the plural of alma mater is almae matres. It would be similar to listing multiple awards in a section labeled Award:. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If it is ambiguous, it's on at a very basic and trivial level. There are no possible meanings that mean something completely unrelated from education. As for the plural, that can be easly fixed adding a parameter to the template, or a second field to choose either one. MBelgrano (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
By ambiguity, I mean that it doesn't specify if you need to graduate from a college for it to be your alma mater. There are a number of articles that have people's alma maters as colleges in which they have taken little amount of classes from or dropped out. Others just list these under education. There is no standard on where to put colleges in which a subject hasn't received a degree from. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be a subject for discussion on the individual article level, to me. Removing a field completely from use Wikipedia wide because a few specific instances of it's use may be problematic seems to me to be a rather extreme reaction to a potential problem. It might help to at least first establish that there is a real problem and exactly how widespread the issue is.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The point about use of plural forms seems to be a pedantic over-reaction to something that's not an issue at all right now, as well. First... what would really be incorrect about listing multiple awards in a section labeled "Award:"? It may look slightly funny, but that sort of count disagreement is hardly unprecedented (especially where infobox/table style writing is concerned, since tables often can't account for all data possibilities almost by definition). Is someone stepping on your toes in relation to this issue, somewhere?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
No, nobody is stepping on my toes, but it seems rather inconsistent on a few articles. As for the pluralization, it isn't a big deal, I just felt like adding it in anyway. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, my main response to "it seems rather inconsistent" is generally something along the lines of "don't worry too much about it". I think consistency is great, and it's something that I have worked towards imlpementing myself in a couple of instances. Seeking consistency needs to be tempered with just working with what already exists, though. If you find that you're forcing changes in the name of consistency, then things are probably slightly out of control.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability of lists

How does notability for lists work. Does a list have to be notable? Does every item on the list have to be notable? Does the list itself have to be notable? Or is there really no guidelines on notability of lists? SunCreator (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The topic underlying the list (ie what it is a list of) should be notable... and each of the items appearing on the list should be notable (ie when we use the title: "List of X", what is meant is: "List of notable X")... for more see: WP:LISTS Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Which shouldn't be interpreted to mean that every item on a list should merit its own article. postdlf (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The list itself may be notale even if none of the entries, individually, is; for example List of one-time characters in The Simpsons. A list may not be notable if it's topic isn't, even if all entries, individually, are notable; such as "List of blond presidents" MBelgrano (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
There has been some recent discussion on this section, see Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). --RDBury (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I never thought I'd write this sentence but- I disagree with Blueboar. Yes, I am weeping now because I had to say that. I do agree with MBelgrano that not every entry needs to be notable, whereas Blueboar implies they do. In a list of World Trade Centers, all WTC's should be listed, not just the notable ones, in a list of US states all states should be listed (and no, Wyoming is not notable; have you ever been to Wyoming? ;-} Joke!) If we are going to have an article as a list (or list as an article as the case may be) then it should be a complete list, redlink things that should or could have an article but doesn't, and dont link at all anything in the list that cant currently have an article (its notability may change and be redlinked if it does become notable). That is my personal opinion based on the lists I looked at when I was learning to make wikitables, but the list articles I have personally created all have notable entries as I work on lists of schools or municipalities or tv stations and those types of things.Camelbinky (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
In answer to SunCreator, its a very grey area. There is a trend in the area of fictional subjects to consolidate characters and other elements that have no claim to notability into lists, rather than putting them in standalone articles. However, if a list is filled with items which are not notable, then it is going to fail WP:NOT#DIR on the grounds that it just a collection of indiscriminate characters. There might be a good argument for keeping such lists if they support an over-arching article topic that is notable. However, such lists of characters tend to accumulate plotcruft, so many of them fail WP:PLOT as well, e.g. List of Dragonlance creatures which does not contain any real world coverage that could be described as encyclopedic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Assuming the list would be information that would otherwise be contained in the main topic that the list supports, but due to WP:SIZE and other content guidelines is better placed in its own article per WP:SS, such that even in discussion of the main topic the list material is not indiscriminate, then the list is generally appropriate. Items within such lists need not be notable themselves, but still should be written per all other content guidelines. Standalone lists which really have no parent topic (rare, but possible) need to demonstrate notability of the collection on its own, or demonstrate the notability of each item on the list on its own. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
That's the gist of result of the Notability (people) discussion. SeeWP:Source list for related guidelines.--RDBury (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I also disagree that every entry on a list must be capable of sustaining an individual article. The precise purpose of many lists it to enable something to be written about a subject which is not notable enough to sustain an article, but is mentionable in a wider context. Taking List of windmills in Kent as an example, all articles that exist are linked. All entries that are likely to sustain an individual article are redlinked. All other entries are unlikely to sustain an individual article, but are verifiable as to existance and therefore worthy of inclusion on the list. See article talk page for an unverified entry ready to add once it is verfifable. Mjroots (talk) 08:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
WP:LSC. Items on lists should be individually notable. Items which are not notable are by definition trivial, and we do not list trivia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, LSC doesn't say that. List items that do not merit individual articles can be included on lists. Instead, it is more that list items need to be shown they are not indiscriminate, whether by definition of the list or by definition of the list items. --MASEM (t) 00:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a specific exception for lists composed entirely of trivia entries: for lists which do not contain only trivial entries, everything has to be individually notable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) (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) 02:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This was about one person undoing the merge that was previously made by consensus. I've now restored the agreed (i.e. merged) version.--Kotniski (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed article talk page notices for CfDs

In the interest of increasing community notification of, and participation in, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, a number of CfD regulars have been discussing placing notices on the talk pages of every article that is included in a category listed at CfD. Deletion tags for images can be easily added to article image captions; deletion notices for templates get displayed in every article that uses it; but categories don't allow for this. So the talk page notices would tell every editor interested in that article that a category applied to it is under discussion for deletion, merging, or renaming.

This would likely be bot-implemented as manually-applied notifications would be prohibitively time-consuming. It would not apply to "speedy renamings," which involve minor corrections to category names such as spelling, capitalization, etc. This also might be only a temporary procedure, pending whether a software change could allow for deletion notices to be appended to article category tags themselves.

So I wanted to get wider community input as to whether article talk page notices would be considered a benefit or a nuisance. And/or if anyone has any thoughts on the feasibility/desirability of a software change, and what it should look like. postdlf (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC/U

A recent change was made to WP:RFC/U, without prior discussion or notification. The change replaced the previous statement "An RfC cannot impose involuntary sanctions on a user, such as blocking or a topic ban; it is a tool for developing voluntary agreements and collecting information." with "An RfC may sometimes lead to consensus for community sanctions." This has now been reverted and is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#What_happened_to_Community_sanctions.3F. Rd232 talk 16:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguating categories

At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy criteria, criterion number 6 reads:

Disambiguation fixes from an unqualified name (for example, Category:Georgia → Category:Georgia (country) or Category:Georgia (U.S. state))

The consensus regarding what this criterion means and how it applies is unclear at present. Generally on Wikipedia we do no0t pre-emptively disambiguate, by which I mean we do not tend to disambiguate unless there is a reason to, per Wikipedia:Disambiguation, which states that

Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might use the "Go button", there is more than one Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead.

Given that it is unlikely that people actually search for categories using the go button, and that most people will navigate to a category through articles or other categories, which will make context clear, is there a need to pre-emptively disambiguate categories on a wide scale, or should any such re-namings be subject to a full discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion rather than speedily performed? Hiding T 10:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

2-ish¢
I've been seeing a few non-commonsense proposals under this. Among them all of the subcategories of 2000 AD (comics) getting the dab grafted in. I'm sorry, I can see the reason for the top level, maybe, but I can't for the rest.
Or things like proposing Category:Justice League screenshots and pictures be moved to add (TV series). One, it's a tad redundant both in the category title and explanation, and two, it is very, very unlikely that there will be another "Justice League screenshots and pictures" category that will need to be dabbed.
- J Greb (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm even wondering if a disambig phrase is necessary here. Wouldn't 2000 AD comic work just as easily? What are we hoping to achieve here? Hiding T 12:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that disambiguating tabs are often unnecessary in subcategories even if the parent category has them. This should only be a speedy criterion if there does actually exist another category from which the category in question needs to be disambiguated. --Kotniski (talk) 13:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't think there's a middle path here that's available. Either there should be a speedy criterion for it or shouldn't be one. The nature of speedy CfD—with a quick turnover and not much viewership—is such that it needs to be uncontroversial, easy to understand, and easy to apply. I don't think a middle path criterion would meet the "easy to understand" and "easy to apply" standards in the same way. (I personally could understand it, but I find that many users have trouble with disambiguation principles.) #6 was formally adopted with very little input from editors, but the background was that repetitive proposed disambiguations (in a way that conformed with #6) were proposed at full CfD, and the disambiguations were approved every time month after month after month. I think that in general, you could say category disambiguation practices have diverged from the practice for articles on WP. This is not necessarily a good thing in my opinion, but it is true. On balance, if the current criterion has become controversial, I think eliminating it would be the best solution. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This criterion is not for "pre-emtively" disambiguating. If somebody stubled over it hard enough to nominate it, that means it is about time. I have seen this criterion being applied, and am very happy with it. It significantly lowers the workload at the non-speedy Cfd. Debresser (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't understand you at all. I am completely unclear as to how you can stumble over a category hard enough to nominate it. Isn;t the name at which a category resides a matter for consensus rather than pre-emptively disambiguating? After all, where is the category that needs to be at Category:Justice League screenshots and pictures which means we have to move the one already there? Hiding T 22:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I think you two are talking past each other. Hiding, you seem to be saying that disambiguation is done for reasons of necessity. I interpret Debresser's comments as meaning disambiguation can be done for reasons of clarity. They are definitely two different standards, and at CfD there has been a distinct preference for the "clarity" standard. That's what I meant when I said CfD has historically taken a path on disambiguation that is different than the approach adopted for articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
That is indeed what I meant, thank you. Debresser (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Digging down the category tree under the two Georgias, I notice some inconsistency - some categories are not disambiguated where I would expect them to be, while others are disambiguated where it doesn't even provide clarity. For example, I would expect Category:Presidents of Georgia (country) to be without the tag (since the equivalent category for the state not only doesn't exist, but would hardly even make sense). Similarly with Category:Native American tribes in Georgia (U.S. state) (unless the intention there is to distinguish from Georgia, Vermont, which I rather doubt).--Kotniski (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • CFD hasn't historically taken that path at all. Maybe in the last year or so, but historically that isn't the case. In fact, the opposite was very much true historically, go check the many comments (mine included) in the archives of the category naming conventions. And as Kotniski says, there really is no need to clarify certain situations. What's happening instead is that the dab phrase is being added to every category. This isn't for clarity. It looks to be standards for the sake of standards as opposed to any other reason. Hiding T 14:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I am personally very content with criterion number 6; I agree with Good Ol’factory that consensus in cfd discussions has favoured clarity (and consistency of naming within categories) over a possible lack of ambiguity. It is a straightforward rule for subcats to be disambiguated if the parent category is (without then needing to consider whether or not Georgia (US State) may or may not contain people whose title contains 'President' - in the UK there are plenty of presidents of all manner of things). I would suggest that #6 be retained with the proviso that a speedy which is subsequently contested (eg when people notice the related changes in article space) should simply be taken to cfd (rather than DRV). The host of uncontroversial suggested speedy changes, now abandoned, adding '(band)' or similar (such as Category:Rancid albums to Category:Rancid (band) albums per both Rancid (band) and Category:Rancid (band)) would completely clog up cfd. Occuli (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • In what sense are you not clear that Category:Rancid albums, does not contain albums by the band Rancid, given you either navigate to it from an article or a parent or child category? Given that, why on earth are we changing this stuff? Yes, this stuff has been flying through, because they;ve been speedied and no-one has noticed. Had these been subject to debate, I'm fairly sure they wouldn't pass of quite so easily. Hiding T 14:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Hiding - if there are things like "Rancid (band) albums" being speedied, then they should certainly be coming to CfD, where I hope they would be rejected, or even better, not being proposed at all. And we should be looking to change back things like "Presidents of Georgia (country)" (of course there are presidents in the state of Georgia, but they would never be in a category "presidents of Georgia") to the sensible, untagged version (while also adding the tags in the subcategories which do require them but don't yet have them - this could all be done as one big CfD proposal).--Kotniski (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. For the record, I too am satisfied with criterion #6. I agree that it definitely reflects the way consensus has gone on full discussions on these issues for about the past 2 years or so. That consensus could change, of course, but we would need to see it demonstrated in some full CfDs where contradicting #6 would be proposed. Based on this discussion, I'm not sure there would be consensus to do that. I still think there's no good middle path speedy-wise, though. It's either a speedy criterion or it isn't. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
So you think consensus is for things like "Presidents of Georgia (country)"? This discussion would imply otherwise.--Kotniski (talk) 09:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
As I said--yes, for the past two years or so that's where consensus has been at CfD. See here. I don't see a consensus here to change from the past practices. Any proposal to change a specific category would likely not be able to gain a consensus. That is my sense, but of course it's just a predictive guess based on what has gone before and the general response here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
It should be noted that, even while the paragraph in question has been deprecated, User:Good Ol'factory has been citing it in debate over a category name change. Kevin McE (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Why should that be noted here? Because I made a mistake and didn't know it had been deprecated? I don't see why that's important to point out. It seems like petty "point scoring". Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Deprecated

I deprecated it on the strength of this discussion, which shows that it does not reflect consensus. Given that policies and processes need to reflect consensus, I can;t see how it can be retained in current form given the shape of the above discussion and the fact that it requires a consensus to remain. Hiding T 21:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, I see as much support for it as opposed to it. I don't think there's a middle path, but I think we need something a bit stronger to deprecate. Unless the view is that unanimous support is required. I'm not sure if 2 or 3 members disputing it is enough. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
How many people disputing it would be required in order to satisfy you? Is unanimous rejection required in order for there to be a change? I'd think that we would desire to be much more conservative when it comes to speedy deletion criteria.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 08:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I would have thought that for a criterion to remain a speedy criterion, there ought to be a clear consensus that it is at least a valid criterion. And there doesn't seem to be that here (though the issue should probably be advertised more widely before drawing any conclusions).--Kotniski (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
That's my point—that we should get a clearer sense of the scope of the dispute. To be clear, I'm actually in favour of deprecation if there is a real dispute. But right now I'm not clear if it is just 2 editors or if it is a widespread disagreement. I've changed it back to "deprecated" so we can avoid knots in our panties, but I wouldn't be surprised if once such changes start to get put through full CfDs again the issue is revived and there develops a move to reinstate #6. I've left a note about its discontinuation at WT:CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
When it comes to a practical application of this principe, there have been many voices raised to suggest that, at least in certain instances, such disambiguation is superfluous. Opposition to this as a universal, blanket change obviously exists, and speedy criteria are meant to be non-controversial. Kevin McE (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC is open on Wikipedia:Notability (news events)

Just dropping a notice here to draw attention to this new proposed notability guideline that I have helped create. Please post feedback to the relevant section on its Talk page. Thanks, The WordsmithCommunicate 18:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is the RFC? The link to Notability is the proposed policy, not the RFC. Thank you. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The RFC is being held at Wikipedia talk:Notability (news events)#Request for Comments. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

op-ed quotes allowed?

Can an editorial from a respected newspaper be mentioned on Wikipedia? I thought that this is to be mostly avoided. However, this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state_terrorism has full of it.

American presidents are often mentioned in editorials. Currently, American presidents' article have a structure like "President -- signed the XYZ Act in 1999". If editorials are allowed, then the structure could be "President --- signed the XYZ Act in 1999. The New York Times opposed the act because it would ---. However, the Chicago Tribune cited --- provisions of the act which would help ---"

These additions would help understanding of the historical facts but would have to be carefully written with many people. Not having these additions makes the article incomplete.

What's the position of Wikipedia about use of editorials? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suomi Finland 2009 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The general consensus is that editorials can be used to discuss the author's opinion on a topic, if the author is notable. However, they should not be used to source facts. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, it is clearer but not yet clear. So it is ok to say "If editorials are allowed, then the structure could be "President --- signed the XYZ Act in 1999. The former Prime Minister X writing for the New York Times opposed the act because it would ---. However, former presidential advisor Y writing for the Chicago Tribune cited --- provisions of the act which would help ---"? Or not ok? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't quite follow what you're getting at, but from the sounds of it this seems to be an issue which you should discuss on the article's talk page.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Rather than "if the author is notable" (which, BTW, implies WP:Notable even if you mean wikt:notable), say "if the author's opinion is relevant to the topic". For example, even though George W. Bush is WP:Notable, his opinion on the Colossus of Rhodes probably isn't relevant to anything. Anomie⚔ 23:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The point is that you can neither use editorials nor op-eds as a source, but you can use what a notable person says as a source, even if it appears in an editorial or an op-ed, if it is relevant to the article, but I would not allow a quote of a notable person in it as a source, and then only as a quote from them (the editorial or op-ed has to be authored by that notable person). Does that help? 199.125.109.126 (talk) 07:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
That's not quite true... editorials can be used to source the statements and opinions of people or groups. There's nothing forbidding any source being used properly.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability without verifiability

An article that demonstrates notability without the ability to verify said notability. How should it be treated? I know that demonstrating notability even without referencing it is enough to block CSD. Second, referencing facts are necessary to prevent hoaxes and false info.

When an article is obviously not a hoax (as shown by minimal sources, a framework, or other method), what are your thoughts regarding the need for verifiability in existing articles?

For example, I wrote an article on my old army unit, Bahad 16. While I can't cite my knowledge (WP:OR), the article describes the unit's notability. Joe407 (talk) 13:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any particular reason to believe that your unit is notable in the technical sense of the word? If there isn't enough in reliable sources then it clearly isn't. See WP:GNG for the definition of notability. All the other reliability notability guidelines are basically just to prevent endless discussions in borderline cases. But it's not even clear that this is a borderline case. By the way, reliable (see WP:RS) sources in Hebrew would contribute to notability, and you are free to use them. Hans Adler 13:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I'm not asking only about the article I mentioned. I feel it is an interesting general policy question. Joe407 (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The general answer is that Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research are core content policies. Thus, any subject that can not be verified should via reliable published sources should not have an article until such time said published sources come into existence. This is not a perfect solution (some "encyclopedic" topics are denied articles in order to keep millions of anonymous garage bands, bored school kiddies, and used-car salesmen from creating articles about themselves), but given the wide-open nature of Wikipedia is a functional means of separating the proverbial wheat from the chaff. --Allen3 talk 14:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually the general question is the one Hans Adler gave. Notability on wikipedia means the existence of reliable sources. So the case you describe can in principle not exists. If a subject is notable then reliable sources exists, because if no reliable sources exists then the subject is not notable. Taemyr (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources

- WP:GNG

On the one hand I understand this policy as a filtering tool. On the other hand it poses a different definition of notability than may be in common use. We are requiring RS to create notability, while creation of RS is generally bases on public interest, which is not always the same as notability. A topic which people are familiar with yet holds no special interest to the media would be notable while lacking RS. For example, the plastic furniture covers that little old ladies put on all of their furniture. This is a topic that we all know about and may even have ourselves but is a topic of zero interest to anyone who might generate WP:RS.

Taemyr is correct that the process is self-perpetuating but my question is what about when it can not get started? Joe407 (talk) 05:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You're concern is at least partially rooted in a widespread but mistaken view of what sources are acceptable for use in general. Offline sources, and even primary sources, are not only usable on Wikipedia but can often time be extremely helpful. Obviously any self-published source (to use your own example, some sort of product info from the plastic furniture manufacturer) would be perfectly usable as long as the article doesn't become sycophantic about the product.
There are some people who tend to loose their minds when they see any primary sources being used, but from what I've seen most admins and the majority of interested editors are reasonable about the deletion and/or removal of those references.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 06:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
While any sort of RS is acceptable for writing an article, WP:N requires "secondary" sources independent of the subject to establish notability. Even though WP:N is a guideline and not policy, enough people pretend it's policy that it makes no difference. Anomie⚔ 12:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Well yea, but... I guess that my main point is that I find blanket injunctions against using classifications of sources to be unusable in all instances to be disquieting. It may be that those types of references have been unacceptable in every real example to date, but I don't see that alone being a good reason to codify a rule explicitly forbidding their use (although it does suggest the possibility). Anyway, the WP:N guideline is important, and I personally don't see the fact that it is a guideline to be suggestive that it lacks any sort of remit here or anywhere else. The point though is that I think notability is somewhat important, but it is not the end all be all of Wikipedia that many seem to think that it is.00:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Villages that occupy the same location?

I do remember seeing a discussion about this somewhere. Should two separate articles exist for a village at the same location which has been known by different names in history? It has come up again here. Other examples include Shechem & present day Salim, Nablus or Gibeon (ancient city) & Jib, Jerusalem. Sepphoris and Saffuriya both redirect to Tzippori. Chesdovi (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Its not "a village at the same location which has been known by different names".. Its one Syrian village, and one separate Israeli settlement.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Whenever an ancient city and a modern settlement occupy the same city but have relatively distinct histories, there is good cause to split them into individual articles. Good examples might be cities that were destroyed and a new settlement subsequently built upon the same location at a later time. Old cities that have simply undergone name changes (Istanbul, St. Petersburg for examples) have a fairly cohesive history and it would be silly to split them up by name. Shereth 17:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Personally I believe that villages which no longer exist (except by amalgamation where the former name is retained in a community sense, for example the various cities of Toronto that assimilated in 1998) should only be included if they are historically notable. Otherwise, they deserve mention only on the modern named article. Obviously ancient cities have a lot of historical / paleontological background. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the above. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
No you don't! Here [1] you are against mentioning the former name of Neve Ativ and seem to want a separate article for Jubata Ez-Zeit even though it no longer exists (except in the form of the successor settlement Neve Ativ) and was not historically notable. Meowy 19:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I haven't made any comment regarding Jubata, so I don't know where you got the idea taht I support a sepperater article for it. What I agree with is if it is not historically notable, it shoudl not be included. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
You wrote Neve Ativ has never been "formerly Jubata Ez-Zeit". and here are saying you agree with villages which no longer exist ... deserve mention only on the modern named article, thus contradicting yourself. The site of Neve Ativ was formerly known as Jubata Ez-Zeit. Meowy 20:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The site of today's Moshav was once the site of a village called Jubata. That is no tthe same as saying the Moshav was formerly known as Jubata. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Neve Ativ is a place-name, Jubata is a place-name. They are different place-names, but the are being used to define the same location. The article is not about place-names, it is about a settlement at a specific location. The settlement on that location is now known as Neve Ativ and was formerly known as Jubata Ez-Zeit. Meowy 20:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
No, The settlement at that location is Neve Ativ. There was formerly a different settlement, roughly located in the same area, that was called Jubata. But N-A was not formerly known as Jubata. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The cited information was quite specific, it is not "roughly located" but "built on top of". A settlement site does not become an entirely different settlement site just because its population changes: "formerly known as Jubata" is the correct wording because it is the wording that is found in countless other articles. Meowy 21:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you have not provided one single source showing that Neve Ativ was "formerly Jubata" or provided evidence for anything else you have said. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thie cited information is not a relaible source - it is a political screed by an interested party. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Neve Ativ does not have any former name, you are making stuff up, Jubata Ez-Zeit is a separate Syrian village. You have not provided one single source for your claims. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
true that. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
"Israeli settlement of Neve Ativ built on top of the destroyed Syrian village of Jubata Ez-Zeit" - photo caption on page 33 of this source that is already cited in the actual article [2]. Meowy 20:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, the source mentions two separate "entities" one Syrian village, and one Israeli settlement, they have no connection with each other, they are not the same thing. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If a village have occupied exactly the same location over time, it is hard to see a legitimate case for having two separate articles. If it were otherwise, there would be multiple articles for every settlement that has ever seen a population change or a name-change or a short break in settlement continuity. Regardless of its ethnic makeup, or the buildings that comprise it, it is the same settlement. They would be different settlements only if there was a serious and long-lasting break in the continuity of function on the same site (the function being its use as a human settlement). A settlement does not become a different settlement just because it it is given a different name, or because all its old buildings are replaced by new ones, or because it was abandoned for several years and then resettled by a different population or ethnic group. The case of a modern town or village built on the site of the ruins of a Classical city is different - they could have separate articles because their histories and functions could be very different. Meowy 20:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The village "Jubata" have not "occupied exactly the same location over time".. It used to exist, not now, it doesn't exist anymore, the people were expelled, the entire village destroyed, and then several years later a different nation with a completely different people built a settlement which is regarded as illegal by the entire international community on top of the first village. That settlement is not the same thing as the village that existed there before. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


I don't think we need two articles, and I think most of your edits to Neve Ativ are ok - I don't have a problem with the hsitory of Jubata described there. What I object to is saying that Neve Ativ was formerly known as Jubata. That's not true. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I cannot accept the validity of your objection because I will not accept the chaos and the POV-distortions that would be created in other articles if it was accepted as valid for that article. Meowy 21:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think any POV-distortions would be intorduced. We don't say Fremont, California was formerly known as Osirom, we just note that it is built on the same site as that Ohlone village. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
But Fremont, California really bares no direct comparison to Osirom: hundreds of years separate the usage of the two names, and they in no way are similar in settlement size or function. For the specific case we are discussion, a mere 5 years separates the two different place-name usages, a map printed in the 1960s would show the name Jubata Ez-Zeit, a map printed in the 1970s would show the name Neve Ativ on exactly the same location. Meowy 22:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, how many native american villages or communities were destroyed by the europeans and citys built on them? Are the citys today regarded as those same native american villages?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
There are a lot of Native American villages under European settlements. "Destroyed" is not usually true; places that would be a good place to locate a town tend to be obvious from the water supply and lay of the land. Our highways tend to follow Native trails such as the Trading Path which is now part of US Route 1, or most of the members of Category:Native American trails in the United States because those trails were in the right places, connecting fords over rivers while generally avoiding mountains and swamps. Abductive (reasoning) 21:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think this very much depends on how much information is available. There are a lot of examples on WP of one article covering two different cities/villages that have been in the same location. (One example is Port Royal, Nova Scotia, a city founded by French immigrants, burned to thr ground and all its residents expelled, then rebuilt and settled by English immigrants - all done in one article.) If so much information is available that the location can't be adquately covered in one article, then the content should be split per WP:Summary. Karanacs (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

2-ish ¢...
That example works if there is a shared name and/or history. (Based on the article, the English appropriated the land and the name for Port Royal)
Beyond that, and looking at the general topic that brought this up, are the cases of "same place with contemporary use of 2 or more names" (I can't think of an cities that fit that, mostly geographic features) and cases of "same place, different names adt different times, all but no shared history" (which seems to be the case here).
Of those two, the first would be one article, could only be one article, with a potential conflict of the article name.
But the second... There is a way forward, but it isn't pretty.
  • Separate articles for each community.
  • Each article mentions briefly previous and subsequent communities to occupy the location.
  • If the destruction/demise of one community was the immediate precursor to the formation of the nest, a bit more than a "brief mention" is going to be needed.
  • WP:NPOV needs to be observed on all the related articles.
  • If one or more of the articles does not meet WP:N, and they need to be merged, then two options are available:
    • Merging up to the next larger community strata. Keeping a NPOV.
    • Merging with the other communities that share the location. In that case the naming of the article should fall the most common name for the location in English. If that cannot be hashed out for whatever reason, next best would be "Communities that have been at Lat & Long", redirects firmly used to point links to it, and the communities listed in chronological order.
- J Greb (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
My call...
  • If there has been continuous habitation: One article... Use what ever name is most common in English language sources (see WP:NAME), but a) mention the other name in the lead, indicating its historical context. In the main text, use which ever name applies given the historical context of what you are discussing.
  • If there has not been continuous habitation: Determine if the older settlement is notable enough for a seperate article (ie is it discussed by its historical name in scholarly and/or historical sources)... a) if so, treat them as two seperate entities and have two articles (one on the older settlement and one on the newer one)... in each mention the other settlement in passing, and provide a link to the appropriate article. b) if not, then have one article on the modern settlement, and briefly mention the fact that it was built on the site of the older settlement, but don't go into great details.
The key here is to to maintain a Neutral point of view and base what we say on the sources, and not on national/ethnic/religious/etc claims. Blueboar (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
And what do you think about the naming issue. After the name of the newer settlement, is it correct to refer to the name of the older settlement with the wording "formerly called xxxx", or "once known as xxxx" where xxxx is the name of the older settlement. I would say it is correct, especially for modern-period events where there is little or no break in settlement continuity and where current maps may still indicate the older settlement. Meowy 20:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
If there has been continuous habitation then I think it is correct to say "formerly called xxx"... if there has been a break in habitation, I think it is incorrect to say "formerly called xxx". Instead I would make note of the former settlement with by saying like "YYY is located at or near the location of the historic town of xxx". Blueboar (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
There has not been continuous habitation in this case meowy, and you're still lacking a source for your claim that it is formerly known as... --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Nineveh now part of the suburbs of Mosul would be an example of 2 settlements at the same place, so would Memphis and Cairo (although Memphis may not be in Cairo proper), although arguably these sites have known continuous habitation. Knossos on the other hand has been empty long before Heraklion was founded in about 800 AD and it seems reasonable to have two articles here. Arnoutf (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Arnoutf, you chose some good examples to focus the discussion. I'd add another, whether a settlement has different historical contexts and in the modern context. for example, a Bohemian settlement called Vratislavia became part of the medieval Kingdom of Poland and was renamed Wrocław; the city was devastated in 1241 during the Mongol invasion of Europe and, after rebuilding, the population was mainly German-speaking and called it Breslau; for some times it was a largely independent city within the Polish kingdom, and a member of the Hanseatic League; the name Breslau persisted through a series of changes of control, until the city was given to Poland at the end of World War II, and it has been Wrocław since 1945. The population has been mainly Polish since shortly after the end of World War II. I became aware of this while working on the article on Adolf Anderssen, a 19th-century chess player of German ancestry and language. In historical studies it looks as if one should use the name of the time, for consistency with sources and "Further reading" - so for example the article on Adolf Anderssen uses "Breslau" except for a brief note on the city's current status. --Philcha (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User box PY

There is a well used User box for people who program with Python called {{User py}}. A user from Paraguay would like to know if it is ok to use {{User PY}}? See for example Template talk:User py. The issue is to use case sensitive names. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not move it to {{User Paraguay}} and save the confusion? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 17:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

New compromise proposal: SecurePoll for ArbCom election

Dear colleagues

Many editors participated in a recent RfC, Public polling versus secret ballot. The results were not conclusive.

A compromise solution has been proposed here, on which all users are welcome to voice their opinion. Tony (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the policy on villages?

I contended on Talk:Su’heita that just as the villages of Bălteni, Boteni, Călugăreni, Conţeşti, Crângaşi, Gămăneşti, Heleşteu, Napclaşarea and Mereni in Conţeşti, Dâmboviţa are not notable and therefore do not warrant their own pages, so too does the same apply to the villages listed at List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel. Supreme Deliciousness has pointed out, however, that there are individual pages for French villages destroyed in the First World War. Not only that; if you take a look at Category:Communes of Nord for example, most of the communes featured are one liners and have no apparent notability; they could also have a population as small as 58, (Les Éparges). I have in the past created pages for villages (Amnaş) but they were immediately merged. What is the official policy on this? Does every village or hamlet that exists or has existed warrant a page? Chesdovi (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I hate hate hate the idea that "every place is notable". It is patently false, and I hate seeing it parroted ad nauseum that X village in Y country is notable just because it is/was a village. However, part of this problem is because of the way in which the word "notable" is used on Wikipedia - it is neither consistent with the dictionary definition of the word, nor is it consistent in its use across the project. That said, I have largely reconciled myself with the existence of sub-stub articles on obviously non-notable settlements by taking to heart the statement in one of the five pillars of Wikipedia : "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" (emphasis added). I no longer think of articles of the type in question as being encyclopedia entries, but rather consider them "gazetteer entries" in compliance with that particular role that Wikipedia serves. Granted, this may be a lot of mental gymnastics on my part, but it's what allows me to reconcile the fact that an article on some obscure hamlet need not be notable to exist :) Shereth 16:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Could also fall under almanac. I believe every geographical feature should be included. While the particular person who started the article may only know that it is a village in a country, every settlement has hundreds if not thousands of years of history prior to the present, and that certainly is notable. Wikipedia should be the place to find out about villages in who-the-hell-knows-where that you can't find out about elsewhere on the internet. Geographical features are also verifiable by their very nature: they physically exist in the world for anyone to go and check. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Why is every village ever built more notable than any person ever born? (see Genealogical entries). Chesdovi (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
They aren't; hence my point that notability should not even be discussed at this point. Wikipedia has a capacity as a gazetteer as stated in the five pillars, and thus geographic entries are appropriate so long as they are verifiable. But since Wikipedia is not a geneological database as your link points out, people therefore must be notable as well as being verifiable. Shereth 16:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
A little research (such as on NewsBank or NewpaperArchive) can turn articles on hamlets with seven residents into nice articles. See Donnan, Iowa and Monti, Iowa for examples. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I suspect that the vast majority of settlements that have ever existed will not reach wikipedia simply because they are long abandoned and have left no trace on the archaeological record. That said we could at some point see an explosion of creation of articles on Masaii bomas as mobile phone editing takes off. However many settlements that are being written up here existed for many centuries and the total population of people who have ever lived in them will in that case be many times their average population ϢereSpielChequers 17:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
They will all reach Wikipedia eventually! Perhaps you are unaware of it, but there is an editor that is going around creating hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles that are just empty stubs for place-names. The last time I raised the issue (back last year) he (or rather the bot he uses) had finished creating articles for every settlement in all countries starting with "A" and most of those starting with "B". Meowy 21:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hundreds of thousands? Only 50 editors have more than 100,000 total edits. What do these stubs look like? Firsfron of Ronchester 21:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Himalayan Explorer, formerly User:Dr. Blofeld, has created 63,375 articles. The location stubs look like this; Babaj Boks. Abductive (reasoning) 22:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
There are other editors who use the same article-creation bot, such as Carlossuarez46, so to be correct I should have said that it is the bot which has created hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles that are just empty stubs for place-names. Meowy 19:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It may be worth noting here that 4 of the 6 French villages destroyed in the First World War which have not been rebuilt and were used by Supreme Deliciousness to back up inclusion of destroyed Syrian villages were indeed created by User:Dr. Blofeld. Chesdovi (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel the same way about small communities as I do about high schools -- it is possible to do a reasonable article on them if you take time to research what's unique about them. I've read quite interesting histories of small settlements in local-history books and genealogical sources. But an article that simply says, "Understone is an unincorporated community in Hadleigh County, Maryland at the intersection of routes 18 and 234, 4 miles east of Hadleigh City" is of little use to anyone. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Except perhaps for people looking for directions to Understone? :) Or wanting to know if the town in unincorporated? And as a start to a larger article, a stub is a good starting place: nearly every article on WP began as a stub. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
←Every time that I see this sort of topic come up I notice quite a few "These stub articles are useless" reply. That attitude really bothers me, and I would like to encourage those of you who feel that way to at least consider Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. This is a guess on my part, which is always somewhat dangerous, but I think that many of you are freaking out about the number of articles on Wikipedia.
There seems to be a contingent that feels worried about the articles that they can't see (or, to put this less delecately, have control issues). To those of you in this group, consider the fact that there are thousands of other editors out there, and that most of us actually seem to have similar views.
There also seems to be a contingent who, while they never actually state any performance concerns, seems to feel that more articles are somehow hard on the system. Aside from Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance, you should all keep in mind that for enterprise level SQL servers running on a server fer, 3 million + items of text (10 million+, including talk pages and templates, etc...) is really a pittance for SQL. There are databases out there that handle trillions of entries. WMF doesn't have to pay money for each article or anything either, so... chill.
I don't want to sound like a total ideologue here. Wikipedia shouldn't include garage bands, or host my resume, or anything like that. There's a distinct difference between attempting to start pages for what potentially could be a legitimate article and starting a bunch of garage band articles, though. If someone has created 600,000+ stub articles about locations, that's something to celebrate to me, not something which should be panned.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia should be about readers, not editors. A reader comes to an article expecting content, not expecting an empty article. A reader searching for information about the town of Zig in Zagland is not exactly going to be happy to find an article telling him nothing more than "Zig is a town in Zagland" - he will know that already! It diminishes the credibility of Wikipedia as a source of information. However, I know that there are strong vested interests in maximising the number of articles on Wikipedia, and maxmising the number and the rate of creation of newly-created articles, so criticism of the practice of mass place-name stub creation is not going to be successful. Meowy 19:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
These stubby place names are often better treated as redirects to entries within the context of an article about a larger geographic unit or as an entry in a list article. When and/or if more verifiable information is found to support a stand-alone article, they can be split out at that time. older ≠ wiser 20:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
A couple of points in reply here. Personally I feel that it is more of a service to our readers to present something other then "Wikipedia doesn't have an article on...". I also think that it's an awfully large assumption to make that people already know that "Zig is a town in Zagland", which if you give any credence at all to the studies showing the lack of knowledge about geography is almost certainly not true. As for redirecting... what would the targets be? I see redirecting as a decent solution to fill out stub articles personally, but I don't see an easy way to redirect a location article to anything else.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you actually use Wikipedia? (Editing Wikipedia is not using Wikipedia!) I first became aware of the vast number of useless place-name stubs when I was searching for information about certain places, and all I found were dozens of article stubs. Every site I found on using Google was worthless - either worthless Wikipedia stubs, or worthless pages from the many sites that use Wikipedia content and so contained no more content that the original Wikipedia stub. It is often said that "if you have nothing to say then best say nothing" - it should be the same for a Wikipedia article. Meowy 16:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'd say that I use Wikipedia more then I edit it. Recently I've been more outspoken and participatory here, but I've relied on Wikipedia since... well, for a long time. I do sympathize with the point that you're making, but I think that it's slightly misplaced here. Consider what you would see in the absence of Wikipedia, in the examples that you are brought up, after all. Would you feel better if Google gave you 100,000 pure garbage links, or 1.5 million links, but the first dozen were Wikipedia and all of its mirrors with (admittedly) sub-par content? I'm not really defending our sub-stub or stub level articles on their own merits, but I think that their better then absolutely nothing.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 17:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
To the question about targets for location articles, the answer is fairly simple. If all that can be said about the town of Zig is that it is a town in Zagland, redirecting it to a List of cities and towns in Zagland. If Zagland is a large country and such a list would be unmaintainably large, then create individual lists for the provinces/states/whatevers : List of cities and towns in Zug. It's a fairly simple solution to the problem. If and when someone comes along with more information about Zig, then an actual article can go in its place. I have no real issue with sub-stub articles on real locations, but in situations where there is genuinely nothing to say about a place other than that it exists, list articles may well be a good solution. Shereth 17:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
...Is it always that obvious when the content of an article should be "bumped up" (so to speak) to the next highest category level? I mean, it's fairly easy to look at 10's or 100's of sub-stubs after they are created and say "maybe these should be a single list", but... well, for one thing, that takes extra work, and seeing that fact is often part of the work involved. Probably more important though is the fact that the article's current state says nothing about it's potential state. Just because all that the article creator added is the absolute bare minimum doesn't mean that the article couldn't be (often, greatly) expanded. Even the tiniest populated places tend to have lengthy histories, simply because of human nature, after all (not that those histories are always important outside of the context of the settlement, but still...).
I think that this is a somewhat philosophical issue, in that I probably personally tend to see and desire the potential from articles, whereas many other people (perhaps yourself included) only see the here and now. That's not intended as a knock on you in any way, as either perspective has it's advantages... but, neither of us should be so iconoclastic in our views as to make the other perspective "foreign".
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 17:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I was unclear, but I am in no way advocating a reductionist methodology with regards to settlement articles. In fact, when any history on a settlement can be found (verifiable) I fully agree that the preferred outcome would be the creation of a full-fledged article, even if it is still a stubby article. Primarily I was referring to the numerous articles whose content is of the "X is a city in Y" format and contains nothing more than statistical data (geographical coordinates, population figures, etc). These types of articles are well suited to being merged into a tabular list that can present the data in a concise fashion. This should be in no way viewed as discouragement to the creation of full-fledged articles when more information is available. Shereth 18:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

What is policy?

For anyone brave enough to grapple with "what is policy?", please have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Policies_and_guidelines#New_classification. I'm proposing using the enforcement policy subcat for some policy pages that people have been arguing about for a long time, and trying to get some clarification on what makes policy pages different from other pages. - Dank (push to talk) 17:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the issue here is what makes one kind of policy page different from other kinds of policy pages. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I notice that BIOS has external links (as a reference) to several articles at Smart Computing. When I followed these links I found them to be unavailable without a paid-for subscription. While I understand that all references cannot be to free content this seems a bit like using Wikipedia for advertising. What irks is that the links are to a page with a "pay me money now" button.

Apologies for being lazy and not researching whether this topic has already been throughly discussed and exhausted.

--kop (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, It probably hasn't been discussed enough. Personally, you'll probably be slightly surprised to learn that I'm supportive of more of these sorts of references. I can understand the frustration when they are encountered, but we should really train ourselves to get over the "instant coffee" sense of instant gratification entitlement that we've all come to expect over the past 2 decades or so. You can't instantly verify that source... I'm sympathetic, but the fact is that you (and I) should be able to put some trust in the fact that someone did actually verify that ref is legit. If there is a real question about it (for some "hotly" controversial content, for example), then I wouldn't mind questioning and demanding a "free" (as in beer) source be at least added alongside of it. Otherwise... it's the same thing as a book/physical media ref. Just because you can't verify it right now isn't synonymous with it being unverifiable.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 16:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)While free sources are preferred, for obvious reasons, using non-freely-accessible sources is acceptable. Certain academic journals cannot be found free online (some libraries do have subscriptions, but not all), and they are vital for articles which fall in those areas. WP:V requires that somebody be able to verify that the source exists and contains what it claims to, not that it can be verified for free. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
This is covered by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access to sources. Blueboar (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, as always, we do have the much under-advertised WP:WikiProject Resource Exchange. There usually is some Wikipedian who has access to the source in question. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that this is a perennial question (something I pointed out the last time this was brought up), and as Blueboar mentioned its already clearly marked in WP:V and in the accompanying "cost" essay that was created last time this came up and I mentioned that it was a perennial question that should be answered with an essay instead of more discussion...Camelbinky (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Newslibrary (you have to pay) or EBSCO Host (you have to be at a library that pays) as sources

The original discussion was here [3]

I saw a Newslibrary link in a reference for one article I was working on I suppose a free source is possible, but what if it isn't? I used to be able to see certain Newslibrary articles for free, but my user page shows why I can't any more.

EBSCO Host didn't work for me for one article where someone reverted me for an expired link, which of course would not have been allowed, but just in case the person does come back, it would be nice to have something to show him/her. Not that this person would pay.

I did use EBSCO where all the sources had formatted templates already, but I made a note about that in the edit summary and I suppose a link wouldn't be needed. My link might not work anywya even if someone is at a library that pays, simply because it's no longer my session.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to re-emphasize that there is not and AFAIK never has been a requirement that a valid citation have an online link! An ordinary text-type citation to the articles in question (assuming a WP:reliable source of course) is all that is necessary to satisfy WP:CITE! Citing EBSCO Host or Newslibrary is unnecessary and inappropriate; they are not the source, they are a place where sources may be discovered by googling or whatever. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I fixed mine and the one I found.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
A link online for someone to look at is a convenience, one many like to have, and can still be added even if using the cite template for book or magazine or journal; and I wouldnt say it is "unnecessary" and I definitely would not say "inappropriate" to use the link to them as a means for those able to view it to do so, though Orange Mike is correct you shouldnt use them as the citation itself. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost is the essay that explains the "access to sources" section of WP:V that explains that "verifiable" does not mean "verifiable by YOU, this instant for free with no effort", pay sites are just as equal as free ones.Camelbinky (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Discuss and draft graphical layout overhauls no longer marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Discuss and draft graphical layout overhauls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Details: merged in Wikipedia:Be bold#Graphical layout changes (discussion). Cenarium (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Typos and redirect pages.

Motivated by a question at WP:RD/S, I tagged the redirect page Luekemia, which redirected to Leukemia, for speedy deletion, for maintenance reasons. I sincerely believed that the deletion would be uncontroversial, because the initial creation of the page appeared to have been motivated by vandalism (in 2006), and that someone later redirected it to Leukemia, and that it had no incoming links, until the question which contained the typo appeared at the refdesk now. Because the typo was part of the section title, I stated in the thread that it was a typo, and that I was about to tag it for deletion. To my surprise, the deletion was contested; see the RD thread here.

As I am not a native English speaker, it is possible that I regard the typo as less likely to occur than a native speaker would. However, at the moment, the only link to the typo-redirect page comes from my user page, motivated by my interest in seeing whether it is deleted or not. As "gardening" and anti-vandalism work is a major part of my participation in this project, and as my general frame of mind is inclusionist, I need clearly need guidance on this issue. Thanks in advance for your advice on how to handle redirect pages for typos, and for links to policies that I may not be aware of. --NorwegianBlue talk 00:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The redirect is used often and daily. See http://stats.grok.se/en/200910/Luekemia. SunCreator (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
So far as guidance is concerned, my advice would be to leave redirects. They are harmless and often useful, many of them over time become disambigious pages. SunCreator (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks for drawing my attention to http://stats.grok.se/en/YYYYMM/Articlename. I had never heard of it. Very useful. --NorwegianBlue talk 09:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
It's common for native English speakers to transpose adjacent vowels. Spellings like "freind", "seige", "luekemia", and "becuase" are not at all unusual. --NellieBly (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Define "spoiler warning". Define best practice. Rewrite WP:Spoilers to explain its rationale.

WP:Spoilers is a vaguely worded Wikipedia guideline. Pages and pages of back and forth have been written about it and probably frayed countless nerves and continues to do so but no one has addressed the problem, a problem that can be sourced in part to the absolutist interpretation people give this guideline. Someone should give a one-stop reference on the issue that brings up all the arguments on both sides of the debate and can be used to quickly address and dispel issues.

I have proposed as a solution a hyperlink to WP:Spoilers as a way of addressing the issue but am being told that would be a violation of WP:Spoilers. I disagree because I think a hyperlink falls under the auspices of WP:Link. Pointy bureaucrats are pushing an absolutist interpretation instead of trying to find a mutually acceptable solution. Let's lay out all the arguments in one place and compare and stop going in circles. To that end I plan to edit this section in such a way that keeps a focus on the points made. Lambanog (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference does not exist

I've had several edits reverted because, according to the edit summary, the reference did not exist.

Actually, it did exist at one time and still does exist in forms the person who reverted might have a hard time getting to. I used to not provide links for newspaper and magazine articles because, as was true in this case, the links no longer work after a few months. But then I had someone revert my edit for NOT providing a link, so for that reason, and because some articles generally have links, I've been providing them.

I'm not sure how to handle this. I consider the information important, although over time it might be true that the information makes the article too wordy. Right now the issues are still coming up.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

References need not be available online in order to be a valid reference. I would suggest that if the link is broken you simply do not provide the link; assuing that the original refernce was from a news website, you should be able to treat it as a print reference without the URL and run with it. Anyone who disagrees with you may be directed to WP:RS - nowhere in that guideline does it stipulate that a reference must be available online. Shereth 18:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, if those links don't work, most of the links in the article don't work anymore.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
See also WP:LINKROT for some advice on how to proceed with broken references. Shereth 18:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Another option is to see if the article is available on an archiving service. WP:DEADREF gives some good links to find information that was reviously on the web and has now been removed. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 18:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've had some luck with the newspaper that is the source for most of the information in the article on EBSCO Host. It's not a guarantee, though, and I certainly don't look forward to doing that much work. I could just tell this person if I find the articles on EBSCO and then it's up to that person, using what I give him/her, to find them.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

  • The best solution is to find another link to the story. News reports tend to be cross-posted and archived all over the place, so using a dead link is rarely (if ever) excusable. Shareth is right though in that there's absolutely nothing to say that references need to be online. You could simply use a reference to the print edition of the newspaper/magazine/whatever.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 19:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I found another solution. Someone cited an article using a Newsbank link. I don't know if I can do that without paying for the article. There used to be a way for me to get to Newsbank at the library where I am now, but my user page explains why I can no longer do that.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The bottom line is that there is absolutely no requirement that a source be available online anywhere, ever. If it exists in print form only, then that is fine. If it is available online for a fee, that's a bonus. If is available online for free, that's an extra bonus. If anyone deletes a reference to a print source because the link is dead, then sure, substitute an archive if one is available. But if there isn't an online archive, put the reference back in with no link, and if challenged point the challenging editor(s) to WP:Linkrot, where it clearly states in the introduction that sources do not have to be online. --RL0919 (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Rules on Wikipedia considering specific content

I propose that we do have rules on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia wikis that forbids certain content. While Wikipedias goal is to become the the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, with complete information about everything. That's just where the problems start - let's jsut take an example, an underage can easily be tricked to articles containing pictures with pornography, for example the adult video game Bubble Bath Babes, with no warning preciding whatsover, a higly illegal fact. There's even worse examples, like the cover band of Virgin Killer, with Internet Watch Foundation even blacklisting certain Wikipedia articles, due to it breaking international laws. Yet, it was left due to informational purposes.

This is basically why I propose that we add rules to all Wikimedia wikis, all of which (if possibly) depends on the country the wiki is situated in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Von Mario (talk • contribs) 12:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, in Germany though child pornography is illegal, the first edition of the cover of Virgin Killer is legal there. In fact, the "child pornography" moral panic has caused many non-pornography works be banned in some countries, and give some persons arrested (news media's real name disclosure hurt them more, as it causes them harder to find jobs).--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia (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) 02:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this one's actually not a page move false-positive... Clear consensus on the talk page, so, this is not an issue.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 02:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I too am surprised Unionhawk, I came here thinking that surely there was no consensus, and your comment would be pointing that out! Didnt we have a discussion here regarding this very issue of copying within Wikipedia and have no consensus, or at least different views along the same lines? How is it that the decision got made easily at a smaller venue at the talk page of the essay/guideline easier where those that support would be most likely and those that oppose less likely to be at... Hmmm....Camelbinky (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I dont know about due process, but I do know that either at the Village Pump (policy) or Village Pump (proposal) pages there was a discussion not too long ago on copying within Wikipedia and exactly what was allowed and should there be something written about it, it may be archived, I wont be able to look into it until around midnight (US central time zone). I dont remember whether there was a consensus but I think alot of people had differing opinions on just what was needed and how strict. I'm not saying the guideline is bad, I'm just wondering if some editors did an end run around the Village Pump because they didnt like what was being said there. No judgement on my end on how the guideline ended up, just wanting to make sure that it wasnt premature and intentional on circumventing a larger group discussion.Camelbinky (talk) 04:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the concern for due process, I'm just not sure if that alone would be good reason for making a fuss. As long as no one actually objects to it being a guideline, I don't think it's so terrible that it was inaugurated swiftly. This isn't such a pivotal, far-reaching, or potentially controversial change, and it can be undone easily if there are objections. Now that it has been marked, a discussion could be started here to confirm a broader consensus, and go from there. That said, I wouldn't mind issuing a general warning on the new guideline's talk page, and to whoever posted the guideline tag, to warn that future guideline proposals should be advertised in central locations for a while before marking them as successful. Equazcion (talk) 04:14, 12 Nov 2009 (UTC)
The best I can on quick search find at Village pump (policy) is this Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 68#Policy against duplicating text between articles?; doesnt seem like consensus and may have been the genesis of this essay that turned into guideline quickly. I concur with Equazcion that unless someone objects to it being a guideline the question of procedure is moot. I believe that policy is that a procedural error is not reason to undo something that is well-intentioned. Ohm's Law or Equazcion are better suited to answer that than I about procedural error though.Camelbinky (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Is this really something that we should spend time worrying about? I'm not going to, personally. If anyone really has an issue with that document being a guideline then they should edit the page to remove the {{guideline}} tag and then discuss the issue there. There's no need for us to act like some sort of jilted congressional representatives who are upset that someone has usurped our authority to pass legislation, or anything.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Considering the discussion and support to promote, I would prefer that that user place {{Disputedtag}} rather than removing the {{guideline}} tag directly. Flatscan (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I admit I enjoy employing law terms on WP but it's not meant seriously. What I wouldn't like to see, it's guidelines and policies being adopted after minimal discussion and just a vote. The page was 'promoted' after a poll. Polling is not a substitute to discussion and doesn't on its own establish consensus. Despite this, it looks like the guideline is supported enough, relies on consensual policies and reflects practice rather than introducing new policy, so it's OK for me. Cenarium (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
One additional issue to keep in mind with this sort of thing is WP:SILENCE. Essentially, if you're unwilling to either edit or discuss the issue, then you're providing support.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
OK... so how does this work in practice? Say I am merging the text of one article into another article... what do I have to do to adhear to this guideline. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
A good first step is to read the guideline :). It provides clear instructions on why attribution is needed and how to properly do it - something which has been lacking until now. The Proper attribution section is what you are looking for. – Toon 16:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Just to be clear, one always had to follow these instructions as they are mandated by the licensing agreements. The aim of the "new" guideline is to make people more aware of these requirements and to explain them in plain English. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding existing practice, there is a list at WT:Copying within Wikipedia#Relevant pages. The directions in Help:Merging#Performing the merger (which are actually relevant to copying for any reason) date back to 2005 and 2007. Flatscan (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Let me reiterate- I'm fine with the new guideline and am not opposing it and its ridiculous seeing how long this thread has gotten despite repeated attempts to say "its not an issue" by me and others (sorry I'm partially responsible for starting the whole thing). But as Thadeaus points out this was already existing policy and I do wish someone on that guideline decision discussion had thought about "instruction creep" and "undue bureaucracy" when deciding to write this guideline when it already exists in other locations, including a help page. Maybe those same people would like to set-up a guideline that tells you to start a sentence with a capital letter?Camelbinky (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
While the issue may now seem clear cut to you, I do enough with copyright concerns to know that it is not so clear to all of Wikipedia's contributors. Less than a week ago, we had a case come up at WT:Copyclean. I could show you many examples, though I'd rather not, as I've got a lot more pressing work to do. :) At this point, I'll presume that you are satisfied that "it wasnt premature and intentional on circumventing a larger group discussion." I brought it to VPP, inviting feedback there and incorporating the suggestion we did receive, before launching the RfC. There was no intention of circumventing a larger group discussion. On the contrary, I did everything appropriate I could think of to invite general feedback and feedback from those interested in copyright issues. In addition to these fora, I also requested input at WT:Copyrights, WT:Copyclean and WT:Reusing Wikipedia content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Autobiography is fine after all?

I nominated the article on David R. Brown (neuroscientist) for deletion because it is a clear autobiography/vanity article (see talk page for explanation). The subject is known within his professional field, but the article does not give a neutral, unbiased view. Every one of the 18 items in "further reading" is authored/co-authored by the subject. Of the 11 references, 5 are authoured/co-authored by the subject and one is an interview with the subject. The author of the article has previously deleted discussion of these issues on the talk page, saying "I don't think it is appropriate for it remain there as it is not about the contents of the article and it also makes me known publically as the person that created it. I keep trying to delete it but it keeps being put back. Please can this be remove or at least my name be removed." Since the page was moved into mainspace on 1st May 2009, only 3 other users have edited the main text at all, which would tend to argue against notability. I've never been that confident with Wikipedia policies, but after reading the biography guidelines I got the clear impression that Wikipedia did not want unsourced autobiographies, so thought it seemed reasonable to propose the article for deletion. I was surprised to get the response (via the article history page): "absurd nomination. Take it to AfD if you dare)". I've never nominated anything for deletion before, so could someone explain whether a) I went down the wrong deletion 'route' or b) biased unsourced autobiography is just fine? Purple 01:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the talk page deletions have already been addressed by others and reverted. Obviously no one ever has warrant to delete talk page comments made by others. If the editor persists in that, they should be blocked for disruption and vandalism. That's not a novel concept, so there's no need to have a project-wide discussion about it.
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest "strongly discourages", but does not prohibit autobiographical writing. Obviously all content, regardless of who posts it, needs to be verifiable and NPOV. But as you already know, this article went through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process, which means that the subject's claims to notability went through some peer review before being moved to mainspace. Which does not conclusively guarantee that the article is notable, but neither does the number of editors of an article mean that the subject is not notable. If you are convinced that the article's subject is not notable, then list it at AFD. But if your only concern is that the article's subject is editing the article, the remedy for that is monitoring, not deletion. postdlf (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Bear in mind I'm not familiar with the articles for creation process (or the various deletion processes and policies). I guess I just assumed that 'strongly discouraged' meant that there would be consequences. He is notable within a narrow field, so I suppose it would have to come down to monitoring. Also mentioned on the Conflict of interest noticeboard: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Gonkstem Purple 02:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Refname footnotes

The issue is whether articles should be required to use "named footnotes" when there are duplicates (for example, <ref name="myfootnote">). This change is currently implemented automatically by AWB. The discussion has been moved to Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Refname_footnotes_(from_village_pump); please continue the discussion there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how accurate the "required" characterization is, in relation to this discussion. Wider participation certainly couldn't hurt, however.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 20:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Policy on requests for unblock

Going to Category:Requests for unblock, I was surprised to read that "...[admins should not] review an unblock request where they have a conflict of interest, whether by having set the original block or by participating in disputes relating to it." I agree that it would be wrong for me to decline an unblock request put up by someone whom I blocked, but what if I think that I made a mistake and want to unblock? What's the benefit in saying that I'm effectively prohibited from unblocking a user because they've asked for it? Nyttend (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that just be reversing your own decision? I'm fairly certain I've seen admins do that before. It shouldn't be an issue. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I would think, and certainly hope, that it wasn't the guidelines intention to say you can't accept any unblock request where you were the blocking admin. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Right. The spirit of the rule is that you don't decline an unblock request if you're the person who blocked them in the first place. It's at the least an appearance of impropriety, if not straight up abuse of admin tools. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
If you have blocked someone, you accept a degree of responsibility for that block. Strictly speaking, the rules suggest you should not review appeals against your own blocks, but if you want to reverse one of your own blocks, ignore the rule and do it. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Bot request to add unreferenced tags to articles flagged by Erik9bot

Some time back, Erik9bot added Category:Articles_lacking_sources_(Erik9bot) to about 115,000 pages. The original proposal was for editors to manually review these pages and take whatever action is appropriate. There is now a proposal, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot XXI, to go through all the articles in that category and automatically mark them with the {{unreferenced}} tag. Those who are interested may comment on the bot request page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Article creation warning, notability

When a user first creates a page they get this warning, "When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references may quickly be deleted." This warning is not enough. Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion deals with a lot of frustrated users who have provided references, but haven't shown Notability. A lot of them then complain at WP:Deletion Review. Improving this warning sentence to make a claim about notability would not be a cure-all, but it might provide a few less upset new users and over time, a significant saving of time for contributors at AfD and DelRev. This is an area where strong editors quickly burn out, even if 1% of new article writers read the sentence would help.

Suggestion "When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources that show notability. An article without references may quickly be deleted." Miami33139 (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

About Wikipedia:Notability (software)

Though the guideline itself is inactive and is retained for historical reference, I think it should be a formal guideline since though a software given five stars or equivalents should have an independent articles, some Wikipedians differentiate it from regular software awards. So I make a proposal: as long as a software has been mentioned non-trivially by more than one computer book, magazine or other publications, or has been given five stars or editor's pick or equivalents by a reputable download site or computer magazine, or has been commented by a celebrity, or is not freeware, it should have an independent article. In fact I truly hate to propose new policies or guidelines since it effects instruction creep, however, I have to propose a new notability guideline since some notable software, such as O&O Defrag, XnView, BS.Player and K-Lite Codec Pack have been AfD-ed, BS.Player was even deleted despite it has been given five stars on Download.com. Two years ago one Wikipedian considered a software notability guideline necessary, however no one noticed it, Now let's face the AfD problem and propose a software guideline to curb illegitimate deletions of software articles.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Your proposal is relevant, although I'm also sceptical of wp:CREEP. But it is definitely a problem at AfD. Most software AfD rationales are based on negative evidence, claims that coverage does not exist, and there is a disproportionate difference in the efforts required to nominate and vote delete, and to present arguments in favour of keep. Also, editing policy per WP:PRESERVE is seldom respected, as fully WP:V WP:NOR WP:5 compliant information is deleted, without much if any consideration of merging it into parent articles. It is my impression that a relatively small group of editors are intent on "cleaning out" Wikipedia's software coverage. I believe it is well meant, but the participation is low, and with the quite substantial element of randomness in AfDs, (entirely voluntary effort, when somebody has time, you know) - well, I'm not particularly convinced that the outcome is democratic, although AfD outcomes per definition is labeled loftly as community consensus. Let me underline (undermine) my comments above, with stating that I have no interest in software articles and I'm way outside my comfort zone in terms of knowledge and skills on this topic. Just want to say that your initiative is valiant and needed. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Books/movies

We are still in the middle of a controversy over spoilers, but I would like to put out this proposal-

  • Since Wikipedia:Spoiler is clear- When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information — articles on a work of fiction should primarily describe it from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance. I think it is important to make within an existing policy/guideline the statement that if you are writting about a book/movie you must use the secondary sources that cover it for a plot. I truly dont understand how you can even have an article on a book/movie without secondary sources (they arent inherently notable so you have to have them), and since if the article exists, then the secondary sources exist, so use them. Secondary sources are required when describing other things other articles have (we cant just write about a building because it exists and describe what we see when looking at it, we need secondary sources that say it is built in the Italianate or Spanish colonial style, it has a mansard roof, is made of concrete, etc; we cant say a painting is in the impressionist style if a secondary source doesnt say it).Camelbinky (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. These pointless ramblings have already been rejected soundly at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Spoilers so now you are forum shopping (neglecting to even mention that lengthy discussion) for it? This is getting silly. (And, FYI, yes you can write about a building and describe it - a secondary source is not required to say the building is a building, that it is blue/green/etc, even that a brick is a brick or a dog is a dog. There is a difference between basics/summary and analysis (style, theme, etc) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Thats funny you say that I didnt mention it seeing as how I did in the very first sentence mention the discussion. You are upset because I spoke up against you when you were brough forth to AN/I. Nice retaliation> Call me disruptive again, or talk about me instead of putting forth your opinion on the topic. If you have nothing nice or constructive to say, dont say anything at all. FYI- the discussion at the spoilers page is still ongoing dispite your opinion it ended. This isnt forum shopping because this is a different proposal. Changing your wording from "disruptive" to "silly" afterwards doesnt make it any less of an attack on me. Watch it.Camelbinky (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
It's silly because you DID alreayd make the argument, which had gotten shot down multiple times. Again, using only what secondary sources use for plot summeries would violate....many things. And doing it in the same of preventing spoilers is even worse. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
You mentioned it, but the implication was "I know the issue of spoiler warnings is still being discussed, but here's a new idea" rather than "I proposed this in the spoiler discussion and got soundly rejected there, but I'm trying again anyway". Your proposal is, as has been stated, absolutely ridiculous. Anomie⚔ 12:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
To describe "We are still in the middle of a controversy over spoilers" as mentioning Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Spoilers is stretching a point. Nobody not already acquainted with that discussion would have had any indication that it existed from that remark, and even anyone who was acquainted with it would have to infer that that was what was being referred to. I think "didn't mention it" is closer to conveying the general nature of what happened than "did mention it". JamesBWatson (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Retaliation? Oh please. Your post in AN/I barely even blipping in mine or anyone else's radar. It was ignored for the actual retribution it was. I was involved in this discussion long before that and your random posting there isn't going to make me suddenly run away from it. Your proposal is clearly an end-run around to try to ignore the current discussion which is clearly no going in your favor. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it an "endrun", however, it is definitely a case of WP:FORUMSHOPing. The proposal was completely shot down at WP:VPR two weeks ago, but has now been resurrected in a different forum. —Farix (t | c) 14:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The discussion at the spoilers page is only alive because the same people, who keep pushing spoilers warnings or the elimination of them, are still reiterating the same old points, all of which have already been properly answered and dismissed, including the points that you are making now. I don't understand why you are bringing this up again when it was already discussed at length days ago. Jfgslo (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
While you need a secondary source to describe a building as "Italianate", you don't need one to state that it has a door. Liekwise, you don't need a secondary source in order to state the plot of a work. The work's plot is verifiable from the primary source (the work). Any commentary on or exegesis of the plot would not be verifiable from the primary source, so you need another one, just as deciding that you think a building is Italianate is OR. I often find that secondary sources (reviews, commentaries, comparisons, etc.) don't include a sufficient plot summary, as you can just go look at the original work. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Long grammatical information in lead section

An established form of the first sentence of a lead in many Wikipedia articles is (made this example up for demonstration):

Term

A Term (Latin terminus, "boundary"') is a word or phrase, especially one from a specialised area of knowledge.


However, often they look like this:

Term

A Term (Middle English: terme, from Old French: terme, originally from Latin: terminus, a bound, boundary, limit, end, Medieval Latin: also "a time", "period", "word", "covenant"; not to be confused with turm; plural: terms) is a word or phrase, especially one from a specialised area of knowledge.


Here are some actual examples: Cathetus, Octopus, Phlox, Hippopotamus, Magi, Ballista, Mount Carmel.

Although Wikipedia is not a dictionary, grammatical information (etymology, plural etc.) is often still desirable, but in the lead section when very long it compromises readability. When such extensive grammatical information is desirable, it should be repositioned outside of the lead section. I would suggest recommending this in the guidelines for first sentence format. Dan ☺ 21:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

In a similiar fashion this occured with Alexander Alekhine when a lot of extensive name information was moved into a footnote. SunCreator (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the guidelines could recommend this information be placed in a footnote or simply after the first sentence or a subsequent paragraph. Dan ☺ 12:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Some articles have a section on "Etymology", "Name origin", or "Name". I agree that it clutters the first sentence, and I also agree that it is often encyclopedic, in some cases providing far more than a dictionary would.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Which is good (providing far more than a dictionary would). It's only that this way of structuring is a tradition that makes reading awkward if this information is too long to fit into those parentheses. Dan ☺ 16:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The more articles I stumble upon with this problem, the more it seems to me that a better solution than putting the grammatical info in a footnote or moving it after the first sentence would be to put it in a grammar box at the top right of the article. Dan ☺ 17:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the main problem here is the structure and placement of the information, not the information itself. Putting etymology in a parenthetical right after the word is a dictionary style. In some cases an explanation of alternate names may be important enough for the lead due to cultural or political sensitivities (the Mount Carmel example above might be one of these), but in most cases lengthy details will be a distraction in the lead. We need to remember that our articles are typically about the subject, not the word that is used for that subject (excepting of course disambiguation pages and articles about words, such as Man (word)). It may be relevant to have information about the word, but it doesn't necessarily need to be in the lead at all, and certainly not in a lengthy parenthetical in the first sentence. The idea of a "grammar box" is interesting, but perhaps the more appropriate thing would be to more commonly offer links to Wiktionary. We already have {{Wiktionarypar}} for that. --RL0919 (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
What if the comprehensive etymology etc. in the lead doesn't appear in Wiktionary (compare current Phlox ←→ wikt:Phlox) or if there's no Wiktionary entry at all (Mount Carmel ←→ wikt:Mount Carmel) – expanding Wiktionary is a worthy cause, but it is an independent project. Linking to it is good, but a policy for articles here should be forged independently of it. Dan ☺ 23:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, we should not turn the wikipedia into wiktionary just because the latter is often bad; the Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and in the long run Wiktionary should improve anyway.- Wolfkeeper 23:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
What's on the contrary to what? ;-) Sorry, it wasn't clear to me what you're recommending, are you saying that grammatical information should be deleted altogether from Wikipedia articles? Dan ☺ 00:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
My own take (possibly not the same as Wolfkeeper's) is that such information should be in articles when it has some specific interest related to the subject, such as historical or political significance. For example, the naming of a geographical feature is usually part of its history. But the origin of many common words has little to do with the subjects of the thusly-named articles. For those I would say link to Wiktionary if possible. For those articles where the information does belong in the article, it doesn't necessarily need to be in the lead. --RL0919 (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

RL, you're perfectly right in observing that articles should generally be about the subject and not about the word designating it; still, personally I'd enjoy learning about etymologies and would appreciate being informed about an irregular plural and I'd prefer being able to do so without having to click my way into Wiktionary. Thus I'd prefer, while reading Hippopotamus, to have all this information right there in the article, only not rendering the first sentence practically illegible but rather separately, either neatly in a grammar box or just elsewhere in the article. This way, the quality of an article in Wikipedia and the monitoring of its contents remain independent of contents and edits in Wiktionary (which I believe take place with little monitoring of Wikipedia editors). As long as grammatical information doesn't become the inappropriate focus of an article, its inclusion won't turn the article into a dictionary entry, but it will improve it by making it more comprehensive. Dan ☺ 01:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your preference, but not that it should be mandated; this stuff tends to get moved down anyway if it in the first sentence & too long. Johnbod (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I tried it in Hippopotamus and it seemed to work very well. I moved the pronunciation down in etymology under the same idea, and octopus worked if anything even better.- Wolfkeeper 04:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Ooo. A terminology section is ok. But spreading the grammatical information all over the article won't do at all: having the plural of "Hippopotamus" under Taxonomy and origins and its etymology under Hippos and humans doesn't make any sense. Ah, Wolfkeeper, as long as we're working this out, please make your points in your sandbox and not in the articles in question, which makes referring to examples complicated and confusing. Johnbod, deciding on a policy and making a clear recommendation will be helpful in editing and will prevent unnecessary disputes. If we all agree that we're better off without these lengthy parentheticals, why not make a clear-cut recommendation to avoid them?Dan ☺ 16:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
To be clear, I don't agree that we will be better off without them in all cases. Johnbod (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see a hard and fast rule to keep that stuff out of the first sentence. Where to put it, I don't know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
MOS:LEAD would probably be the appropriate place. --RL0919 (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
And here too. Dan ☺ 16:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerning lengthy, but not grammatical, parenthesized information in first sentence

Check out Knights Hospitaller: same awkwardness, but the parenthetical consists mostly of alternative designations. For the sake of better readability, I'd avoid a parenthetical and move the contents out of the first sentence also with this kind of information. Dan ☺ 22:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a different point, but please note that neither this not the etymology are correctly described as "grammatical". Johnbod (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
You're right of course, for above discussion: "linguistic information". Dan ☺ 16:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There has been a related discussion recently at WP:Content noticeboard#Language. Hans Adler 14:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Another at Wikipedia talk:Lead section#Etymology in first sentence? -- Quiddity (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Is cleaning up poor categorization "circumventing" WP:CfD?

Over at the Wine Project, we have had a horrendously messy category structure for sometime. For years people just made categories and slapped them around articles with no inclination to organize them into anything consistent or cohesive. One of the most glaring mistakes was having categories such Category:French wines or Category:Italian wines (which would be for individual specific wines like Nicolas Joly Savennières-Coulée-de-Serrant or 1998 Tenuta dell'Ornellaia Bolgheri Superiore and different from the general head cats for Category:French wine and Category:Italian wine). These cats (with the plural "wines") were being misapplied to wine regions like Corsica wine, producers such Château Pétrus, or DOC quality designations like Brindisi Rosso and so forth. Obviously better categories existed for things like Category:Wine regions of France, Category:Bordeaux wine producers, Category:Italian DOCs and the Wine Project went about with this housekeeping. This included removing the poor categorization which left these unneeded categories obviously empty. The chances of articles being written on specific French or Italians wines are rather slim. We mostly include info on these specific wines in articles about their producers or regions such as Nicolas Joly or Ornellaia, etc. Well I guess some of the CfD regulars didn't like this and called foul over what they viewed as "abusing the process", being "out of process" and stating that "cfd is the place to go" to discuss miscategorization.
What I would like to know is what is the balance between cleaning up blatantly wrong categorizations versus going to CfD for everything? I've always used the controversial vs non-controversial rule of thumb and I would have thought removing categories for individual specific wines from articles about wine regions, producers and quality level designations would be non-controversial but apparently it isn't. Apparently the "controversy" itself, is not going to CfD first to explain why Chianti is a region/DOC and not an individual specific wine like Villa Antinori Chianti Reserva is and so should be classified as Category:Wine regions of Italy or Category:Italian DOC, etc. So what is the balance? Does everything need to go through CfD? AgneCheese/Wine 23:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to speak about this particular case, but I have seen the same "out of process" and "end run around cfd" arguments used to describe cases where categories were emptied after a series of mergers, such as a category of individual character articles that were merged into a single list, and later tagged with {{db-c1}}. Even though the result was clearly obvious and would go uncontested, there are still editors who insists on CfD. —Farix (t | c) 23:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I think WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY would be an appropriate response. Anomie⚔ 01:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I agree with Anomie, but I don't think the CFD guys are right either. The place I'd take the discussion to would be the WikiProject talk page, and gather some bit of consensus. The reason people like those at CfD (or other editors in general) might be so touchy is because a category change affects many pages...
I guess either way, it's "go with your gut feeling" that I would advocate. --Izno (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Cleaning up isnt circumventing CFD, but the question you need to ask is are you actually cleaning or reorganising. If your changing the whole you need to use a common discussion area like CFD rather then individual project space because which project space do you use, do you notify and how many. Narrow project based discussions can create ownership issues and wont necessarily take into account factors outside the project that are also using/creating the structure, for wines while its logical to reorganise variety, method, type, etc structures based solely on the projects focus, changing the structures of vine topic affects WP:PLANTS, WP:AGRICULTURE. Changing the structure of wineries/wine regions also affects projects like WP:FRANCE, WP:ITALY, WP:AUSTRALIA all of which means that central/common location discussions draws in the opinions of the wider community. Gnangarra 17:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if I can get into the specific details without pointing to the CfD itself Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_18#Category:Wines but essentially at the heart of the matter are more or less duplicate categories. As I noted before, categories were created and slapped around pretty willy nilly and the fact that we had Category:Wine/Category:Wines, Category:French wine/Category:French wines and Category:Italian wine/Category:Italian wines only compounded the problem since many people didn't know the difference between the singular and plural usage. I call them "duplicate categories" because that is how they were used. Most people didn't realize we had the two singular/plural and thought they were one in the same. They just cut and paste from another article or slapped on whatever cat they found.
But once you look at the difference in singular/plural usage found in other subjects such Category:Opera and Category:Operas-the inappropriateness of the wine article's schizophrenic usages of the cats became more clear. The plural "wines" categories are meant for individual specific wines much like Category:Operas is used for individual specific operas like L'abandon d'Ariane, The Flying Dutchman (opera) and Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District (opera). In the wine world, the parallel for individual specific wines are individual specific bottlings like what you would find on a wine list or at the supermarket. They are bottles like Robert Mondavi Napa Valley Cabernet, 2005 Chateau Petrus or Castellani Vin Santo Sommavito while articles on things like Napa Valley wine, Chateau Petrus and Vin Santo are broad overview categories on the wine region, producer and wine style, respectively. It was clear that categories like Category:Wines, Category:French wines and Category:Italian wines intended for individual specific wines are inappropriate to have on broad overview articles. So, of course, the Wine Project attempted to clean up this mess by removing the mis-applied cats (most which were unintentionally misapplied out of simple ignorance). Since we weren't fundamentally changing the categorization of anything, this wasn't seen as a reorganization. Just cleaning up what didn't belong and really never should have been there. AgneCheese/Wine 17:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Any editor can unilaterally create a category and add however many articles to it they want. Any editor can also unilaterally decide to remove an article from a category. Either action can be challenged by other editors, but in neither instance is preapproval required by any policy or guideline. If an editor's removal of articles from a category is controversial, then it would be challenged and the issue discussed and resolved in any number of forums, including CFD. If it isn't challenged, then the category could be emptied without objection, but anyone could of course still refill it to prevent its speedy deletion for being empty, or recreate it after it is speedied for being empty.

The only action for which CFD is absolutely required is to delete a category page that does not qualify for speedy deletion (merging and renaming are still just deletions of category pages accompanied by the recategorization of articles), and to provide a basis for speedy deleting recreated categories that have been deleted as a result of CFD discussions. Consensus to empty a category could also be established on a category's talk page, on a Wikiproject's talk page, or on article talk pages, but then none of those discussions in non-CFD forums could be the basis for speedy deleting the category if it is recreated. Which is a good reason for going to CFD in the first place, but still not a mandate. postdlf (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. In general, for categories that are closely tied to the topic of a single wikiproject, I think it makes perfect sense for editors in that project to do uncontroversial maintenance, including "renaming", creating, merging, and deleting categories. The only time CFD is really needed is if there are objections that cannot be resolved through local discussion or if the categories are broader than a single topic.
On the other hand, editors need to have a delicate touch and know which sorts of maintenance are likely to be controversial. For example, renaming Category:Living people to Category:People who are alive will obviously be controversial. But I once saw someone complain when an editor "renamed" Category:Sentential logic, a category I had created, to Category:Propositional logic, which really is a better name. There was no real need for a CFD there, and it is unlikely that a random editor unfamiliar with the area would have much useful feedback to give. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Some good points. I have to admit that I'm surprised at some of the resistance I'm seeing at the CfD from the "CfD regulars". It does seem to be derived in large part from a simple lack of familiarity with the subject of wine. (One editor in particular keeps insisting that articles on wine regions and quality level designations are articles on "individual specific wines". I'm sure he means well but it is hard to properly categorize an article if you don't know what it is about.) The Wine Project is trying to come up with a guideline of sort Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Category tree to explain what is the difference between various types of wine articles and how that affects categorization. Right now the CfD looks like it is may close as "no consensus" due to the "out of process" objection votes from the CfD regulars. Admittedly I don't care whether or not the categories are deleted, it just is wrong to have them misapplied to inappropriate articles. What I'm still not certain of, if this CfD does close as no consensus and editors attempt to use these inappropriate categories...is it acceptable to remove the wrong cats and replace them with more appropriate ones? Or do we have to go through another CfD or a RfC or what? The Wine Project certainly doesn't want to claim ownership over wine articles but to those of us who work daily on these articles and with wine, the glaring errors in categorization are pretty easy for us to see. AgneCheese/Wine 18:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The project has chosen to use a particular definition of the term "wines", which I personally support, but there's no point in pretending that is the only way the term is commonly used. You need to argue your points without the extravagant language and tendenciousness that has so far characterised the project's response. Johnbod (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The distinctions between individual specific wines, wine regions, producers and quality levels is pretty universal and constant in the wine world. People understand that Chianti is a style of wine produced in a distinctly defined region and if made according to set guidelines of grape varieties and production methods maybe labeled with the quality designation of Chianti DOC or Chianti Classico, etc. That is easily distinguished from an example of an individual specific wine such as the Villa Antinori Chianti Classico. There really is no "particular definition" or interpretation needed. It just simply how it done in the outside world (not to mention the reliable sources) and there is little reason for Wikipedia to make up their own definition. AgneCheese/Wine 19:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to be the case from this google search on "Chianti is a wine", where a very mixed group of usages is seen in wine trade & other sites, or from my own experience. Johnbod (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually that google search pretty much describes Chianti as a wine style, wine region and DOC exactly as I just noted above, just in snippets and blurbs. The only thing the Google search doesn't do is confuse it with being a specific bottling of wine. It doesn't make the Category:Operas assumption that Chianti is as specific as La clemenza di Tito is a individual specific opera. If you go to a restaurant and ask for a Chianti-unless the restaurant has only one single bottle of Chianti-they're either going to ask you which one you like or assume that you want them to choose from among several. Similarly, if you went to a ticket agent and asked to see a Mozart opera, they're either going to ask you which one or assume you want them to choose from among several. They're not going to confuse the broad range of "Mozart operas" with being the individual specific opera of La clemenza di Tito any more than someone is going to confuse the broad range of Chianti with the individual specific wine of something like Villa Antinori. No one where in that google search do you see that confusion. AgneCheese/Wine 20:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, of the first 10 #s 3,5,6,7, 8 & 10 just say things like "Chianti is a wine of extremely ancient origin but ....", the sense the previous category scheme used (OED, 1c - I can't in fact see your usage there). It is pointless to deny this. I agree with your proposed changes but find your hectoring attitude as irritating as others do. Johnbod (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
If you go into a restaurant and ask for a Chianti, you will certainly not be offered a region of Italy; and categorising Chianti as a region of Italy is absurd. I would remove it but would only be reverted by cognoscenti. Occuli (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment – when we have the article Beaujolais (wine) "Beaujolais is a French Appellation d'Origine Contrôlée (AOC) wine" it is counter-intuitive to insist that this cannot be categorised as a French wine. Anywhere else in Wikipedia the leading statement "XXX is a booish Foo" permits any editor, equipped only with the ability to read English and an elementary grasp of logic, to add XXX to Category:Booish foos without fear of reversion. The miscategorisation here is that category "Wine regions" has been added (as there is a gulf of difference between a wine and a region, the latter being difficult to bottle for instance). This is wikipedia, not vinipedia - I expect there to be articles on French wines and I expect to find them in Category:French wines (as I could until 11/11/09 or so when 193 such were summarily removed). There is List of Appellation d'Origine Contrôlée wines .. I suppose this too is wrongly titled and ill-written, as seemingly is everything else in Category:Wine, which seems to have become a closed shop where none but a chosen few can edit. Occuli (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Duh, Chianti is a region in italy that makes wine. It wouldn't be called Chianti if it wasn't grown in that exact area. Seriously dude, even I know that and the only time I drink wine is when my girlfriend makes me. Now I don't understand all the stuff that the wine guy Agne was talking about but it seems like it makes sense. What I don't get is Wikipedia's problem with letting people who know their stuff edit that stuff the way it needs to be edit. This is where Wikipedia looks like a joke when you have doofus heads like the Chianti guy above (or me for that matter LOL) trying to tell the expert people how to edit. Well duh! But Wikipedia is so afraid of having experts involved that they tolerate stupid stuff instead of....you know, making an encyclopedia that is actually good? Stuff like this is why wikipedia is a joke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.224.7 (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think this is a matter of having quote unquote "experts" making editing decisions versus non-experts. I think it is more about how much process and bureaucracy should go into housekeeping chores like categorization. AgneCheese/Wine 21:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Acting unilaterally is great when others end up agreeing with you: see here. It's not so good when there are disagreements: see here. A good rule of thumb is that the moment you assume making a specific change is "obvious", someone will disagree. That's why it's usually a good idea to propose at CFD what you are going to do. It's not a "rule", but you can save yourself a lot of grief afterwards. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I got a little bored reading the indepth analysis on what is a wine, which is only tangentially relevant to the thread. What I'd like to comment on is the role of CfD; I agree with Anomie, we arent a bureaucracy and our policy is clear- a goodfaith attempt at constructing (or rearranging) anything if not done by "proper procedure" is not in itself a reason to reverse or obstruct the change, as long as it is for the good. IAR also applies as well. If a category obviously to the average person seems to be under the purvue of a specific wikiproject then it should be the wikiproject's discretion on how to create, name, destroy, rearrange, etc those categories, CfD is not a bureaucracy entrusted with control over categories. Let those with knowledge of a subject control all aspects of that subject.Camelbinky (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Well Cfd tends to collect people with knowledge of our categorization policies, and experience of applying them, so has knowledge of that subject. There is no bureaucracy, anyone can take part, & most nominations go through very easily. Johnbod (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The Way Blocked Users Are Treated

Perhaps it's a good idea to discuss the way blocked users are treated. I had a look at the checkuser pages and what I saw was shocking. People are treated like they are criminals. There is no one to help them when a group of editors or admins decides that they want to block someone.

The blocked users get signs on their user and talk pages screaming:" This is a sock of so and so and he is blocked. See evidence for more info etc.". They are helpless against editors/admins who know every little rule.

My proposal:

  1. Experienced editors must help users who are about to be banned/blocked.
  2. Admins must stop using indef blocks like it's nothing.
  3. Treat blocked users with dignity and respect (they are human too, you know)
  4. Leave their user pages alone.
  5. Post a message on their talk page saying they are blocked without using stupid words like "he's a sock) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basictrain (talk • contribs) 20:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I find it fascinating that your very first edit ever on Wikipedia is to bring up this issue. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
People generally get indef blocked because they refused to listen to reason and insisted on being disruptive. They aren't victims, and aren't going to be treated as such. There may be the occasional exception, but something tells me that the motivation for this particular grievance is not one of them. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
People get blocked on Wikipedia for, among many (many) other things:
  • Breaking rules which change day by day and even minute by minute, scattered across thousands of webpages and millions of paragraphs.
  • Angering (or breaking up with) Jimbo Wales.
  • Failing to offer obeisance and fealty to the Wikipedia bourgeoisie.
  • Triggering the OCD of one of the legion emotionally-dysfunctional Wikipedia factotums.
  • Violating the religious taboos of the reigning Wikipedia junta by uttering blasphemies such as "lulz."
  • Defying the ex cathedra pronouncements of Wikipedia's ruling caste.
Wikipedia is perceived by most outsiders as a callous clusterfuck of mentally-unstable Asperger's cases, feeding each other's rolling-eyed paranoid fantasies while engaging in what can only be called a religious crusade to weave Family Guy quotations and references to Star Trek into an ever-expanding galaxy of articles about the minutia of ecchi and Pokemons. The OP's comments are perfectly accurate, regardless of whether he's got your heretic-sense tingling. SmashTheState (talk) 08:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd almost forgotten what hyperbolic propaganda looked like. I'd link to Encyclopedia Dramatica as an example of Wikipedia without rules, but it's blacklisted. Which doesn't bode well, does it? --King Öomie 17:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Funny thing is, The Wiki Which Must Not be Named is orders of magnitude more entertaining than Wikipedia. And probably at least as accurate. And with considerably fewer autistic furry weeaboos. SmashTheState (talk) 07:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I staunchly disagree with all but your first point. The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to entertain. And PLEASE don't start railing on the very idea of a blacklist. Check out some of the links in that badboy, and understand that pages aren't blacklisted until someone takes the time to spam the crap out of them on Wikipedia. Pages are almost never blacklisted preemptively. --King Öomie 14:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is serious business! SmashTheState (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of how this guy got blocked, he does make some good points and I agree with most of what we said. Sometimes people get indefinitely blocked for being continually disruptive. Other times, people get indefinitely blocked for infractions that are really quite minor, such as a single case of vandalism (with that all-purpose block reason "vandalism-only account") or creating one article that got speedy deleted (these tend to show up at Usernames for Administrator Attention for some reason). There is definitely a "punish the evildoer" mentality in some admins, and some users who report people to those admins, that goes too far.
I wish administrators would spend a little less time looking for reasons to block new users (damn it, our community is shrinking, we need new users) and more time helping them understand Wikipedia and avoid being blocked. Or, for that matter, leaving a kind word and offering a second chance to someone on the unblock list who apologizes in their unblock request. rspεεr (talk) 04:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Wish in one hand... That's a pretty good list of reasons for users getting blocked. Accurate, imo. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 09:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree (with the terrible way some people who are blocked, or were blocked, are treated). But then again, been there, done that. In fact it seems to never end. Always something left to remind me. The occasion regularly crops up in which I am reminded that I was once blocked, with the implied threat that it will happen again. Bus stop (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:UCS

This guideline was downgraded to an essay in a recent and little noticed disagreement by Rd232. His reasoning is explained on the talk page, but what bothers me is that it was justified by "undo upgrading to guideline without apparent talk consensus". I would usually agree that building a consensus is an essential first step in guideline formulation, but insisting that there is currently no consensus that "common sense" is a good concept to be sprinkled liberally (as it is on {{guideline}}) seems absurd. When met with opposition, this very concise policy was buried as an addendum to another essay, thereby made to appear unrecognized and disturbingly obscured in favor of having a compromise rather than a clear and supported stance. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 11:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have checked the history and it seems that the page was tagged as "information page for many months before. User M tagged it as guideline on 8 august, and was reverted to previous status the following 23. Later, this and other essays were merged into Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means, to simplify things and avoid essay overpopulation. MBelgrano (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
That's ironic: my statement above is rendered moot. I'll return to the more conservative information page tag & sort it out at talk. Thanks ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC) To clarify, the objection was and still remains the displacement of this longstanding meta-guideline to a subsection of an IAR-specific essay. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we should discuss on promoting Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means to guideline instead? MBelgrano (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
That essay is an ancillary explanation of WP:IAR drafted by GTBacchus in the context of a debate on attack sites being used as article sources.[5] I don't think that Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means is equivalent to WP:UCS or substantially different/distinct from the greater WP:IAR policy. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 16:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think they should. 1st choice would be to Google Books, Amazon Reader or other sites where the cited text can be read. And if it's not available online to its WorldCat page.

http://www.worldcat.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenbrazil (talk • contribs) 11:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There should be enough information to identify the book being used, and if the ISBN number is listed, it creates an automatic link to a number of book databases. However, WP:SOURCEACCESS (in the verifiability policy) does not guarantee that an arbitrary reader can access the source material for free or with no effort. Note also that many older books lack ISBN numbers, but a title and author is usually sufficient to figure out what book is being referred (page references are also welcome to help people who are holding a 300 page book and are looking for one fact). In most cases, book sources are used because no adequate free online source exists for the same material. (It is in these cases Wikipedia is most valuable, since it brings up information which is not otherwise available online.) Generally, I would advise against linking books to retail websites like Amazon, since Wikipedia should not be in the business of advertising any particular store. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Have in mind that Google Books is accused of making massive copyright violations. MBelgrano (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The answer is no. Just because WP is online doesn't mean refs should be. This has been discussed many many times (and if it's not a WP:PEREN it should be). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Are roads inherently notable?

Here's a question that has never been fully answered. Are roads notable by default? If not, which ones are not notable, and why is that so? The only "accepted" guideline I can currently find on the subject is the US Wikiproject's page on notability, which provides one of the most well articulated answers I have come across: "[County roads] may or may not be sufficiently notable to merit a unique article".

However, as I have learned, the consensus of the US roads wikiproject is that of 5 or 6 editors who have a lot of ownership issues with transportation articles outside of their own country. This couples with the beatnik answer that the guideline provides, as well as the more core policies of WP:ALMANAC and the historic policy of WP:Gazetteer which allude to the opposite - That all roads are notable, as they have to have been created and funded from pubic money for a reason. Obviously side streets and concession roads are exceptions, as there is no use in articles that read "Vesper court is a street in BLAH with 11 houses on it."

In my opinion, all arterial roads in cities, as well as all signed&numbered county/state/provincial roads qualify as notable, as they have some history that cannot be represented with a single map. Freeways are obviously always notable.

Any thoughts? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, it has been that numbered roads on the national and first-order subnational levels have been granted "inherent notability" (wording that I object to) and their having articles is generally not contested. Other roads have generally been expected to follow the general notability guidelines in order to warrant an article. By and large I agree with this; it is my preference that the term "inherent notability" be dropped for something that does not continue to conflate "belongs in an encyclopedia" with "notable" but that's a matter of semantics and more of a personal complaint than anything else. I would disagree with the assertion that all arterial roads are notable, if for no reason other than the fact that the term "arterial road" is ambiguous and subjective and its use may vary from one location to another. Shereth 17:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that "arterial road" can be a subjective level of qualification. However, most road-geeks (who write most road articles) generally understand what roads qualify as an arterial road. Its certainly better than the current "Roads may or may not be notable". - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I would definitely say that not all roads are notable; being funded by a government does not mean something was either useful or important. Definitely highways, national routes, and state/provincial/etc roads; below that, I think it's more case-by-case. County roads? Probably, but some states, maybe not. I know there's a lot of county roads in New Mexico that don't deserve articles. But I wouldn't frown on seeing what people could do with those. And below that? Case-by-case basis. Broadway, Pennsylvania Ave, Sunset Blvd, Yonge St, and Cannery Row are all obviously notable. Is F St SE, Washington DC notable? Or even the main thoroughfares in Cedar Rapids, Collins Rd and 1st Ave? No, not on their own. (Collins Road is coterminous with Iowa 100, so it does have an article on that basis. Similarly, 1st Ave is coterminous with IA 922/US 151 Bus) --Golbez (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
This User:Grutness/One street per 50,000 people is a useful user essay with guidance. I would suggest you start a summary article about the streets in the location where you want to write about. When the section on a particular street has enough referenced material to be a standalone article you can break it out. The referenced material should satisfy general notability if there is not a specific notability criteria for streets. Miami33139 (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The "One per 50000" is the most reliable guideline I've found on this matter. However, it makes a generalization that roads are only important if enough people live near them, and puts countries that are not as heavily populated as the US at a disadvantage. The jurisdiction I'm currently working on, Kawartha Lakes, has only 80000 people in it. However, it has 4 former colonization roads in it which are certainly notable, as well as 5 roads which were formerly provicial highways and therefore qualify for notability on that basis. Those 9 roads equal 450000 people. There are also another 40 roads (some important, some very much not) in its numbered county road system. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I would say numbered routes are exempt from the 50000 guideline. For example, Wyoming only has 450,000 people - yet has far more than 9 state highways. The bigger question is... we all seem to think that national and state routes are, if not "inherently notable", then are at the very least worthy of inclusion. The next question is... county routes? In the US we seem to omit them, and Kawartha Lakes seems analogous to a county. On the other hand, Kawartha Lakes' network is small and apparently well-managed; taking one example of Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, looking at map, I see ones like "County Road 339A" that goes, much like most roads in northern New Mexico, to the middle of nowhere. --Golbez (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it's basically, most counties in the US don't have a county road system; basically roads that aren't named are given county numbers. Whereas Kawartha Lakes actually has a system. --Golbez (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The problem is, as you state, the disparity between county roads in one state versus another. It becomes hard (if not impossible) to make a guideline or a policy that encompasses subjects that may in fact be very different in nature from one another. I feel it is best to evaluate these on a case-by-case basis. Shereth 18:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
What is wrong with the idea of writing an article "County roads of Kawartha Lake" with all the roads in it, then breaking those out when they become large enough? You can write about the content without having to justify having an individual article for each road. It also allows for larger treatments of discussion on how the local road grid works, is there a standard suffix/prefixing system for N/S/E/W, is the addressing consistently growing in any direction, are all building addresses even on the north side of the street on all roads --- etc. It isn't necessary to have an article on every road, it is easier to justify inclusion of your content collectively, and you end up with more synergy throughout the concept. Miami33139 (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Thats what List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario is. However, it cannot become a featured list with so many red links (A policy which needs to be abolished). I will not leave them as black links, as they are more than worthy of potentially being articles. Detailing the junctions and the history of those roads becomes unmanageable in such a list, as it would become huge. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Let me clear something up; I did not oppose because it had "so many redlinks". I opposed because it was primarily redlinks. (100% in fact, when I saw it, though that was a template error) I think a 75% red ratio is way too much. If it was below 50% then I might - maybe - have been more amenable. But the fact is, since these SHOULD BE redlinks and not blacklinks, imo, then it behooves us to make the articles. --Golbez (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • In answer to Floydian, roads, inhabited (and uninhabited) places, athletes or any other topic are not inherently notable. If notability is about being "noted", then if the a topic has not been the subject of signficant coverage in the form of commentary, criticsim or analyis in a reliable secondary source, quite simply it has not been "noted". Some editors will argue that a topic can be notable in the absence of such coverage, but I would say that their position is analogous to the two charletans in the story of The Emperor's New Clothes.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm probably going to make Shereth and Gavin, among others, freak out with this observation, but location based articles generally fall outside of the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Honestly I'm not sure what the notability warriors are really worried about when it comes to location/almanac related articles, since we're not talking about garage bands or autobiographies here after all, but... C'est la vie. I'm actually suspicious that most of the objections come from "zOMG! we have over 3 million articles!" type of thinking, but that's pure speculation on my part.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 20:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I am proud of the idea that Wikipedia has 3 million articles, but disappointed that most of them don't meet its policies and guidelines on article content, because when you read a stub that comprises of Google Earth coordinates, you have to ask the question, is it worthwhile having an article about this truck stop at all? I am sure the guy running the hotdog stand at that location is very happy that there is an article, but from an encyclopedic viewpoint, if is not notable, then its not going to be encyclopedic either, for the simple reason that you can't write a decent article in the absence of good quality coverage. I think location based articles that are not notable generally fall outside the scope of Wikipedia (see WP:NOTTRAVEL), in the same way telephone directory type stubs also fall outside. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
True, but we also incorporate elements of a gazetteer... --Cybercobra (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The one thing that I'm absolutely compelled to push back on is the statement: "because when you read a stub that comprises of Google Earth coordinates, you have to ask the question, is it worthwhile having an article about this truck stop at all?" I'd like to apologize in advance because this is going to come across as much more aggressive then it really needs to be, but these sorts of statements display a rather shocking either ignorance or (more likely, in the case of those who have replied here) repudiation of long established practice on Wikipedia. I could of course point to WP:STUB and WP:NOTDONE, but I suspect that I would just be talking to myself. The suggestion here seems to be that such proposals should be either seriously minimized or even deprecated, which is a suggestion that I find to be appalling. The idea that stubs are inherently troublesome is... well, troublesome, and I really don't completely understand where that's coming from.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually no, you're not going to freak me out with that statement (at least with regards to places); see my comment in a tangentially related discussion [6]. I'm not sure that observation is entirely applicable here, however, since general gazetteers do not go into such detail as listing every street; that kind of thing is usually restricted to speciality atlases. This is why I stated above, as well as in my other comment linked previously, that I thoroughly despise this "inherent notability" idea. The more these types of articles come up, the more I think that a general guideline to the effect of precisely what subjects Wikipedia intends to cover in a capacity as an almanac/gazetteer ought to be explored, rather than approaching them as regular encyclopedia articles with regards to notability. Shereth 21:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't know how useful a Sherry Court, Edison, New Jersey article would be to most, but... it clearly does exist, it is documented and verifiable, and there is at least a little bit of history to it. Most importantly though, Even if the article is only ever ~1000 bytes, it still at least contains quite a bit of potentially useful information in it (location articles tend to be information dense). These types of articles are slightly different in general character from "normal" articles though, which is something that isn't really brought up that often. Maybe we ought to ask for a new namespace specifically for location articles? Formalizing that character difference in some manner would probably be useful to many, and might even help the articles in question to develop.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
A new namespace is pretty ambitious, but then agian, I have heard people discussing the merits of forking off masses of these articles off to a theoretical "WikiAtlas" project. Either way it might not be a bad idea to make a more clear distinction between full-blown encyclopedia articles like Paris and bare gazetteer entries like Aguila, Arizona. This would have the benefit of allowing the GNG to remain in place for encylopedia entries while leaving the folks interested in atlas/gazetteer style entries free to focus on creating inclusion guidelines unhampered by notability concerns. It'd be a large undertaking, but I can't help but to wonder if there wouldn't be more interest in doing something like this. Shereth 22:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Based on the (in my view, somewhat inordinate) interest in either creating or removing some or all location type articles I think that there's plenty of interest on "both sides" to do something. I've seen several "WikiAtlas" fork proposals myself, and I don't think that's really a good way to go (after all, consider having Paris, New York, Moscow, etc... being removed from Wikipedia. That's not a good solution at all, in my view). That such proposals are essentially "perennial" at this point really ought to be telling us something, though. Creating an "Atlas:" or some other namespace seems to me to be a fairly low impact, highly accessable solution though. After all, all registered users are able to move pages, so I somehow doubt that it would take much individual effort to convert to (and back from, as appropriate) the new namespace.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't think that it would be necessary to simply move all geography articles en masse from mainspace to this theoretical namespace; in my mind, I would forsee the Atlas: namespace as being a repository of geographical/statistical data in summary format, leaving behind articles in mainspace for those locations who also merit an encyclopedia entry by way of notability, where all of the fabulously detailed history and the like can be found. Perhaps in the future, mainspace articles could even transclude Atlas: articles to provide the statistical backbone upon which to flesh out an encyclopedia entry. Paris would stay put and Atlas:Paris would be summary style, whereas Aguila, Arizona would be moved to Atlas:Aguila, Arizona. I suppose that is neither her nor there, as this really isn't the place to start talking about a proposal of this nature. I will consider opening up a discussion on the VPR to see if such a proposal would have any serious traction. Shereth 22:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Perennial proposal indeed. A bit less offensive than "go the hell to wikia" but still unacceptable. First you push editors from main wikipedia to backstreet space. Then you have to deal with Paris here and Paris there, both living their own lives, perhaps deleting and salting Atlas:Paris and pissing off more editors. Then you suddenly see Atlas:Aquila, Arizona expanding past B-class and hijack it from its editors into main space. Then, most worrying, you find that backstreet space is brimming with BLP articles on town counselors, mayors, teachers and policemen - all those small people of small towns ... Segregation has no upside. A stricter deletion attitude / notability threshold is a fairer solution. NVO (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if I agree with characterizing a new namespace as "a backstreet space". That seems to be nothing more then hyperbole, really. I do tend to agree that having, for example, Paris appear in two namespaces would not be acceptable, but this is all a hypothetical discussion anyway so I don't really want to dwell on that as an issue. It should be relatively easy to patrol the two spaces to prevent a "slippery slope" style problem, such as you're describing with BLP articles, from becoming a real issue. I also question the efficacy of attempting to ram strict policy changes down editors throats, especially considering the corollary and unintended side-effects that sort of approach inevitably creates.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 14:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention that there's quite clearly several different opinions on which roads are notable and which are not. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I really like this idea. People like to know about the places they visit, and some places are famous but many are not. They all deserve to have their history told. If such a proposal doesn't fly, then a guideline should be created regarding road notability that at least mentions all the objective criteria for inclusion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't like the idea that anything is -inherently- -notable-. Show it belongs. That's simple. Wikipedians are by and large reasonable. We need to be able to show sources for each and every article. While that makes the bar higher, it makes Wikipedia more reliable. How else are you going to provide factual information? Who's to say if someone's mental history is at all accurate? I don't like stubs that are are still stubs years after creation. Redlinks that are still redlinks years after creation. Take your time and do it right. Visit your library. On roads, maybe we need to work on some policy as to how to cover the topic as a guide. But that's all. As for the List of Roads in Kawartha Lakes, I'd say by and large that the redlinks are not notable on their own. Is there a book or media that really covers the topic? As a matter of course, cities and towns build roads. I do agree that we should write about the roads of a city as a general rule, but each and individual arterial road? No way. You can make multi-article lists. What's wrong with that? An arterial road or numbered road could be 100 metres in length and just connect two other roads. You could make the argument that the main road into a subdivision is an arterial. Notable, no way. Alaney2k (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The point to get at here is that we cannot make one guideline to address notability. Certain kinds of roads, at least state/provincial highways and Interstates/Motorways/400s, seem to be "inherently notable". That is, the consensus swings largely in favour of ALL of these roads meriting a unique article. I certainly feel multi-article lists could work with arterial roads (articles such as East–West Roads in Foo could display 15-20 major thuroughfares in detail, and perhaps list off the side streets worth mention). However, the same is not true with county roads. Many extend for long distances and they often meet with several other county roads along the way. Their routes can be convoluted and often do not follow one road or right of way for their entire length. Even arterial roads are mentioned in the news all the time, and many cities have websites and books discussing the past and current life of the roads, if not entire historical societies. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Why ever not? Why are roads inherently notable? Nobody has given a rational explaination as to why this assumption exists in the minds of some editors. Nowhere in any of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines does it say that roads are exempt from WP:N. I think Floydian and Ohms law have forgotten that WP:V says "if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Making a distinction between "arterial" roads and "country" roads is purely arbitary. We must be clear - either a road is notable topic, suitable for inclusion as a standalone article, or it is not. Enough of this wishy-washy thinking - lets admit that the Emperor has no clothes. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not Mapquest. Actually, this would be worse than mapquest since there'd be no maps. It appears to me that the problem is largely for outside the US and the UK that both have long-established guidelines. The wording for county or unnumbered roads is indeed vague, but if you remember they need to meet normal Wikipedia notability guidelines it's not terribly hard to sort out. Some exceptions are "circle" tourist routes, designated scenic or "rustic" routes, historical roads, roads with exceptionally unique features, etc.; and those are then always up for possible discussion. The 1/50,000 rule isn't bad, but the idea of "artery" is far too vague to start adding those as will in even a list format. ...No one has yet to explain why all roads should be notable or what guidelines should be changed. Frankly, I think that we include state/province level roads is already extremely generous and I think a lot of people in the highways projects would rather things be tightened if anything. Again, this seems to be for specific contries, but they should not affect guidelines set up for other countries in the process. It's okay to have variations. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
There is no evidence for the 1:50,000, if we had to go by personal preferences, I'd say that's too few by a factor of 10 at least, and more than that for the historic cities. But I do not think we need any guidelines of that sort. I do not agree with Gavin, No policy ever said the GNG was universally applicable without exceptions. Even if we decided by consensus that it was valid for this type of article, I think we could probably at this point find substantial references for every street in Manhattan, & in Brooklyn when it was a separate city--I know we could for those there included in historic districts. I'm not sure about purely peripheral residential areas. Anyway, the pillars says quite clearly that Wikipedia includes a gazetteer, and on that positive principle, a list of streets would therefore be an exception to NOT INDISCRIMINATE --even though actually neither it not any clause in NOT really corresponds in any case--this sort of article is not one of the examples given. On the same basis we have all villages, we could have all roads and streets. I am not saying we should, until we can write substantial articles about them. But we could, and the redirects seem a good interim solution. We certainly have no requirement that a redirect be notable. The only rule necessary for which ones should be converted to articles is that when some writes an article with the necessary verifiable information, that's the time. I would not support writing stubs in the meantime, as a relatively poor use of editor resources, but there's no policy-based reason against doing even that. The main reason behind NOT DIRECTIORY in my eye is that it is nevcessary for an encyclopedia to avoid promotionalism--and, unlike local pizza shops, streets are not generally subject to that sort of misuuse. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that roads are inherently notable—there's isn't an existing Wikipedia policy rationale for this, and I'm not really convinced that there is a pressing need to craft a policy exception. (In fact, some of the existing exceptions are pretty dismal; we need to learn from those mistakes.) Nevertheless, a whole lot of roads (probably a majority of major arteries) have received substantial coverage in secondary sources, and would meet the GNG by virtue of their mentions in the local press. (So, I think that most are likely notable, but I'm unwilling to generalize that to all.)
Maybe an underlying problem is that notability hinges upon (often-historical) sources which aren't available online, and are therefore difficult to reference if notability is questioned. If secondary sources are difficult to find, there is a place for using official plans and maps to source the article's content—but these sources don't help with notability, they just make the article more verifiable. It isn't really a defence against AfD, but if the article is well-supported, it will encourage editors to leave it alone rather than nominating it for deletion as unsourced trivia.
On a related note: when an article on a road is mostly composed of a table of junctions, or other chiefly geographical information, it makes the article seem thin on content. Whether or not the information is correct, it almost seems as if the article is being stretched to just barely meet the notability threshold. I bet that if the same information were provided in prose, the article would stand a better chance at AfD.... (That's more a flaw in perception, though.) TheFeds 04:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"Roads" is very ambiguous, and thus it is impossible to determine whether they're inherently noteworthy. Do we include random dirt paths in our definition of the term? If so, then no, roads are not always notable. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this whole discussion overcomplicating things a bit? If a road is covered substantially by multiple independent reliable sources, it's notable. If not, it's not. That's the same as anything else. Nothing is notable because "it's a...", it's notable or not based upon sourcing available. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Generalizations like 1:50,000 people or arterial etc miss the point, I think. It would not be too hard for me to dig up a good number of reliable sources about some random local arterial road near where I live--it's history, name, that Foo Creek was buried under it, how that steep part almost collapsed during that storm of 19xx, resulting in the present reinfornced wall thingie; how and why its zoning changed making the character shift from residential to retail, and so on. After a bunch of work this like I would think a great many local roads could be the subject of non-stubby, encyclopedic articles, of interest to at least people of that local area and perhaps to a larger audience if well written. I'm not about to go do any of this, because it's just not that interesting to me. But the point is, it could be done, and it could be done well. Maybe not for random three block long residential streets, but probably for most arterials, even minor ones. The counter-argument often brought up is the creation of stubs with little information and few sources. I see no reason to mass create lots of road article stubs like that. But the fact that some people have mass created geographic stub articles does not reflect one way or another on the notability of anything. Certainly there are a great number of bare bone stubs on geographic places. Nonetheless it is quite possible to create great articles on seemingly insignificant things. Pfly (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
While I agree with this idea that "nothing is notable because "it's a...", in reality consensus seems to clearly feel otherwise. All high schools are considered notable, even if the only sourcing about them is their posting scores in the local paper. Every incorporated city or town is considered notable enough if it doesn't have a paper, its own website, or anything else other than maybe confirming "there it is". A television series is considered notable if it aired on a national network, even if it didn't get a single drop of coverage. I personally can not see any reason why most roads are "notable" for inclusion here. If this were something like a WikiAtlas, yeah, but otherwise it seems to clearly be against WP:NOT to just have articles on every road in existence that is supposedly "inherently notable" just because it exists. Roads, like anything else should be held to WP:N, but I suspect precedence will prevail with these as they seem to with the high schools and city, towns, villages, television series, and a few other things listed over there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
From WP:5P:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Content should be verifiable with citations to reliable sources. Our editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, newspaper, or a collection of source documents; that kind of content should be contributed instead to the Wikimedia sister projects.

One of the things that Wikipedia specifically is, is an Gazetteer. I'm convinced that the real problem here is that we're continuing to talk about these articles as if they were exactly the same as any other article, which they are clearly not (based on aforementioned consensus decisions). Anyway, it seems as though we're starting to retread the same discussion here. There's a proposal topic now, which is based on this discussion, so it's probably best to leave this to be archived now.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
It is true that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers, but only in so far as those elements or topics are notable. If you don't accept this, do remember that WP:V says "if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Notability is the key to understanding which roads, inhabited places, athletes or any other topic should have its own standalone article.
Articles about roads are no different from any other topic, as they are bound by the same policies and guidelines as every other subject matter, and for good reason: the attract their own share controversy and debate about their content like any other subject matter. If they are really different, as is asserted by Ohms law, then which set of policies and guidelines are they bound to? I am afraid that whilst DGG believes that main roads are not bound by the same inclusion criteria as other subject areas, then he needs to be honest and admit that what he really means is that roads should automatically be entitled to standalone articles because of their subjective importance, which is not accepted as valid inclusion criteria as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Ohms law is suggesting that some new guideline will be developed in the future to change this, but similar proposals made in the past have failed becasue no policy or guideline can ever achieve consensus if its sole purpose is to construct an "editorial walled garden" in which a particular subject matter is deemed to sit above, outside or is exempt from the existing framework of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Similarly, the spurious argument that roads are inherently notable simply because other stuff exists are not generally accepted as being valid either. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the problem here is that you're continuing to approach these articles just like all other articles, and the fact is that many of us (probably most of us) do not feel the same way. One of the main reasons that I've been suggesting a new namespace is so that we could craft policies and guidelines for this specific class of articles without causing a dilution to the applicability of the notability guideline towards the rest of Wikiepdia. Correct my if I'm wrong here but, my sense is that the main concern is that the notability guideline is somehow being "watered down". There's more about this being discussed at Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals)#Atlas/gazetteer entries, though.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 13:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Notability is not one of the ten commandments brought down by Moses that we need to follow to the letter. We, the editor, through consensus, decide what is best for inclusion in the work, and it seems to be that we are allowing entries that are gazetteer in nature, which the present concept of notability does not work. It's becoming clearer and clearer we need an overarching set of inclusion guidelines, with which notability is just one to be a catchall for all other subjects not explicitly called out otherwise. That is, we would want to include, as a gazetteer, all highways and state-numbered roads (for example) but no smaller road is explicitly included. That doesn't mean a street only known by name can't be included, but it would have to meet the default inclusion guideline, notability (eg Rodeo Drive). This would allow us to define what areas we absolutely want to be "complete" in in the purposes of collecting human knowledge while still going by today's status quo for other topics. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Even if WP:N is not written on stone tablets, the only alternative is to write articles in an "editorial walled garden" built on subjective importance as the basis for inclusion. As long as you are clear on the two choices available to you, you can try to do this. But remember, article topics that are notable are by defintion the subject of significant coverage based on reliable secondary sources, so the alternative, writing articles based on trivial coverage from lower quality sources is, from an encylopedic standpoint, a step back to the Middle Ages. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • While its easy to say all roads are inherently notable, measures like 1:50,000 are unworkable take Gibb River Road(extreme example) you can travel the full 660km/410mi not see another person, at its peak season you'd be unlucky to encounter 50 different people but it is notable. There are many gazzetted roads that will never have 1:50,000 ratio because population density isnt uniform. With a gazzetted requirement for inherent notability its not watering down notability because these roads will have coverage in third party sources, when works, upgrades, accidents and alike occur on these road. When a politician needs to offer some local focus road infrastructure are easy carrots to dangle in front of a community, roads also interstect with many other articles like rivers, towns, suburds, and places. Gnangarra 15:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
This is the same argument as WP:ATA#CRYSTAL which frequently turns up in deletion debates. The problem is the virtually everything under the sun will be the subject of trivial coverage at some point or another. Wikipedia is not about listing every topic that has ever been the subject of trivial coverage; significant coverage is the key to notability, for it just not possible to provide the reader with context about a subject without commentary, criticism or analysis that is expect of an encyclopedia without satisfying WP:N. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Oops meant I to say While its easy to say all roads aren't inherently notable, measures like 1:50,000.... because using such ratio's is dependent on population densities these arent uniform. I'm not sure of where your going with the link to WP:ATA#CRYSTAL, this isnt a deletion discussion but one of which we are looking at how to predefine a basic standard that means the use of generalisations backed by examples, heres another example aainst ratio. If you look at Kalgoorlie, Western Australia population of 28,000-29,000 the ratio says that there are no notable roads there yet an unwashed google search returns 200,000+ hits for hay street[7]. As shown the ratio doesnt reflect reality, there are at least two other roads in Kalgoorlie that are notable additionally the 1:50K ration actually precludes all but 1 road outside of Perth Western Australia. A gazetter isnt subject to numbers, as such its a good way to indicate notability. Yes there will be trivial coverage on roads in other mediums but gazetted roads will also have coverage that is significant, though one could argue that this may come from primary sources. Gnangarra 16:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
It seemed like a deletion discussion to me. What to do about created articles on "non-notable" topics, or with only "trivial sources", or whether geographical articles ought to be banished to some other namespace, etc. If this discussion isn't about when it is acceptable to delete articles, what is it about? What's the point of agreeing on some guideline if it has no effect on articles actually created? Pfly (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
If this is a deletion discussion then its in the worng place, the articles to be deleted should be listed at WP:AFD. If this is a policy discussion, a change in policy means that we look at articles differently. Any existing articles would still need to go through a discussion process to determine if they meet the criteria for inclusion. Gnangarra 17:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm personally of the view that some are, some aren't, and there is a grey area in the middle. For instance on the Australian project we seem to have decided that major roads within metropolitan areas, and highways and major roads outside of metropolitan areas are notable, while almost everything else is not. There are exceptions to the latter. Trying to decide whether all of x are inherently notable is making all manner of assumptions which I don't think we really can justify. Orderinchaos 20:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Depends how much is written really, as it can boil down (again) to sourcing. I also feel suburb articles are underutilised as receptacles for information on material which may not warrant own articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
unfortunately for this formulation, the questions usually depends not upon how much has been written, but whether what has been written is "significant secondary coverage". As all roads and streets were built at some time, and as substantial money is spent on the process, some sort of sources can always be found if one uses local print resources, even for the sort of streets that I would not include. But your suggest of merging into suburb or neighborhood articles seems reasonable enough , at least until good material is found--it's what we do with elementary schools, a similar problem area. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
At least in Australia, very little secondary coverage of any kind exists for anything less than major roads. I can't even get access to documents I know exist about the main street in my suburb, and there's no documentation about any other streets. Streets in newer suburbs have never been gazetted (as they were never government works but were done by whichever company subdivided the land) so there's no official documentation, and even trawling through council archives all I can get is a map showing the proposed street in-place before its construction. However I can get several newspaper and other articles about the roads which form the suburb's boundaries going right back to the 70s. Those roads have articles on Wiki, by the way, which I will get around to improving one day. Orderinchaos 15:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I guess I don't understand the point of the whole discussion. Is the idea that articles on small roads should not have stand alone pages unless they are significantly better than a stub? That would sound sensible to me, but also fairly obvious. Pfly (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
That is the point I'd like to integrate into policy/guideline. If you can craft a road article that is informative (ie not: X is a Y in Z), has some history beyond "They built this street and then houses in 1967, and honestly, that old lady at number 14 has been there ever since." and verified at the very least using paper maps and satellite views, then it should be included. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


Generally, I do not hold all roads to be notable, in many cases the road is too short/too unremarkable/too commonplace. On the other hand, I hold railway lines to be notable, since they are less commonplace, and generally in heavier use. Also, paper encyclopedias contain articles on railway lines, including short branch lines like the Arendal Line. Pretty much ditto with small airports, they are also covered in paper encyclopedias and are important transportation nodes. Hence, the question I ask when faced with determining the notability of a road article is: "Is the significance of this particular road on par with that of a small airport or small branch line?" If yes, I generally deem the road notable. This test generally favors the inclusion of highways and main arterial roads in cities, while excluding residential drives and cul-de-sacs. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

List of controversial books

Following on from the debate at Wikipedia talk: Lists - All Lists Are Subject Driven, I stumbled across this "List of controversial books" (forgive the euphemism), which I feel represents the problem whereby lists are being used as vehicles for topic inclusion as a means to circumvent Wikipedia's inclusion criteria based on notability.

Setting aside the sexual subject matter of the article for a moment, the issue here is that the boundries between the compilation of lists and original reseach/Synthesis of published material have become blurred, and these boundries need to be more clearly demarcated. Whilst the compilation of such lists is a useful and worthy accademic exercise outside of Wikipedia, the creation of list articles by Wikipedians themselves is a type of orginal research (if unsourced) or synethesis (if sourced) where the list is not itself notable in any way.

Take the "List of controversial books" above. Although it is clearly a list, the source of the article's title and the rationale for its inclusion in Wikipedia is misleading. Perhaps the article should have correctly titled "List of contraversial books selected arbitarily, loosely associated by subject matter, which one or more editors thinks is important enough to have its own list article". The problem is with self-compiled list is, if it is not notable, then the reader will not have any reference point from which to start when they ask the question "why was this list compliled to start with?" Is it a legitimate acaedmic exercise to complile this list, and if so, why? By contrast, if a list that is notable will have been compiled for a reason, which becomes more or less apparent from the significant coverage in the form of commentary, criticism or analysis that would accompany it.

My view is that without evidence of notability, the "List of controversial books" is effectively a content fork and as such is not compliant with Wikipedia's content policies. Not only is it a content fork because its subject matter is featured in one or more article topics where the topic is the subject of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, but I believe it to be a POV fork, i.e. it is a content fork which is promoting a particular viewpoint. The reason why I say it is POV fork is that, in the case of List of controversial books, the absence of commentary, criticism or analysis is deafening. Without significant coverage, this list article is attempting to circumvent Wikipedia content policies by virtue of the fact that it is silent about its subject matter, as cannot be considered to neutral or compliant with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

The question I have is, if I nominate this article for deletion (for a third time), would this be a fair rationale, or is there a flaw in my thinking? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You might have more success if you were honest about the title of the list. Based on what you wrote, I was expecting a list similar to the ALA's list of 100 most-challenged books. --Carnildo (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Based on the radioactive nature of the article this is being brought up about I'm going to avoid answering the question as it's given here. I don't trust that the vast majority of people can divorce their feelings on the emotionally charged subject matter from the relatively more sterile editorial questions, so I don't see it as a very good "litmus test" to carry out. All of that being said, reading over the former AFD's I think that it's generally a good thing to reiterate the point that DGG made, that these all seem like good reasons to improve the article rather then deleting it.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
How can you improve an article that is basically original research? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that's another subject that I wanted to bring up. I'm not sure how this list is something that you could refer to as OR. Are you asserting that some or all of the books in the list do not belong, based on subject matter? I don't really completely understand the OR criticism, in this instance.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't either. Each book is referenced using what the LOC classifies the book as. Now, there may be questions if it is indiscriminate since it appears to be listing *every* book on that subject, but OR it is not. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I think you may be missing the point; even if all of the individual sources are referenced, that does not mean that the list itself is notable, or worthy of inclusion. The list topic itself is acting as a coatrack for synthesis; although there are lots of sources, none address a particular subject matter directly or in depth. The question still remains: is this topic a synthesis, or are the sources providing evidence that the list is notable? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm still confused because I don't think that I understand what you mean by "that does not mean that the list itself is notable". ...Are lists ever really notable? That seems like a somewhat contrived extension of the article based notability guideline, to me. Lists are lists after all, their not really the same as regular articles. A list is simply a means of organizing discreet items in order to create information, so that line of criticism could probably be used on any list. Could you cite a list that does not suffer from what you are concerned about here, and explain what the difference is (I'm not really making an "OTHERSTUFF" argument here, I'm just trying to understand the exact reason that this list is structurally deficient)?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The books do seem to have citations on saying why they are included in the list. They don't sday they are controversial, that was something the OP stuck in. Dmcq (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The problem is here we are mixing three very different themes, none which impact the others, yet that's what's being done:
    • Original research: the claim that this list is original research is bogus. Every work included is listed because it falls under a specific Library of Congress classification that asserts the books are dealing with the theme of the list; this fact is sited for each. Now, there is a possible synthesis if the topics selected from the Library of Congress were vastly disparate (for example, if I were trying to push the point that the number of hurricanes per year is directly related to the number of pirates (a case of correlation not implying causation), a list that uses books from both topic areas would by synthesis.) And certainly the main topic is not original research, so there's no OR issue with this.
    • Notability: topics have to be notable, but not every article that is directly supporting a topic needs to be. This is a list supporting a larger topic; that topic is clearly notable. Thus, there is no issue here.
    • Indiscriminate: this is the only area where there is a problem. We want discriminate lists that have clear inclusion guidelines. There is that here, but at the same time, it doesn't attempt to make any further distinction. And that is the only major problem with this list. If this was "List of books about biology", and used the same approach, pulling from the Library of Congress and including all, the list would be huge and certain indiscriminate. This list needs another metric, and given a more recent discussion on WT:LISTS, maybe WT:NOT or a few other places over lists of wineries, I would suggest that the additional element needs to be something that indicative of more than just the book existing - either the book included is notable (having a page on WP) or has enough third-party sources to comment on it but not generate a new stub. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
the way to deal with indiscriminate is in the usual way: try to write articles for the red-linked books. If they have Wikipedia articles that can be sustained, they are notable, and a list of notable things is not indiscriminate. Alternatively, since this can take a while, give some indication at least that an article could be written, such a best-seller status, awards, major author, reviews, or at least major publisher. Books that nobody has heard of should not be on this list just on the basis of an LC heading. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • If the idea for the list is not original research, then from where did it come from? Which topic does this support? What is the inclusion criteria being used to justify this list in Wikipedia?
    In the absence of any evidence of notability, I would suggest that an editor had to come up with the idea of the list themselves. I will admit that it is quite difficult to desbribe the subject of a list in the same way as standalone article, but the principal is the same for both articles and lists: once the topic has been the subject of significant coverage from by reliable secondary sources, then its notable.
  1. In the case of lists it is its definition that defines it as an article topic, because unlike a standalone article, the contents of a list can straddle one or more subject matters;
  2. If the list definition (whether it is clear or vague) has not been the subject of reliable, third-party sources then it should not be included in Wikipedia;
  3. Note that this is different from saying that items of the list can be verified, for it is the definition of the list that binds them together. If a list is a synthesis of many sources, that is not a substitute for the definition being noted, or commented upon.
I will admit there are lots of inclusion criteria beased on subjective importance that are often used to justify list articles: "usefulness", "completeness" or "close association" are the most frequent ones. But we have to be clear between what is a notable list, and one that has been created to satisfy an editors personal interest in its subject matter, or to further an editor's personal point of view.
In the case of the "List of controversial books" (forgive the euphemism), I think allowing this list to exist without its definiton being the subject of reliable, third-party sources is a big mistake. And reason is three fold, as the creators of this article are basically
a) Gaming the system by using the justification for this list on the basis that its content (but not its definition) is verifiable;
b) This list is being used as a coatrack for POV pushing or advocacy of certain controversial viewpoints
c) Lastly this article is being used as a sort of "letterbox" or secret drop off point for editors who want to share information about certain controversial issues without have to provide any form of balanced coverage required by WP:NPOV.
In absence of notability, this list should be nominated for deletion, because the alternative reasons for its creation are, I would suggest, could be quite sinister. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Every Wikipedia article is a synthesis of multiple sources. It's understanding where synthesis to push a specific viewpoint or the like comes into play verses unbiased summation of sources that marks the distinction we put under WP:SYNTH. Plus, whether you like it or not, there is a subject behind these lists, naming the subject of child abuse. By no means do I support those that partake of it, but per WP:NOT#CENSORED, we don't bury our head in the sand about the topic - it exists, there is much research done on those affected by it as well as to ask why people do it anyway, and so-forth. From the standpoint of being an unbiased work, we have to treat it like any other subject no matter how icky it feels, otherwise we're incorporating a moral bias. So if there are published (and notable as suggested by DGG) works that discuss and/or depict child abuse, it seems completely fair to have a list of those as part of the coverage on the matter, as long as an unbiased source is used to classify the works as dealing with the topic (e.g. to prevent those that feel even spanking or paddling may be considered as such). Save for the indiscriminate aspect of including all such listed books at the LoC, the list pointed to has no other problems and is perfectly appropriate for WP, and seems like a completely unbiased way to report on such books. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Gavin, is your concern that this list is just some kind of recruiting aid for NAMBLA members? The fact that it tracks a classification maintained by the Library of Congress belies that. And obviously those interested in preventing or exposing sexual abuse, or treating its victims (or those who were themselves victims) would also be interested in how it is depicted in fiction. A fictional story about child sexual abuse could help a real life victim identify that they are being abused and help give them the courage to tell someone about it. But enough about hypothetical social impact...
The list only contains literature that deals with indisputably notable subject matter that is the subject of multiple Wikipedia articles (e.g., pedophilia, child sexual abuse), and it is well-sourced. There is simply no room for an OR claim here, at least not without you better elaborating upon why you would think that. As for "balance", obviously it would be a problem if the list only included examples of positive portrayals of pedophilia in books, but I don't see any basis for that conclusion set forth, if that's what you're getting at. Or are you just assuming that any portrayal of pedophilia is a promotion of it? postdlf (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Flawed premise. Lists and categories are interchangeable, and if you substitute category with list, you quickly see the flaw in the premise. No-one would ever argue that a category was a "Synthesis of published material", at least, I doubt they would be taken seriously. Hiding T 17:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
As I have said before, the subject matter of this list might make a good category, but the rationale for inclusion as a list is not in evidence, as there is no reliable third party source supporting its definition.
The probelm I have with the arguements in favour of inclusion based on subjective importance is that it is possible to argue that there is some subjective or arbitary connection between any two topics in Wikipedia. Just because this list is "connected" to the Library of Congress cataloging system, or "connected" with other notable topics is easy to say, but without evidence, there is simply no proof that such a connection exists in reality other than categorisation. Likewise the argument that this is not original reseach or synthesis needs to be supported by evidence - the burden of evidence lies with the contributors to this list to show that its definition is the same as its components, not the other way around.
If the list "tracks" a particular Library of Congress category, then then there is no source to say as such. If its subject matter is a notable topic, then again, this is not asserted in its definition, or supported by any sources. The premise still stands: if the defintion of the list has not been "noted", then it must have been made up, and whether it is synthesis (made up from loosely associated sources), original reseach (i.e. list defined simply by the interests of one or more editors) or just old fashioned listcruft (i.e. it is too ill defined to be classed as encylopedic) depends on how you want to class lists that fail WP:NOT and fall outside the scope of Wikipedia. If the subject matter is child sexual abuse, then perhaps this list is simply a content fork from that more notable topic. I think the truth of the matter tha this list of books as subject in its own right, but it does not qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleting & Removing

Could a policy be formed about this? I make the point never to delete/remove another's work but request comment or encourage for a better article page. However, we see people removing articles on the Gospel of Pilot etc. very much part of Church History. You cannot have an Encyclopedia if you remove all the bits you don't like! The same is true of associated article pages of Carl Gustav Jung. People on one expertise should not cross-over and interfer with article pages the subject they have not studied, and give witness to this by saying "I know nothing of this particular topic, but....". Or say: "I have not discovered the addiction in question, but...", but still give an unresearched opinion, or unread opinion. If one is referring to such they should ask a question. There should be a policy about this, for otherwise chaos may begin.

MacOfJesus (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, Gospel of Pilate has never existed. Perhaps you meant Acts of Pilate which most certainly exists? If the two are different, which I don't believe they are, then the lack of article on the former is due to it not yet being written. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Traditionally this has been referred to as the Gospel of Pilate and in most Commentries is referred to as such, even though it reads as a declaration, but too, is referred to as Acts of Pilate.

In the talk page of Acts of Pilate you will see other entrants complaining about the same thing. This is the point I am making: That people who don't know the signifance of these article pages and how they are dealt with in other sources are taking it upon themselves to deleate and remove.

We all need to study not only from Wikipedia the article page but from other sources, too, before offering opinion.

MacOfJesus (talk) 09:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you are mistaken about which is the most common term. "gospel of pilate" - 40 book usages vs. "acts of pilate" - 899 usages. However, this really isn't the place to discuss it - that is what the article talk page is for. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The point I'm making is about deleting and removing, sorry for calling the Gospel of Pilate. It is one of the terms I came across in studying Scripture at length, not from the net but from Commentries and Libraries and from lectures and exams and from the Exegesis world. Sorry.

MacOfJesus (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

So, what exactly has been "deleted or removed" in this case? For the only user that has commented in the talk page of the article "Acts of Pilate" before you actually seems to have written "[...] methodically gone through articles included in the Category:Christian mythology removing them." ([8]). Looks like that user meant "removed from the category" - the articles were just removed from the category, they were not deleted...
Or are you concerned with Talk:Father Victor White and the article "Acts of Pilate" was meant to be just an additional example? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Str1977 has methodically gone through articles included in the Category:Christian mythology removing them. This article was one of those removed.Perhaps not in the interests of the non-indoctrinated Wikipedia reader? I have no opinion in this particular case myself. --Wetman 09:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

(This comment on the talk page of The Acts of Pilate, I'v copied/pasted) I may have misunderstood. But in my travels throughout Wikipedia I see so much evidence of deleting and removing some good but some not so. MacOfJesus (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
:Just asking for a uniform policy, sorry if I have misunderstood.  MacOfJesus (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
No need to worry, misunderstandings do happen. And on the matter of uniform policy... Well, there is a problem with that: as you noted, sometimes removing something is a wrong thing to do, and sometimes it is the right thing to do (the same is true with adding something)... There are policies and guidelines that help us to make a decision in many specific cases (Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Notability etc.), but if we take the most general case, the only simple uniform policy might end up being "It's good when it's good, it's bad when it's bad"... And it is not that useful as a policy... Finally, hardly any policy worth enacting is likely to eliminate the human error... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
It is also useful to note that on occasion there are biases among those who usually act as administrators/moderators on discussion like this. It is always useful to remind such moderators of policies like Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, and finally and most importantly, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Wikipedia is sometimes a very hostile environment that takes some tough skin, and it would be wise to be treading lightly when possible, talk (use discussion pages, e-mail, or other similar kinds of responses) before acting, and generally be friendly and helpful. Obviously this attitude didn't happen in this situation, and that is unfortunate. It takes some extra bit of patience to let others poke at stuff you've written, and unfortunately not all editors or even admins have this level of patience that sometimes is desired. I'd have to agree that deletion does tend to happen from time to time, and religiously oriented articles tend to be explosive in terms of POV fights as well. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Well put. But the good thing is that when we did protest it was corrected. Regarding the threatning to delete Victor White page we did'nt know that there were two living the same time one an ace pilot and the other a Dominican Father, that must have taken a lot of research to discover. We thought he was some Ace! MacOfJesus (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
"We?" — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I must have a tough skin! after all! The other bits of the we may have gone! It was the "Royal We" I must have been using. But in all honesty some in the Jung world thought (including me), that it was one and the same person! Do remember we the studying-writers of article pages, do feed the Wikipedia world, and at no cost. I must have a hard skin!MacOfJesus (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Relative speedy deletion criterion for files

Is there a speedy or relative speedy deletion criterion for files under blatantly incorrect licences (for example, something that is obviously an official logo and yet is licensed, absent OTRS, under a free licence). If so, someone familiar with such areas may want to look at File:FarmFresh102-9 FM-Logo small.JPG. Intelligentsium 02:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be WP:CSD#F9 (blatant copyright violations), which is irrespective of the copyright actually claimed in the image description. With regards to that image, however, it just needs a proper license and a fair-use claim. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2 is now Closed

I have closed this Request for Comment. My detailed review of the issues and the results of that discussion may be found here. To summarize, I found that consensus exists as follows:

  • The Arbitration Committee shall consist of 18 Members elected to 2 Year Terms.
  • Arbitrators will be elected by Secret Ballot using the Securepoll extension.
  • Ballots will invite editors to Support or Oppose candidates.
  • Voters must have 150 mainspace edits before the election cycle to vote (Status Quo)

Questions or comments may be posted at The RFC's Talk Page. Thank you to all who participated. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Redirects and NPOV

Please see WT:NPOV#Redirects and NPOV. - Dank (push to talk) 19:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Thanks Shereth, fixed link

Any particular reason why we should visit that page? --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
There's no such section MBelgrano (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Fairly certain Dan was referring to WT:NPOV#Redirects and NPOV. Talk page, not WP page. Shereth 20:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

To answer the question: you'll see in that section that there's a fiercely-fought DRV at the moment where many people are invoking NPOV ... except NPOV says nothing about redirects in general, and neither has its talk page, for the last year or so. We should probably add something to the text, one way or another (and I personally don't care which way it goes, although I felt strongly about the related BLP issue). - Dank (push to talk) 04:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Abbreviations

Here is a simple one, but a sysop doesn't seem to get this concept. Abbreviations are not used except in cases where they have been defined and entered common use. This is a simple fact along the same line as concepts such as neologisms. If there is no way to verify that an abbreviation is used, it should not be used, as that would constitute original research. Have I lost anybody so far? Continuing, who does the burden of proof lie upon to find a source indicating whether something is normally abbreviated or not? Does it fall on the person wishing to use the abbreviation, or on the person wishing to use the spelt out version (assuming there is no proof of either in the jurisdiction that the article falls under)? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Article, diffs, example? - ukexpat (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Most likely related to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 15#Template:Jcon, as Floydian posted there with some talk about abbreviations just before posting here. Anomie⚔ 19:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, the issue in point here is with roads. In the United States, there is the Interstate system, the US Highway system, and in most places the county road system (or in Louisiana the parish system). In Canada there are Provincial highways, secondary highways, and county/district/regional/city roads in Ontario (depending on where you are). In the US, these are VERY commonly abbreviated as I-## or US-## for Interstates and US highways, and CR-## for county routes. In Canada (or at least in Ontario, where I am focusing), there are no such abbreviations (except sparingly by totally unreliable sources, and not at all by reliable surces). I am being asked to prove that abbreviations aren't used (diff). I can provide several by law documents where no abbreviation is used, but I cannot prove that they are not used. However, per the argument I made above, I don't believe that I should even have to prove that. The American road editors should instead have to prove that they Are in fact used, otherwise they should be spelt out in full. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Nothing? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Burden of proof is, as always, firmly on those making a positive assertion. If they claim the abbreviations are widespread, they need to prove it. You can't be realistically expected to prove a negative. From the Manual of Style-

Generally avoid making up new abbreviations, especially acronyms. For example, while it is reasonable to provide World Union of Billiards as a translation of Union Mondiale de Billard, the former is not the organization's name, and the organization does not use the acronym or initialism WUB; when referring to it in short form, use the official abbreviation UMB. In a wide table of international economic data, it might be desirable to abbreviate a United States gross national product heading; this might be done with the widely recognized initialisms US and GNP spaced together, with a link to appropriate articles, if it is not already explained: US GNP, rather than the made-up initialism USGNP.

--King Öomie 18:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Pathnav

The following was just posted on WP:VPM[9], but I'm moving it here since it seems more relevant here, and I agree with it anyway.

User:ASDFGH just created {{pathnav}} and has added it to the top of 20 or so articles. For one example, see [10]. This is a major change to the layout of article ledes and should have been discussed before being implemented (not to mention the 'levels' listed in the path are somewhat questionable, a mix of formal administrative levels and theoretical geo-social constructs, so it would be hard to maintain a standard format for them). I think these edits should be rolled back until a discussion takes place. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts? Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, these should all be reverted, and I've rolled back all the ones that hadn't already been reversed I think. There was no discussion, no consensus, and I really see no value or purpose in this template at all. It seems very arbitrarily made and implemented with a very focused manner that just validate changing the layout of the articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Since it's deactivated I'm having trouble figuring out what it did. But I agree that major changes to important articles should be made after discussion.   Will Beback  talk  09:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The template added a gray box to the top of articles that showed a "hierarchy" from the national level to region, state, county, etc., depending on the location. For example, the pathnav box at the top of the Los Angeles article looked roughly like this:

United States > Western United States > California > Los Angeles County

If implemented throughout the encyclopedia, this would constitute an entirely new interface feature. In the spirit of WP:BOLD, I don't criticize the user who created the template. From a design standpoint, I don't even find it especially unattractive. However, the box is entirely unnecessary, and doesn't do anything categorization and navboxes don't already do. Of course, if further discussion ensues and the community decides we would like to have this feature, I say go right ahead. It's not looking like that's gonna happen from the way the discussion's been going, though. szyslak (t) 10:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for providing that example. Similar schemes have been proposed and tried before, but they've also been rejected. Perhaps it's because the tens of thousands of settlements have too many different circumstances to fit into simple branching structures. (Who defines "Western United States", to name the simplest case. "Western India"? "Western Albania"?) It's best to avoid over-categorization.   Will Beback  talk  10:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, those are the two problems I had with it. 1) Impossible to implement in a standard way; 2) unnecessary for a general encyclopedia. If this were PlacesPedia or something, maybe it would make sense to have these heirarchical pathways at the top of every article. But it's not, so these would only be relevant to a small portion of articles anyway, so there's no reason to stick them at the very top of all these articles (above every dablink), it would just create inconsistencies across the project. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, the use of "Western United States" in the Los Angeles example above is an analogy to the way the template was being used on PRC cities. The template's original creator only added it to a bunch of PRC cities (and probably created it with them in mind), and was using the macroregions of China as one of the levels--so the template went Country-Macroregion-Province-City. In the PRC, province and city are administrative levels, whereas macroregions are a theoretical concept. It doesn't translate so well to the US, where there are some extra levels (cities are underneath counties, AFAIK, whereas in China the big cities are their own levels), and where 'macroregions' aren't the same thing. It's also interesting that the template creator added it only to articles on big cities, not to rural counties or townships or villages, of which there are many. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
sorry... I created the change for 9 out of the top 10 US cities... was trying to mimic the change for the PRC. Rjanag is quite correct about the organization of cities in the PRC. Mathpianist93 (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Wikitravel uses something like this, but that is also a much more geographically structured wiki. --Apoc2400 (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Administrator's errors and abuses in the blocking policy

Proposed a paragraph titled: "Administrator's abuses of power in the blocking policy". Discussion here
bye --Mashra (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The topic is not secondary. --Mashra (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding Notability

[11] An editor has questioned the notability of the subject of an article. When it was shown that the subject's books have been reviewed by mainstream sources, the editor responds that the books may be notable, but the author is not notable. I believe that the idea is absurd and flies in the face of Wikipedia policy. Thoughts? — goethean ॐ 16:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I did a quick search and Richard Tarnas is clearly notable. Of course an author's notability is based primarily on the success of his books - to argue otherwise is absurd. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
In that instance and for most notable books the author would also be notable. But if there aren't any reliable sources who have said something about the author except that they are the author of a book then the author wouldn't be notable in themselves. So it isn't automatic. I've an instance of an author I put in principally because they had the same name as another person so as disambiguate the links from their articles and books, they kepy being set to the wrong person. However they preserve their privacy pretty well so I'm not sure they count as notable and on strict grounds I probably shouldn't have put in the article. Dmcq (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Notability is not inherited. A book might well be notable while the author might not be (especially in the case of first time authors). Then again there are times when an might author might be notable but a book he wrote might not be. This is why we have slightly different notability criteria categories for authors and works. Blueboar (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

vandalism

Regarding vandalism by the ip address, 89.240.115.135, on Barge I have not the power to block the ip address, who do I alert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliver Barge (talk • contribs) 19:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that the IP has been sufficiently warned, please report active and continuing vandalism at WP:AIV. – ukexpat (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments sought on community de-adminship

Comments from all interested editors are invited and welcome at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC, where a proposal for community de-adminship is being discussed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC on WP:RS

Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#RfC_on_page_move. Should Wikipedia:Reliable sources be moved to Wikipedia:Verifiability/reliable sources to become a subpage of the sourcing policy, WP:V? There would be no change in either page's status: the policy would remain policy, and RS would retain its status as a guideline. 23:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Wili, Willi and WILI

Resolved

Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There is only one WILI disambiguation page, with two radio stations.

Some Wikipedia editors have chosen to spell the nickname of Wilhelmina Slater as "Wili". In articles where I saw it, I changed the name to the proper name for clarity but created a redirect so people who thought of her as "Wili" could use that. It's sure a lot easier to spell, although I've never seen proof of the spelling. I'll look for it.

But what would be the proper way to handle a disambiguation page? Using "search", There are two uses of "Wili"--Harold Lamont Otey and Wili Jønsson--in addition to the two radio stations and Wili Slater. I see another redirect I need to create because I don't know how the heck, other than copy and paste with the article, one comes up with that character.

There's also a redirect for Willi Weber. And I see a bunch more uses of "Wili" to refer to Wilhelmina. I don't think of her as having a nickname, so I imagine others will do a double-take unless I fix that.

Incidentally, how would I add "Willi" to the hatnote on Slavic fairies? I just added that in anticipation of a new disambiguation page, and then carelessly clicked on "Save page" when I meant to "show preview".Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Try the people at WP:WPDAB for advice. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 23:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, those never help. I tried it but didn't see anything that would tell me I had done it right. Could someone look at what I did to Wili?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Correction: I meant the article. I didn't know there were people. But thanks for the help.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

COI

When creating an article, what instances would count as Conflict of Interest? Simply south (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

See WP:COI --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
There isn't a hard checklist for conflict of interest, but the most common two things that create a conflict of interest are financial involvement with the article's subject and personal relation to the article's subject. Therefore, if you are the owner of a business than it is best to avoid starting the article on your business, also it's best to avoid writing about you or one who you are close with. If you can contribute neutrally than by all means write about the subject, but if your knowledge is such that it is impossible to write an unbiased article than it is best to stay away. ThemFromSpace 04:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Simply south (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to change the status of Wikipedia:Appealing a block to guideline

Currently marked as policy, see here. Cenarium (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC on current semi-protection policy

Hello, FYI I've started a RfC on our semi-protection policy. Thanks. Soque1 (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Interlanguage vandalism

In the past several months I have been dealing with a pair of extremely persistent sockpuppet vandals.

The first one I was involved with was a Japanese editor who normally edits ja.wikipedia. This vandal was quite clever and the majority of his edits skated the line between vandalism and good faith (they were subtly slanderous or POV edits concerning a living person for the most part). When reverted or questioned, his communications were highly uncivil and he demonstrated such a high degree of ownership over pages that I believe his eventual indefinite blocking was as much for behavior as it was for vandalism. After months of struggles, both of his IPs here were blocked and his army of 30 (by last count) sockpuppets were blocked as well. Although he has returned a number of times in the past for further vandalism, he seems to be limiting his activities to ja.wikipedia for the present.

The second vandal puppetmaster I am currently involved with is an English editor who normally edits en.wikipedia. This editor is in many ways the exact opposite of the first one: he makes very obvious vandalistic edits (like blanking pages or requesting bans from admin), and he is usually caught and blocked within hours. The problem is that he often edits obscure little-watched pages, and also he operates from behind a dynamic IP range. So often all he has to do is to disconnect from the internet and then connect back again and he is assigned a new unblocked IP. His ISP also changes his IP automatically every few days. When this editor is blocked on en.wikipedia he nearly always goes to simple.wikipedia to continue his mayhem. To date this puppetmaster has 15 username puppets across both projects (only 9 here at en.wiki), and close to 100 IP puppets (over 80 here at en.wiki).

In dealing with these exceptionally persistent puppetmasters it takes a lot of coordination between the different language versions in order to properly block them. Admin on one language wikipedia will usually not be aware of problems from the same editor on another language wikipedia, and clever vandalism or vandalism of obscure pages often takes months of dedicated monitoring of multiple language versions of wikipedias to squelch. I have been thinking for a while now that there has to be a better way than this, and I think I've come up with a good solution.

  • Proposal: Expand admin/mod blocking capacities to allow an admin blocking at en.wikipedia to also simultaneously block the same user on all other interlanguage editions of the encyclopedia. This should apply to IP blocks only.

The reason I think it should only apply to IP blockings is that there's always some uncertainty that "User:Mort" (chosen semi-arbitrarily) is the same on en.wiki as it is on fr.wiki. It would be an exceptionally difficult judgment call for an admin to make even if the edits on both interlanguage versions look highly similar. An IP, however, will be the same here as it will be on fr.wiki or de.wiki or what have you. By allowing admins/mods to block the IP on all language versions of wikipedia simultaneously in one simple action, this provides increased notice to editors/admin at the other language versions that the blocked IP editor is in trouble at en.wiki. This should increase the effectiveness of the response to further vandalism on the other project. This also serves the goal of creating heightened disincentives to vandalize.

I hope this is the right place to make such a proposal. If this seems to be an issue for Village Pump (proposals) or if this seems to be a higher-order proposal better suited for something like the Wikimedia Foundation or something, please let me know where you think I should make my case. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't support this . Other wikipedias don't have as badly behaved administrators and editors as en.wiki in general, and, consquently, imo, don't have the hard-core vandals en.wiki does. Importing administrators from en.wiki could increase the vandalism on other wikipedias. I only edit one other wikipedia to any degree, but I translate articles now and then among a few. Administrators and users on the others ones I edit are far more civil than on en.wiki. In particular they often maintain civility toward vandals and the vandals are not so dedicated in the face of a civil response. They want the flaming they get from en.wiki.
This would have to be proposed to the other wikipedias. I don't know how to do it. I personally consider it a bad proposal. That's just my opinion. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
This would have to be proposed at Meta, and other language wikis would have to agree before it was implemented on those sites. That said, I do not support this at all. I think it would be very difficult to actually enforce, and I don't think it would be a good use of resources. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "difficult to enforce." I am suggesting a broadening of the tools available to admins to stop vandals. Of course it would be left to their discretion whether or not to exercise these blocking-powers just as it is left to their discretion to decide how long the block should be applied. Variations on the theme could be as simple as leaving a note on known en.wiki vandals' interlanguage accounts to state that they had been banned on en.wikipedia. Anyway I'll try to find a good place to make a suggestion at Meta. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a note on the "User:Mort" example, if there is a SUL account for the user then any linked accounts on other wikis can be easily found. For example, this link shows that all the Anomies on various Wikimedia wikis are all me, while this shows that there are users named "Thibbs" on Commons and Simple English that may or may not be you. Anomie⚔ 00:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Crosswiki vandals can be blocked by Stewards; request this at m:SRG Triplestop x3 00:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps that's good enough. Thanks, Anomie and Triplestop. That was very helpful. -Thibbs (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Appealing a block has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Appealing a block (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. It was previously marked as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Self promotion and indiscriminate publicity

Should the the following section be inserted into WP:N to explain better to both article writers and inexperienced AFD participants that it's not a matter of "getting boxes checked", but that the reliability and independence of the sources cited in an article are important?

Self promotion and indiscriminate publicity In some instances, publication in a reliable source is not actual good evidence of notability:

Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. The barometer of notability is whether third parties in the wider world have independently considered the topic significant. Paid material, self-promotion, solicitation, and product placement are not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received by the world at large.

Credible writers who have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter – are good evidence, but the nature of the material must be examined to consider if it shows genuine independent interest, or is more likely to result from indiscriminate coverage or promotion.

In particular:

  • If an interested party could readily obtain similar coverage by promotional activity; or
  • The publisher would grant similar coverage to many or all venues, groups, products, people or entities in the field, without evidence of much discrimination; or
  • The publisher seems unlikely to have carefully verified the published article's factual accuracy

then the resulting text is unlikely to be good evidence.

Comments are invited and are most welcome at Wikipedia Talk:Notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a an RFC at Template talk:Refimprove. It would be helpful to include a link to a commercial search engine in the template. But this means that there will be external links outside the "External links" section in hundreds of articles. Do the benefits outweigh the drawbacks? See Template talk:Refimprove#RFC: Should a link to a commercial search engine be included in the template Refimprove? -- PBS (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia administrative policy

I asked over at WT:CfD if they want to handle this, since it involves creating a new category ... apparently not, there were no responses. Short version: Some policy pages haven't been edited in a while, some of them should rarely be changed because they involve Foundation, legal or technical issues, and the policy nutshell at the top of these pages should be changed (in many cases, it already has been changed). There seems to be agreement at WT:POLICY#list of pages that some new category, maybe Category:Wikipedia administrative policies, would be appropriate. Thoughts? Is there a simple yes/no question somewhere in here that would be suitable for an RFC? - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It sounds fine to me. Perhaps something like, "Should a new category, Category:Wikipedia administrative policies, be created to hold all policies on Wikipedia?" As an alternate, it may be good to be bold and just create it as it doesn't seem the least bit controversial to me. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
No objections from me, either. I'd say go ahead and implement it, since it doesn't seem likely to me controversial. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to point out, as someone who has talked with Dank about his proposal as he was fleshing it out, that the new category isnt (if I have been understanding him correctly) going to hold all policies on Wikipedia; only those policies that have to do with actual administration and not editing (such as pages that talk about how ArbCom shall operate and technical bureaucratic; as opposed to WP:V and editing content policies). So Nihonjoe's example sentence should be tweaked to reflect that it is a subcategory of the policy category. Of course I hope Dank can correct me if I have misrepresented it at all.Camelbinky (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Since this is going well, is everyone comfortable with the suggested division at WT:POLICY#list of pages (leaving the special cases aside) into a "legal" subcat and another subcat that might or might not be named "administrative"? On most policy pages, we don't add the (somewhat outdated) navigation template that lists all the policy pages ... probably a good idea, we don't want to overwhelm people with rules when they're just getting started. How about a "legal policy" template, etc? (These already exist for some subcats.) What I'm saying is ... does the grouping we're suggesting seem useful enough to put it in a navigation template at the bottom of policy pages? - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC) tweaked

This is possibly just the lawyer in me overthinking things, but perhaps we should have a clear statement somewhere that the category tags are not to be read as part of the policy itself. Instead, the categorization of policy pages into different groupings is for convenience only, and such categorization is not to be interpreted as limiting or expanding their scope or as implying a hierarchy of relative importance. postdlf (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that it would be useful to say somewhere (probably WP:POLICY) that there's no official hierarchy among policy pages (because if there were a consensus that a policy page either wasn't important or wasn't generally applicable, it wouldn't be a policy page). - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is my understanding of what we're doing. Unless someone tells me I've got it wrong, I'll do it all late on Monday November 30 if no one else has done it, and explain what we're doing in Monday's Signpost.

Other pages have been mentioned by several of us as likely candidates for one of these cats and I don't have a preference what we do with them, except I'd prefer we go ahead and make a decision on WP:IAR and WP:NFCC (I have summaries to do before the end of the month). I just noticed that someone had independently suggested at WT:LOP on November 10 that NFCC be moved to the legal subcat ... their reasoning is good, and two of us mentioned NFCC at WT:POLICY as well. Blueboar was in favor of moving IAR from conduct policy to content policy and also making it a "principle", but there was only support for the "principle" part of that in the (very short) discussion at WT:IAR, and it seems to me we can address Blueboar's concern by adding a footnote to IAR to mention that it tends to apply more to content policies. - Dank (push to talk) 21:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Appealing a block shouldn't be marked as policy imo, it's just a guideline and should be marked as such (proposed). Cenarium (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Note, Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines may need to be updated to reflect these changes. -- Ϫ 18:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'll have time later today to look at it, all my deadlines are at midnight tonight UTC. - Dank (push to talk) 19:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I was reverted at WP:IAR when I tried to change it from a policy to a principle, but I have no objection to keeping it as a policy and changing the subcat from conduct to procedural; any objections? - Dank (push to talk) 19:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. It doesn't fit with procedural as I see it. It definitely needs to be a policy, but maybe it should reside in the main category rather than be sub-categorised. Hiding T 15:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_69&oldid=1147981689"