Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive BL

• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals (persistent)
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous

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This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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

WP:PRECON

I'm considering to compose a draft for what could become a new supplementary guideline to WP:MOS. Initially, I thought about something like "writing as a fan", but it's probably even more interesting to have a guideline on all sorts of "writing with a preconception", be it as a fan, or as a [what's the word for "opposite of a fan"?], hence the (arguably a tad offensive) WP:PRECON moniker. I imagine the guideline to relate to WP:COI, but with strong emphasis on stylistic aspects. But before wasting hours of my life on this, I wanted to make the round and ask for general opinions (ideally in the form of encouragement). —AldeBaer 14:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as an antonym for "fan" ... "detractor". As far as WP:PRECON ... is there a sense of dissatisfaction with WP:NPOV and the related materials already referenced from there? dr.ef.tymac 15:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I imagine aspects of many related policies (WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:WAF, WP:FICT) flowing into one centralised guideline focusing on aspects of writing as a fan, particularly for new editors, who are often attracted by the possiblity of writing about their favourite subject in the first place. Btw, the title I first had in mind was "Wikipedia:Writing as a fan", which may be even better. —AldeBaer 17:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The point below by Wikidemo seems to hit the nail on the head. Different people have different reasons for editing. Even for people who "couldn't care less" about a subject, they've got to have some personal motivation for contributing. As long as those motives don't blatantly manifest in the text of the article itself, and the content is otherwise substantiated and appropriate, the "fan/detractor" label seems like just another way to put people in "categories" instead of evaluating the independent merit of their contributions. dr.ef.tymac 17:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There are both good and bad aspects about fan-writers. The good ones are obvious (but I'd mention them anyway, as those deserve encouragement), the bad ones may not be so obvious. —AldeBaer 20:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good essay. As a guideline, people's affinity or distaste for something should not color how they write about it, but that isn't something that anyone else but they can know, answer to, or deal with. So it would be a policy without any enforceability, and we don't need more of that. As part of the "judge the editor, not the edits" approach, we cannot impugn the quality of someone's work by their closeness to it. Many people write about things because they are interested in them...you want military history, for example, written by people who know about the subject, not people who couldn't care less. Wikidemo 17:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Um... it's not intended to be policy but a style guideline, which in turn would be massively backed up by enforceable policy. Other than that, you're right that people's affinity or distaste for something should not color how they write about it, but in fact it happens all the time. It's a good thing of course when people are writing about something they're interested in, but too often "fan enthusiasm" triumphs over "professional enthusiasm", and that's where this guideline comes in. Of course, you can also point new editor to WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. But I consider that a form of biting and I think this guideline could do a lot to prevent alienating well-intentioned new editors. —AldeBaer 17:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... seems like something that could be added to the welcome package (or a variant where the new editor is identified as a fan). As WP expands welcome templates may well be orientated toward the perceived type of editor (cos' we want to encourage all the good'uns!) and this would certainly help some. LessHeard vanU 21:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Needless to say, I very much agree. —AldeBaer 23:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Do people really like those "boilerplate welcome messages"? I know I didn't. I had already read most of that stuff before deciding to make an account. I think people forget how annoying "canned responses" can be. dr.ef.tymac 04:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Boilerplate (or any other) welcome messages are a necessary evil, IMO. Those who are irritated by them likely know enough about WP to realise that, and will remove them. Those who don't know enough about WP are both unlikely to be irritated and likely to find them useful. LessHeard vanU 09:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not just write an essay? "A guide to writing about stuff you like without sounding like a total fanboy" could be useful, and just point people in the direction of the existing guidelines and policies that they need to obey, without creating special-case instruction creep. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Because everybody laughs at essays. Well, not everybody, but you know what I mean. I'd strongly prefer a guideline, because it'd be one. I don't want to write an essay nobody's ever going to read. Also, while there is a point regarding WP:CREEP, I consider fan writing a really important issue, not a special case. WP:COI simply is not enough of a guideline for editors.

To give you an idea of what I consider a good topic for an essay, I've been thinking about an essay on the general concept of "reading and writing" for some time now, which I may hopefully get around to soon. The difference is, it is clearly only my opinion, and it's wikiphilosophical rather than anything remotely guideline-suitable.—AldeBaer 00:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:ILIKEIT is merely a widely-cited essay, but it describes guidelines with a lot of consensus. It states what people are thinking, and lets them show it to others without actually setting a rule. The citations show the consensus, instead of the tag. You can be advisory (you should try this) without being mandatory, and without being laughed at. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't a guideline just that? Being advisory without being strictly mandatory? —AldeBaer 08:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• You hit the nail right on the head. WP:ILIKEIT is a de facto guideline, regardless of what the tag says. >Radiant< 15:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I take it the community doesn't welcome this proposal, which is a satisfactory answer to the question I asked. I'm not going to write that page though, as I wouldn't want to see it rot in essay purgatory, which is what would basically happen seeing as it appears not to have any consensus in the community, and indeed consensus seems to be against it. I believe this is unfortunate, but I accept that others don't share my take on things. No need waisting hours writing it though, as it would just be a formulation of the basic concept I laid out here.
Yet, judging from some comments here —where I should note that commenting is a good thing in the first place, so thank you for that— I'm not convinced about some people's understanding of what the guideline proposal is about and how serious the wikirealities the idea is based on really are. I'll readily concede that this is merely my own perception of things, but that perception formed itself over a period of several months and in a range of different groups of articles. I still believe that the guideline could do a lot good. I would have preferred to be convinced by counter arguments, and not just bow to consensus, but that's just the way it is. —AldeBaer 14:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• No, the community welcomes the proposal just fine, however please realize that the vast majority of proposals are rejected. >Radiant< 15:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks, but I honestly expected no less. The moment making good-faithed proposals is not welcomed any more will be the moment I will *have made* my last edit. The proposal itself however, as opposed to my proposing it, has been rejected. In my opinion, contrary to the vast majority of proposals it's a potentially really useful idea, and in addition to that I offered to do all the groundwork. —AldeBaer 18:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Ignore me. I'm planning to compose a draft for it in my userspace anyway. Now that I've boasted about how this would be a great thing, I'd better write my ass off accordingly, whether or not it finally become a guideline or an essay. Maybe I should explain my being obsessed with that "official guideline" seal: I'm German. I'm going to drop a note here as soon as I've come up with something halfway debatable. See y'all around, good luck. —AldeBaer 22:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Referencing of Main Article callouts

When a lengthy article calls out the template {{main|subtopic}}, there are often well referenced citations in the called-out subtopic. In order to provide an inline synopsis, the lengthy article often winds up replicating the cites for a questionable improvement in verifiability. It seems to this humble puppy that we would be better off to have an identified synopsis in the subtopic article which can be automatically inserted by the call out, keeping all the similar refs in one place. For illustration of some of the issues consider First World War and its call outs under War crimes or the less controversial section Literature and movies. Am I missing a policy/guideline on this topic?LeadSongDog 20:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What you say makes a lot of sense. I think the only problem would be making sure the summary is in line with the main article. It seems like there should be some way to do this with transclusion, but I don't think there is at this time. And no, I'm not aware of any policy or guideline that would let you do this. — The Storm Surfer 22:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking along the lines of:

1. a comment field in the main article source text identifying which captures a permanent link to the historic version of the subarticle the abstract was taken from; or
2. a transcluded synopsis (perhaps in a DOI format?) that keeps current versions in sync; or
3. a policy that the refs go in one place or the other; or
4. a way to transclude named refs in synopses

But I have no clue at this time how to make it happen (or whether it should).LeadSongDog 01:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's possible to transclude a chunk of text from within an (invisible) comment; if possible, I think this is attractive (this is #2, if I understand you correctly). That transclusion would pick up whatever footnotes are embedded in the text, of course, but

I don't think #4 is possible, though I'm not sure if you're talking about simply transcluding refs (which, I don't think, is really the point - keeping text synchronized is more important) or if you're talking about pulling in footnote details from outside the transcluded text (e.g., invisible text is in section 0, body of reference "ABC" is in section 3). I also think #1 is impossible (as much as anything is impossible with software - let's just say that I can't see the developers ever agreeing to this).

As for #3, it makes no sense that refs would go only in the main article; they either belong in just the subtopic (I personally favor that) or in both.

I think as Wikipedia articles continue to improve, this issue is just going to get more important - there are going to be more and more spinoffs/subtopics from main articles, and there will be a continual temptation (I've certainly given in to it) to simply update what should be a synopsis, and let someone else deal with incorporating the change within the subtopic article. Perhaps a note at Wikipedia talk:Summary style about this issue would be helpful? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles needing citations

I cannot imagine I am the first person to bring this up, but I am really annoyed by the 'articles needing citation from this and that date' and so on. That is really a technical issue. I am foremost a Wikipedia user/reader, and I don't like the reader-useful categories to be undersnowed by these technicallities. Is there not a way to make the wikipedian to look up these articles another way? Or can the links be made in finer print in a different location? 85.144.130.8 02:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources discussion

There is a discussions starting about the elements of reliable sources. Specifically, relevance and credibility are being discussed. Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Crucial aspects of reliability Vassyana 22:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR

I just want to make sure people know that there has been an ongoing and extensive debate concerning our NOR policy. I just archived August's discussion, including a considerable amount of debate that led to, and followed, page protection. There are a series of issues I hope other editors will comment on.

• one editor questions the importance of policies, and whether they require universal consent to be enforcable, or that's how I interpret it - the comment is this
• I believe some editors are simply opposed to NOR, period

Of those who claim to support NOR in principle, there are a variety of disputes:

1. should the policy distinguish between primary and secondary sources?
2. should the policy encourae the use of secondary sources over primary sources?
3. should the policy encourage the use of reliable sources?
4. are explanations considered original research?

In order to move the discussion I cleaned up the talk page and selected the firs two questions for discussion - they seemed to be at the heart of the conflict that led to page protection. But in the most recent archive you will see all these points (and more!) debated, and I am pretty confident that if we ever reach resolution on points 1 and 2, people will immediaely begin debating points 3 and 4. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:BADSITES: the rejected proposal that keeps on giving

We've been around WP:BADSITES a number of times now, and it has been rejected (for lack of consensus) many times over. Yet it keeps coming back.

What is is particularly vexing is that its focus has shifted from the original target (sites critical of Wikipedia) to official websites of article subjects. The problem, of course, is that as subjects of Wikipedia, the people on these sites are inclined to talk about it, and in some cases discuss Wikipedia editors as real people. This fits the parameters of the (non-)policy, and someone deletes the link. This in turn sets off an edit war, because other people think that it's obvious that the subject's own official website belongs in the article about them.

So far at least three articles have been subjected to this treatment:

• Teresa Nielsen Hayden (it's been hit twice)
• Michael Moore
• Don Murphy

The last is the subject of attack at this time.

I've always taken the position that it's not our job to hold these sites to some moral standard of Wikipedia discourse. I also think we cannot take on the responsibility for guaranteeing editor anonymity outside of Wikipedia, which is in effect what this "policy" attempts. But more importantly, this is an issue that simply refuses to die, and it's no longer possible to argue that it isn't affecting the quality of the encyclopedia. My position is that we ought to have an stated policy-- in WP:BLP or elsewhere-- that the subject's official/own website can and ought to be linked to in their article. BUt one way or the other this needs to be settled. Mangoe 13:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing links to the official websites of articles is inane, IMO, and more so if it is because the content may reflect poorly on Wikipedia and its contributors. There are articles in Wikipedia on subjects of truly horrendous beliefs and practices, and links to official (and non-official) websites are far greater tolerated. (I have made my feelings on this and related matters quite clear on User:Dtobias/Why BADSITES is bad policy previously.) LessHeard vanU 15:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I dunno...an excellent counter essay to the one Dtobias (and apparently others who fail to understand why we shouldn't link top harassment) keeps spamming over this website can be found here.--MONGO 18:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well... The assumption on behalf of the reader is quite breath-taking, but I suppose I cannot fault any of the arguments or examples. LessHeard vanU 19:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Although since I haven't see any "linking to harassment" (though I've seen a lot of UNlinking AS harassment) I'm afraid the argument doesn't take me very far. Mangoe 20:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links is a guideline with consensus. In Wikipedia:External links#What should be linked, the very first thing listed is "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." Anyone edit warring against a consensus guideline really needs their hands slapped; especially if they are doing so on the basis of something that is known to be rejected. In short, official websites should not be delinked without first getting consensus for that specific case on the talk page of that specific article. GRBerry 15:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Somebody really needs to reword the section on WP:NPA regarding external links, which still has too many remnants of "BADSITES" to actually mesh with current practice, which has recently been to disregard such absolutism when there's a legitimate purpose for a link. Jimbo's comments, calling for thoughtful examination of links with consideration of the possible hurt it could cause, but balanced with other considerations, would be a sensible basis for new wording if somebody wants to try to create some. What we don't need is any kind of "zero tolerance", "no links to attack sites under any circumstances", approach, regardless of there being a small clique that wants it. *Dan T.* 17:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Aren't you and Mangoe both participants in WR? A website that routinely supports stalking our editors? Do you not think that your participation in that website and your neverending quest to be able to link to it and similar sites is a COI?--MONGO 18:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

While you're determined to enforce one part of WP:NPA, perhaps you should also heed other parts of it, such as the one that says that it's a personal attack to be "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." *Dan T.* 18:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I see, so you don't want to confess that you might have a conflict of interest here...that you do participate in the same threads as those who are stalking our editors over at WR is to be ignored? You want to be able to link to such websites and this has been about the only thing you do on this project anymore...go around, repeatedly posting links to your personal essay, all over the place and demanding we link to various websites, none of which are making overt efforts to reveal your address, real name, where you work, etc.--MONGO 19:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Making insinuations about my alleged personal motivations for taking a position, rather than making logical arguments against the position itself, would seem to be against the No Personal Attacks policy too, which says "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia." *Dan T.* 19:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh?

"...demanding we link to various websites..."

I think you mistake the concept of option with conscription. Wikipedia:External links says nothing about the clicking of linking being compulsory.LessHeard vanU 19:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you go there and look, MONGO, if you want to know? I mean, though I have have never been a member of the Communist Party, I have an account on Wikipedia Review, and I posted something there today pointing at the Don Murphy nonsense. Besides that I have hardly read the site, not that you can do other than take my word for it. Of course, WR doesn't have anything to do with the current WP:EL problem, except that emnity towards it is what spawned BADSITES; but if WR ever gets an article in Wikipedia, I'm going to expect as a matter of course that the article link to WR. Mangoe 20:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

just a short note - it would be really great if we could put this one to bed! - almost exclusively the links that have been removed citing this concept have been returned with wide ranging consensus, and of course the policy was comprehensively rejected. We should link to Don Murphy and Michael Moore's websites - it's silly not to. Purples 23:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to apply censure for any person intentionally or by gross negligence fraudulently changing an existing Wikipedia article or articles.

Reading a news article “Dutch Royals Caught Revising Wikipedia “ (1) from another source then following a link at the end of the article to Wikipedia about a flagrant attempt to change embarrassing information from no less then a member of the Netherlands royal family by marriage, Princess Mabel of Orange-Nassau (née Mabel Martine Los; later Mabel Martine Wisse Smit; born August 11, 1968, Pijnacker, Netherlands) who is the wife of Prince Friso of Orange-Nassau, second son of Queen Beatrix and the late Prince Claus of the Netherlands and Prince Friso, as noted above a royal member by blood. (2) Although the details are described in the cited article (1), what is truly bothersome is that Wikipedia has no stated policy I can find but may have missed in my search of Wikipedia policy for someone intending directly or by gross negligence try to commit fraud by altering an existing article in Wikipedia.

With regret but seeing the necessity, I feel a discussion by appropriate Wikipedia community members to censure any individual or individuals who attempt or later be found out to commit fraudulent changes be done.

What form censur should be enacted could include probationary or permanent exclusion of being able to edit any article directly or through another agent any article within Wikipedia. It appears that currently the offending individual or individuals are noted in the Wikipedia article where the fraudulent or questionable change or changes were made. I suspect embarrassment is used for "punishment" for questionable editorial practices. Instead or in addition, the creation of a published list of offenders who directly or through another agent(s) were found to be a participant in fraudulent or ethically questionable changes created on Wikipedia is registered on a so-called “List of Shame” The new "List of Shame" would include names, reasons of being on this list and tenure of restriction. The intent of the "List of Shame" of course would be to discourage more vigorously such reprehensible practices.

I would also suggest if a questionable edit is thought important by an author, a policy of first submitting it for editorial review is done before attempting to actually make changes. Journalistic or academic ethics may set the proper precedence for editorial review. Editorial review could be possible done by direct Wikipedia committee or community debate on Wikipedia before a change is accepted. The author of a questionable change would be responsible for submitting a controversial change to editorial review as a starting point. As a case in point, the removal of “and false” statement in the above mentioned article (2) argued by Princess Mabel and Prince Friso should clearly have been proposed for editorial review first rather then making the change initially then later when exposed of this questionable elimination of these two words, the Prince and Princess later defended the elimination of these two words from the original article as correcting a mistake.

It is my strong desire not to restrict proper or truly sincere editorial corrections of Wikipedia articles since it is important for the trust of the Wikipedia community to maintain a high level or accuracy so critical to the mission of any encyclopedia. Nor would I like to see any restriction of debate of questionable material within a Wikipedia article as needed on Wikipedia to maintain the high quality and accuracy members of come to appreciate and rely on. However, unethical editorial practices should and does need to be curtailed with consequences supported by the Wikipedia community in general. I hope my proposals spark true and honest debate of what I believe is an important issue.

Ref:

1. http://www.comcast.net/news/technology/index.jsp?cat=TECHNOLOGY&fn=/2007/08/30/751411.html Dutch Royals Caught Revising Wikipedia.
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Mabel_of_Orange-Nassau

Respectively submitted by, Sadius 08:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Conflict of Interest addresses these concerns, and suggests remedies. LessHeard vanU 09:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• This is also somewhat covered by Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism under "Sneaky Vandalism," which specifically refers to "adding plausible misinformation to articles." (Unintentional misinformation is not vandalism, and, in the absence of clear evidence otherwise, we begin with an assumption that the misinformation is unintentional.) The typical procedure for addressing such misinformation is to place a {{Template:Uw-error1}} label on the user's talk page, which points out that the information seems to be incorrect and asks the editor to properly source it before they reinsert--and, if its controversial, to discuss it on the talk page first. The warnings escalate (midway asserting that "If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.") to the point that a ban is initiated. Many wikipedia users would likely be against a "list of shame" as you describe (see for example Wikipedia:Deny recognition and Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore, and it would be impracticable, I'm afraid, because Wikipedia's vandals are legion. :/ However, there is a list of some of the more egregious vandals at Wikipedia:Long term abuse. --Moonriddengirl 12:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Blanking of talk page and hiding its archive

I've been told by one admin that you can be blocked for blanking out your own talk page. I've been told by another that it's perfectly fine and there's nothing wrong with it. So, once and for all, which is it? User:RookZERO continually blanks his talk page to hide the long litany of vandalism warnings, blocks and complaints from other editors. One editor was nice enough to set him up a talk page archive but he's deleted it from his talk page as well. He's also, prior to the current blanking, removed only portions of discussions between editors on his talk page, which drastically alters the character of those discussions and what was being said. wikipediatrix 20:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, removing content from your own talk page is permissible. But refactoring discussion in a way that changes their meaning is not permitted. Adrian M. H. 21:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:RookZERO continually blanks his talk page to hide the long litany of vandalism warnings, blocks and complaints from other editors. - Editors should try to remember that clicking on the "history" tab for a user talk page will show all the prior postings. If the editors who have posted on the user talk page use informative edit summaries, it's pretty easy to see, in a single scan, whether a user should get a low-level warning or be reported at WP:AIV. Checking the user's block log should be another routine step when a registered editor seems to be committing vandalism. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a much misunderstood policy. I have seen users receive escalating page blanking warnings precisely for this. --Moonriddengirl 12:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the title of this section, I think what Adrian is concerned about is users who move their talk page to an obscurely-named archive (taking the edit history with it), and then not provide a link to it on a newly-created talk page, which has no edit history. I assume that admins would be able to view the history previous to the move, but general editors would not. Not knowing the archive name would make it difficult to locate. I would also like to point out that WP:User_page is a guideline, not a policy, and I believe that it does not really apply to IP editors. The user space of an IP account is not "owned" by the editor who happens to be using that IP address. That user space is "owned" by the community at large. So it is generally frowned upon, and IP users will be warned if they blank their talk page of warnings. Of course, the only IP editors who continually do this are usually chronic vandals anyway. - Crockspot 03:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In the cast of User:RookZERO, his User Talk history is still intact. Hiding archives is not really possible since all User-space subpages can be found using Special:Prefixindex, and non-admin users can't make versions or history disappear. The missing archive is at User_talk:RookZERO/Archive. Users who seem bent on acquiring a bad reputation can still blank their User talk all they want, but they can't hide their track record. EdJohnston 04:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

True, but in the practical terms of a non admin doing RC patrol, it can be problematic in determining an appropriate warning level. - Crockspot 05:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There is certainly a conflict between making it easier for RC patrol, and the amount of control that editors have over their talk pages and archives. Personally, I'd rather see an effort to educate those on RC patrol about history pages (and/or give them better tools to see such pages) than trying to enforce some sort of stricter policy on what editors can and cannot delete, and exactly what and how they should/should not archive postings.

Perhaps more to the point, I consider the (implicit) policy of allowing editors to delete postings without archiving them as something that helps good editors, including admins, deal with vandalism, troll postings, personal attacks, and other things that don't have any place on a user talk page or in a user talk archive. (Yes, some editors are amused by these, and keep them, but many other editors are not.) And if we allow (as we should, I strongly feel) good editors to remove such postings, then we MUST either (a) allow ALL editors to remove what they want to, or (b) implement a judicial group to decide who is a "good" editor and has this privilege, and who is not so classified and does not. Of course, no one favors (b), so I think we're stuck with (a), imperfect as it may be. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for Oversighted Material Review and Disclosure (a proposal)

I recently became aware of the potential in respect of pertinent information regarding oversighted material that is available to a few trusted members of the Wikipedia community. I am wondering if there is any potential in having a request system so that oversighted material might be reviewed in order that non-contentious information may be disclosed to an interested party who has given a valid reason for needing disclosure. Before I attempt a proposed policy I would like to take the temperature to gauge the possible need, support and opposition to having the facility.

My suggestion:

Nutshell; Oversighted material may be made available against a specific and valid request.

Preamble; Oversighted material may currently only be viewed by those entrusted with oversight privileges. There is no restriction on what may be seen by those with these privileges, including material oversighted by others.

Precedent; WP:RfCU. Editors with Checkuser privileges are requested to perform checks on editors against requests citing specific and valid reasons. They can accept or deny such a request, and make the information known if accepted.

Suggested proposal; That following a request giving both good reasons for disclosure and an indication of the content contained, a person with oversight privileges shall review the described material (if found within the request criteria) to see if the request can be met. If the material exists, and it is in the interests of Wikipedia, it shall be disclosed to the interested parties, providing;

i. It contains no material that is in violation of the current Rules, Policies, Guidelines, or was otherwise the reason for the original oversight request unless that a reason that such violation formed part of the request for disclosure. An exception would be that such content may be removed from the disclosed material, if it is the opinion that the remaining material satisfies the request.

ii. That the original parties (the oversighter and oversighted editor) to the oversight be consulted, noting the reasons for the request and requesting their comments, if available. While the wishes of the original parties should be weighed carefully, it will be the reviewer who should determine how the interests of Wikipedia are best served.

iii. That requests are made by email only, to ensure protection of privacy of the oversighted material, and initial correspondence (including denying the request) will use the same method for the same reasons. The method, protocols and and address for such requests will be part of the policy page. Premature indication that a request has been made by, or on behalf, of the requester will default to a denial of the request. Premature indication that a request has been made by, or on behalf of, the original parties will result in such sanctions as is deemed appropriate.

iv. That a successful request be declared on a subpage of the Policy page, with the disclosed material available for viewing by all, including the identity of the requester and the reasons given for the request. This will allow the community to evaluate both the request and material. The material will, after a while, be archived at the Policy Page. The material may only be copied onto other pages which were noted in the request for disclosure, or as appropriate for otherwise non-contentious material.

v. That where a request is denied no reason should be given, only that the request has failed. A party may make further requests providing that better or more detailed reasons are provided. However, if in the opinion of the reviewer that the request has no chance of succeeding, or that the stated reasons for the request are disingenuous, or that the continued efforts are a "fishing expedition", or any combination thereof, that a deny and desist response be given.

vi. That any registered editor may request that disclosed material be re-oversighted, with valid reasons given, and such requests be dealt with promptly with the exception of material now forming part of a procedural case where such request will be considered at the conclusion of the case. Such requests for re-oversighting shall be made on a subpage of the Policy, for community viewing and comment.

That is it. Before I ask whether this should proceed to a proposed policy subpage I would make the following comments, per the layout above.

This is analogous to Checkuser, but addresses (no longer generally available) material rather than possible identities.

I understand that oversighted material may contain very sensitive information - stuff that should remain undisclosed. I am also aware that a great deal of the information oversighted is not sensitive, but that it was easier to remove it along with the sensitive material and that leaving it in place would have made the part oversighted text difficult to follow (and give some indication of the sensitive material - defeating the purpose of oversight). The Request for Disclosure should be for the non sensitive material, unless there is a specific reason clearly indicated for the sensitive material. This would generally form part of a RfC or Arbcom case, or a major policy debate, etc.

The original parties will have had very good reasons for removing the content. They may not wish to have any part re-introduced, and consideration should be given to their wishes. However, the desire to withhold the information needs to be weighed against the good in disclosing it. Very tricky, and I can see this suggestion falling at this hurdle.

Requests by email. Let me be blunt; we know that some off-wiki sites, with an interest in Wikipedia, hold data dumps (which may contain material that is now oversighted at WP) and use material they find there in attempts to influence, embarrass, harass, or otherwise disrupt WP and/or its editors. Private emails should protect WP from speculation being generated if such requests were to be made publicly. Likewise, private emails between all parties both protect privacy and may help stop ill-feeling between participants being created - and stop any potential wikidrama. Premature disclosure may be considered a means of harassing another editor - both that "editor a" declaring they are requesting oversighted material by "editor b", or "b" declaring "a" is "fishing". This should not be allowed. (I think these may be the most emotive areas of consideration/discussion).

Public disclosure. If it is going to be unoversighted then this material should be both made available to the entire community, and why it has been made so. The reactions to the material and the request may help the oversight privileged editors make better choices in what they both agree to oversight initially, and what they choose to allow to be disclosed. What should remain undisclosed is the original reason for requesting oversight, simply because it gives too much indication of any remaining oversighted content (and may create a fear for requesting oversight in case such a request/reason may become later known). Material disclosed should also remain with any remaining oversighted material (so the context remains) wherever it is held currently, as well as being available at the Policy site/archive. That way subsequent requests for disclosure within the same area can be reviewed in context. How the disclosed material is used would depend on the disclosure request; if it forms part of some procedural process (ArbCom and the like) then it can only be used there - if it was for some general editing request for non-controversial material that got sucked up with some other sensitive material during oversight, then it should be used wherever it proves useful.

No reason to be given, just "No". Fishing for juicy info will not be tolerated, and no help potentially given. This would not stop Good Faith requests, since the requestee can try again with better details. At some point, though, it should be realised if there is no chance of succeeding, and the oversight reviewer can make it plain if it hasn't already occured to the requester.

If a member of the community believes it not to be in the interests of Wikipedia to have the information disclosed then they can request re-oversighting, with their reasons. Since the material is potentially sensitive this should be reviewed promptly, but the views of the community need considering to disallow possible interested parties from removing material un-necessarily. Of course parties can request disclosure again, should the request succeed, but they need to answer the reasons given for re-oversighting.

(end of comments)

Okay, let 'er rip! I don't want this to be a battle ground and if this suggestion of a proposed policy is only going to crash and burn then let it die here... If however there is a reasoned debate then the above could be moved to a subpage of my talkpage, and continued there (with a link from here). It is late here in the UK and I am shortly to bed, so if someone wanted to be WP:BOLD go ahead. I will see what tomorrow (later today, in truth) brings. LessHeard vanU 00:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

responses

An interesting idea, LHVU. Theoretically, the information hidden by oversight is that which likely should never see the light of day - critical privacy violations (phone numbers, home addresses); copyright violations (a serious issue because of the GDFL); and material considered to be potentially libellous. I note that the last two of those criteria are to be determined in consultation with Wikimedia legal counsel. Frankly, I suspect Oversight is used for many more things than just this, and that legal counsel is seldom consulted. There are important GDFL concerns with the use of oversight, so its use should be carefully monitored.

I think that there is a place for an oversight auditor whose job is to ensure that only material meeting the criteria is removed. I would suggest that this role be filled by a steward, by Mediawiki legal counsel, or by an individual appointed by the Foundation Board specifically to fill this role. Dependent on the number of oversights done (nobody seems to have any data, which would be very helpful in determining best steps), the auditing process could be 100% of oversights or a representative randomly selected portion of oversights carried out by each oversighter. Any edits that are deemed not to fit the criteria should be "returned" to the article, probably with a message to the oversighter and/or requestor. Oversighters with an unacceptably high proportion of "returned" edits should be re-instructed on its use; if this is found to be a continued problem after re-education, then the Oversighter should lose the privilege (with the possible exception of Foundation staff). This could potentially cause some difficulty for arbitrators, who have an obvious need to look at oversighted edits for some of their cases. On the other hand, if the non-arbitrator oversighters are doing the majority of oversights, as I suspect, then this is less of an issue.

Trust is important, but accountability and competency must also be front and center when it comes to actions that can directly affect the security of its subjects and its users, not to mention the potential for violation of the GDFL and other copyrights. Risker 01:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a number of misperceptions here. A minor note first, Risker, Copyright violations and BLP violations are not supposed to be oversighted. There's too much potential for a mistake and little to be gained over simple deletion. It's only for information that is inherently harmful like personal data. The main mistake here is not realizing that oversight is actually essentially irreversible -- it's not just a higher level of deletion, even those with oversight privileges can't see what was oversighted. To the mediawiki software, the edit is gone. It takes a developer's manual intervention in the database to restore oversighted material. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Restoration might be that difficult, but Wikipedia:Oversight appears to say that any oversight editor can get a diff showing the changes that were oversighted-out. SamBC(talk) 02:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that? As far as I know (and from what I read) all other oversight users can see is the log that states that a revision was removed and records a reason. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)It says so in the policy, Night Gyr, as it does about copyright violations. This is what the policy says are the acceptable reasons for use, and the hidden revisions:

This feature is approved for use in three cases:

• Removal of nonpublic personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public.
• Removal of potentially libellous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the subject has specifically asked for the information to be expunged from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision.
• Removal of copyright infringement on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel.

Hidden revisions remain accessible to Oversight users through the log, and can be restored by a developer if a mistake was made.

It is possible that things have changed from time to time, and either the policy hasn't kept up with the practice, or the policy does reflect current practices and capabilities but other users haven't been advised of things. Perhaps someone who has Oversight privileges could comment (and fix the policy, if necessary). Risker 04:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is that it's not normal practice, it's used in exceptional cases for copyright and libel on the advice of counsel, which isn't common. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am/was concerned about non-controversial material that is oversighted as collateral content when the personal/libelous/copyright violations are removed; I suspect (but I do not know) that the entire post/edit is oversighted. Should someone mention that a book (title/author provided) is held at the library they work at - and it is one of the few libraries in the stated area to hold a copy - they may wish to have the entire discussion oversighted as a troll or vandal may determine the posters identity. The oversight also removes mention of the book. I was suggesting a method by which the books details may be found, providing the original poster is uncontactable. However, if the data is gone or can only be reconstructed by developers then the proposal fails - there is nothing for the policy to achieve. I seem to remember reading that WP no longer has data dumps, or that data dumps before a certain date have been lost. This might need clarification before any further discussion? LessHeard vanU 09:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but it seems like, in the case you propose, the oversighter could simply make an edit that redacts the controversial material (leaving uncontroversial material in place), then oversight all the revisions with the controversial material included. I don't know that this requires a change in policy, maybe just a suggestion to the oversighters to avoid losing good content. Of course, it would also require assurances that the oversights complied with the GFDL, but presumably anyone with oversight permissions is aware of the issues there. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

New policy

Upon reading wikipedia articles, I have a concern and an idea for a new Wikipedia policy. The policy is based around the notability of places. Because many articles on places on wikipedia are on non-notable places often with no importance at all. Etc city estates, streets. If you see Farringdon, Sunderland. You will see that it doesn't have anything with it to assert why it has an article on wikipedia. It just describes what is in the area, which is pretty lame. So should there be a policy on the notability of places on Wikipedia? For example, only established, towns, villages, cities and famous Geograghical locations should have articles. Not streets and non-famous local housing wards. The sunder king 12:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Individual streets are another matter, but settlements are deemed to be inherently notable enough by consensus. Adrian M. H. 12:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This is what I mean. A policy to restrict articles on places, hence some are notable some are not. All settlements of course can have an article; but however. I think settlements with populations under 1000 shouldn't be allowed. The sunder king 12:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can appreciate the point that you have raised, but I think that consensus would be against it. Applying a threshold of population would be too arbitrary, so you would have to find some other criterion/criteria. The current consensus actually works pretty well I think. Adrian M. H. 12:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think there should be a policy on places anyway. Not just notability, but on the accuracy of content, accuracy etc. A policy similar to WP:BLP but with places. The sunder king 12:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly some degree of notability would trump this, e.g. Valour Road in Winnipeg. The question becomes a philosophical one of whether there is a street anywhere devoid of any notable feature, history or inhabitant. How much value do we attribute to individual people's stories? I'm mindful of the Afghan girl whose remarkable eyes on a National Geographic cover were famous around the world, yet she had no idea herself until decades later she was revisited. Consider also the Last Spike. Wikipedia provides (by dint of its openness) a unique place for pooling of factoids that together reveal a story. To my mind if the article has place-related information not normally captured on a map, it's fair game. LeadSongDog 13:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the above to link to the girl's article. 207.176.159.90 22:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

More examples include Anchiano, a rural center where Leonardo was born or Roda de Isábena, which is a municipality in Spain of only 51 inhabitants but which has one of the oldest cathedrals and was an important medieval center. In other words, there are so many aspects that may make a town important that trying to include all of them in a policy would be, in my opinion, impossible and could pre-empt the inclusion of towns or villages which are in fact notable. Cheers. --Jorditxei 13:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to pile on, but you also can't judge a place by its current population. I recently visited Elgin, Kansas. Its a sad, but fascinating place. There is a good size network of brick roads capable of supporting some 200 or more houses. But, now, there are only a few buildings left and some of those are falling down. A hundred years ago, though, it was the area's rail hub. Then it got bypassed by the highway. The Afghan girl BTW is Sharbat Gula. Dsmdgold 02:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I should change that bit. A policy basically on the notability of places, not judged by population, history, or location. Just notability. Example if an article on a non-notable street gets created. It gets deleted. The sunder king 15:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) As you probably know, the current system involves falling back on the general notability guideline when no more specific guideline applies. This sounds a bit kludgy when put like that, but it usually works just fine. An non-notable street would still be non-notable when measured in that way and very few notable places would fall through the gap, so to speak. Adrian M. H. 16:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate seeing one-sentence articles about places. I also hate how people think that settlements are inherently notable. For one thing, a settlement should at least be incorperated as a town. Reywas92^Talk 18:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please take a look at WP:LOCAL, where this has been discussed in the past. We didn't get a reasonable consensus last time, but perhaps people should start fresh based upon the older debates. >Radiant< 11:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S. at least, a village may have existed for 150 years and never have been incorporated, because that costs the inhabitants money. Others have been incorporated at some time in the past, but became unincorporated during the Great Depression. There are places which were a rural General Store which was a Post Office from 1890 to 1920, and was shown on highway maps, but are now only uninhabited farmland. Which of these do folks think should be ientitled to articles? Edison 02:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good sources can be found, all of them. Dsmdgold 02:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Weights & Measures

When I log here, I'm presented with a page showing the various languages Wikipedia is available in. The language I choose is English, since I liveJGC1010 19:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC) in the USA. The system used in the USA for weights and measures differs from the metric system. I feel that references citing weights and measures in the English language section of Wikipedia should at least contain the system used in the USA.

See MOS:NUM for an explanation of use of units. Metric is preferred, except in those articles which are specific to the US, or in those fields where other units are typical (e.g. aviation). It is usually helpful to have a parenthetic conversion of weights and measures into the other system where appropriate. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with gradually learning a system of measurement that your own country has been trying to adopt for some time, and catch up with the rest of the world? The imperial system of measurement is an antiquated and irregular system of measurement that has been the cause of substantial disadvantage in the U.S. in the fields of military, aerospace, international trade and commerce <see metric system>. The sooner you become familiar with the world's current system of measurement, the sooner you will be able to orient yourself with the World Wide Web. Yes, the internet does extend beyond your country. Andmark 13:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong is that, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We're here for the readers' convenience, and either a majority or a huge minority of our readers don't do metric. It's not our job to try to force them or even encourage them. The questioner's point was (at least the way I read it) that the U.S. system should be used, not that it should be the only one used, or even the primary one. The Internet extends beyond your country, too. Noroton 05:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

When sources give measures in a particular system, that system should be given first. For example, dimensions for US lighthouses are given (by our sources) in feet. Using meters in this case is imprecise; they can be included in the article, but they are derived values and should be presented as such. (Ditto for the other direction.) It's not a matter for parochialism, American or Australian or otherwise. It's simply a matter of accurate presentation. Mangoe 13:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That is true, though I suppose the original point was that the user wanted the units to match the local system settings. Whilst it is an understandable and desirable default for the user, I decided to be a bit opportunistic and poke fun at the ethnocentric viewpoint expressed. Where there is an issue with the accuracy of the presentation, or for proper names (i.e. Ninety Mile Beach) it doesnt make sense to use the metric, so I would definitely agree with you. But in the case of other quoted measures used around the world it would be better that the metric unit equivalent is available. Andmark 14:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

So you mean that it shouldn't be "144.84096 Kilometer Beach"? (kidding) ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 00:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely it depends on the context what weights and measures are used-e.g. a scientific context would always be SI/metric units, a context about France would be metric units, about Britain would be both (because both systems are official), about the US would be US units. In articles that don't fit into a category like that easily, I can't see anyone objecting to using both metric and US/imperial (the UK equivalent) units. Deus Ex 02:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

English. Yes. Have you ever thought about where that word came from? Not from the word USA. English is not the language of the USA. It is an international language now. And most do use the metric system... easy as that. 85.144.130.8 02:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections

This guideline has recently been marked as "disputed," as some are not confident that it enjoys general support in the community. Any comments are welcome at WT:ATS. Mangojuice^talk 21:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion policy

It is my opinion that the deletion policy needs to be looked at radically. Listing bands and other organisations a select few thing are 'irrelevant' and therefore delete is unfair. Wikipedia is great because of the endless amount of trivia in it. Some people, comparable to the (edited), have an almost sadistic habit of prowling through articles people are in the middle of working at and deleting them. Its just plain unfair and it needs to stop. Johnjoecavanagh 14:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You've already been cautioned about personal attacks. Comparing people to the SS is an interesting way to use your 2nd chance... --Onorem♠Dil 14:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, edited, but can we discuss the matter at hand and not play around with semantics? Johnjoecavanagh 14:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not semantics. Being civil is a policy you've repeatedly ignored several times today. You created an article that looked like a hoax. It was speedily deleted. Maybe it shouldn't have been deleted so quickly, but it didn't assert any notability and didn't include any reliable sources. That a subject is verifiable should always be a requirement of an article, and no changes to deletion policy should be made that would change that. --Onorem♠Dil 14:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That is fair enough, but civility is something which must be returned, and I have not seen nearly enough of it. Many articles have been removed unjustly and without adequate explanation. In the Redboy article we were in the middle of improving it and I had just finished a big expansion only to find that the article was deleted, despite pleading for some time on its talk page. There is no civility in that and I was rightly annoyed. Johnjoecavanagh 14:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with these endless policies is that a select few decide what is relevant and what is not. Obvious things such as hate articles should be deleted, or complete and utter spam, but anything saying something about anything should be left there. You don't have to look at an article about Redboy if you don't want to, but its none of your business to go around deleting the said article. Johnjoecavanagh 14:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point Johnjoecavanagh, but you are wrong when you say that "it is not your business to go around deleting". According to Notability certain articles may be deleted. If what you think is that the article was deleted unfairly according to that policy, then I think you should consult the person who deleted it. If still you think deletion was not correct, then you have other mechanisms. I understand your anger but recall that coming here and stating phrases like "a select few decide" may put the community against you instead of in your favour. It would be more constructive to argue in which points the policy was violated. Hope to have helped you. --Jorditxei 14:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for talking to me like a person and not with those endless templates.

My argument is that the deletion policy is unfair. Wikipedia is great for trivia and urban legends and I would like to see that restored. I have been here in guises before and have contributed to articles, its not fair though that a few 'committed' sysops feel it necessary to delete some articles. I think the deletion policy should be rolled back completely to simply weeding out hate articles etc. I'm in the middle of organising a petition and will get back to you when we get our first 100 signatores. Johnjoecavanagh 15:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the good way to solve that problem. Good luck! Cheers. --Jorditxei 15:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"The problem with these endless policies is that a select few decide what is relevant and what is not."

I disagree. I think you should review the deletion policy and participate on its talk page with specific things you'd like to see changed. As far as I know, everyone is welcome to leave their input and suggestions. I don't believe that a complete overhaul needs to be done here...although I do also strongly disagree that "the deletion policy should be rolled back completely to simply weeding out hate articles." --Onorem♠Dil 17:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just put the petition up there now. If anyone has read this and agree's with our point of view, please sign the petition:

http://www.upetitions.com/petitions/index.php?id=195

Wouldn't it be ironic if someone came along and deleted this? :-) Johnjoecavanagh 18:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not wikipedia's place to provide anyone with a platform to speak, in fact it's specifically not supposed to be a soapbox. Rather, it's here to be an encyclopedia and a source of verifiable facts. Information that doesn't fit that ought to be deleted, and there's nothing oppressive or censoring about it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia ceased to be an encyclopedia as we know it years ago, its much more now. If you want to understand academic persuits you go to a library, or encyclopedia Brittanica. Rather it is now a collection of all human knowledge, be that an urban legend or obscure punk band. Johnjoecavanagh 19:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at WP:NOT, which specifically notes that wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of knowledge. What you suggest would be a fundamental change in the mission of wikipedia. I'm not saying it shouldn't be changed (though I personally don't think it should be), just that that's far too big a change to stand much chance of being made. SamBC(talk) 20:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I would agree about the policy change here. I've been working very hard on Propellerhead Software but, because the article has been poorly done in the past and deleted, my new article has been deleted. I managed to get it restored and added reliable sources but it was deleted again, and I think only because the article had been deleted in the past. Nobody read or commented on the article itself. Very often articles are deleted before anybody has a chance to add sources and prove notability - the very reason they're deleted! Also, some people simply go around wikipedia deleting articles and not contributing anything, which I think is really sad. We're supposed to be building something here to make it better, not taking stuff away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrtombullen (talk • contribs) 22:29, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

The Speedy deletion policy is unfair, because it doesn't give time to people who don't have all the relevant facts at that time and date, but wish to work on it later in the day, and not all in one go. Its unfair because a new article is routinely deleted before someone can actually update it. I propose that instead of constantly deleting articles, we place tags on them so as to be automatically deleted within four days if something is not done to improve it or if references are not put in place. It is the only fair compromise. Johnjoecavanagh 22:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we do have Proposed deletion, which sort of works like that. Also, if an editor wants to work on an article over time to bring it up to minimum Wikipedia standards, they can always do that in their userspace before moving it to main space. That's how I develop all of the articles I create. -Chunky Rice 22:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles "go live" ,if you will, immediately after you click save the first time. They should be presentable to the general public from the very first edit. I have not written that many articles (we have so many, focus should be on improvement) but cannot recall an instance where one of mine has been speedy deleted. The speedy deletion criteria are not hard to understand and it is not difficult to make an article that is not speedy deletable. Even if the article just looks good (follows the manual of style, may have an infobox, footnotes are good, etc.) people may give your article the benefit of the doubt. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Its become much more than that now. The website needs to fundamentally change to be more accepting of trivia and cultish topics. The base academics is all covered here, wikipedia is supposed to be a collection of all human knowledge. And I don't care what you say, Wikipedia is a democracy, since we the people pay for it through voluntary donations. Johnjoecavanagh 22:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Paying for something does not give control, short of the fact that people will stop paying if they don't like it. It's not like it's paid for by any government, it's not coming out of anyone's taxes. Please read WP:NOT as has already been suggested, and consider what that says in your further contributions to these discussions. SamBC(talk) 23:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of all human knowledge. I know Jimbo says it is, but that's because Jimbo is publicizing Wikipedia. Everything does not get an article. While the article you wrote may have been about a notable topic, and if you can rewrite it so that it asserts its notability and has reliable sources (By the way, you can do this without disruption in your userspace. Either use your user page, or add a slash after the URL and add the title of your page.), then you are welcome to recreate it. If the article's subject is ultimately non-notable (if there are reliable secondary sources, it probably isn't though), someone may feel it should be deleted, as is their right according to Wikipedia policy, but that's not something you have to worry about if the deletion really was a mistake. Atropos 05:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have read that. Its irrelevant if its coming out of anyones taxes or not. What is relevant is that we pay for it, and we deserve a say in how its run. Thats not unreasonable. Johnjoecavanagh 23:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You do have a say. You're saying it right now. -Chunky Rice 23:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

And what about the people that have donated (myself included) that don't want to change things for no stated reason? Also, you are choosing to pay for it, it is a donation. If Bill Gates donates $3 billion to the Red Cross, great for him and the Red Cross. He can include it on his taxes and they can buy some bloodmobiles and provide emergency relief to a few thousand more people. He can't say however, after he donates it, that he only wants them to focus on disaster relief in Africa. Wikipedia is the same way. It is a non-profit organization, you donate] the money, you are giving it away. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The foundation doesn't have shareholders; you're a donor, not a shareholder. The only reason you have any say is that everyone who cares to say anything has a say. Ultimately, the foundation has the last word because it's their servers. People give them money, they buy servers and run the service, but that doesn't mean that the donors have any right of equity over the service or the servers. I've never donated, but I have no less right to say or do anything on wikipedia than people who have. If you want to spend your own money settign up a SumOfAllKnowledgeWiki, then go ahead. Wikipedia isn't it. If you donate money to wikipedia wanting it to be that, then I suggest you not donate again. SamBC(talk) 23:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinion, for what it is worth, is that some articles ARE speedied or prodded excessively, preventing editors from properly developing them. One example (which I recently noticed) involved a stub on an elected premier of an Indian state being prodded by someone (I think it was an admin) [struck - I believe now that the editor in question was not an admin] who managed to combine rudeness and a profound ignorance of Indian history, with a claim that orphan and dead-end articles should be deleted - my understanding was that orphan articles should be de-orphaned, and appropriate links inserted into dead-ends. I also believe that, occaisionally, deletion debates are improperly closed, wih eg. one participant calling for deletion, and 5 or 6 for keep, being closed as a delete, with no explanation by the closing admin as to why they have apparently ignored what the consensus appears to be. I do not contribute to deletion debates half as much as I would if I had confidence in the policies and their implementation. DuncanHill 23:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that's a valid point worthy of debate. That said, I have no idea how it could be dealt with. SamBC(talk) 23:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

We already have ways to deal with things like that. If an article is prodded and you disagree, you can remove the template. You don't even technically have to fix snything. If it is deleted before you can object to the prod, it can be immediately undeleted at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Proposed deletions. If you belive an article was improperly deleted at WP:AFD, try Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review or even contacting the deleting admin helps. Requiring discussion on every deletion case would be a disaster. If you don't believe me, watch Special:Newpages for a few minutes. Also please note that AFD is not a vote. If 25 people say to keep an article about Joe Schmo because they think he is the coolest person ever and one person says to delete because the article is unsourced, a list of trivial facts, and the person is not notable - and all of that is true - the admin should delete the article. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

And just how many Wikipedians have any knowledge or understanding of those processes? Who actually bothers to tell new users what they can do to get their deleted articles restored? How many, for that matter, have the courtesy to inform an article's creator of a prod, or of what it actually means? I give out a lot of welcome boxes to new users, and the level of snobbery and rudeness that some of them are exposed to over articles they have created is appalling, especially from editors who seem to specialise in deletions. Those processes also effectively exclude editors who never had time to see the deleted article in the first place. I don't for one moment deny that some articles need to be deleted, but the process is not, in my opinion, working in a way that allows editors (especially new editors) to participate properly. I know perfectly well that AfD and CfD are not votes - but I have seen several debates (both in AfD and CfD) where I do not believe anything approaching a consensus to delete was obtained, and they were not cases of coolness unsourced or trivial, and again I make the point that no explanation was given. It is entirely possible that there was a good reason for going against the consensus in the debate - but if the closer doesn't bother to explain it, then it is very hard for the rest of us to understand what that reason was. It would be fascinating if someone with the time and expertise were to analyze just how many editors are lost to Wikipedia after bad experiences over their first creations, or who shy away from creating articles because they are deterred by over-zealous deletions. DuncanHill 08:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

When looking at a page that has been deleted, it includes the deletion log at the bottom so people can see the reason. There are also links to tutorial and help pages, as well as Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? which includes steps to follow and links to deletion review if they think a deletion was conducted improperly. In my opinion, people should shy away from creating new articles. We already have 1.9 million +. Now is the time to improve existing ones. As of the last count, there were 83512 articles tagged as lacking sources, 5640 are tagged as NPOV disputes.

It is really hard to address the concerns here because no suggestions are being made. We can't discuss everything, the mean number of pages in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion at any given time is is 197.9 - and pages there rarely stay for more than a few hours. Admins are given their tools because the community trusts their discretion. While it is unfortunate that some people don't inform users that their pages are tagged for deletion (I think we have bots already for speedy and AFD, you could suggest more at WP:BOTREQ.) we can't make it a requirement, otherwise that would open up a really bad loophole and would make the deletion system even more backlogged. There are clear ways to contest deletion. The WP:CSD tags all include information about the {{hangon}} template, {{Prod}} says that anyone can remove the template to contest deletion, {{Afd}} asks people to "share their thoughts" on the discussion page. I don't see how we can indicate more strongly that people can contest the deletion without saying "please contest this" in big bold orange font instead of "please share your thoughts." (Statistics from here) Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 16:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• What you seem to be missing is that the fact that we make an occasional mistake does not prove that the process is not sound. We have thousands of articles per day added about people's neighbors, goldfish, words they made up, planned garage bands, and similar nonsense. That's what the process deals with, rather effectively. >Radiant< 11:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my hot button, an article was added, 'soldiers of the cross - colorado' which is a different organization than soldiers of the cross. The 'soldiers of the cross - colorado' is referenced by the articles Arnold Murray and Roy Gillaspie and the initial information came from the 'Encyclopedia of White Power', pg. 120. The article was short but others would add to it if they knew more which is kind of the point of wikipedia. However, the article was quickly deleted by a volunteer and marked as insignificant.

That is exactly the problem, wikipedia is asking college kids, who have no knowledge of a subject to judge an article. The person who deleted it also said he doesn't care about that subject. Wikipedia speaks of vandalism, actions through ignorance is also vandalism (I looked up the word).

On the other hand, if one were to look at an article like Karla Cheatham Mosley. Why would reviewers allow that but delete articles of much more importance? Because it is on TV and has a nice external website to link to? I do not know the answer but it shows the level that some of the reviewers operate at.

Ultimately, the reviewers say, 'do not post on my page', 'go away', something like that. A mechanism should be in place to ensure these people are doing the job they signed up for (including some admins). If wikipedia wants donations from people then volunteers and some admins should start taking their jobs seriously.65.87.185.73 06:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're missing Radiant's point. Yes, as you pointed out, the process isn't perfect. Will some genuine information be deleted improperly? Sure. However, the process also allows you (or others) to fix those imperfections by recreating or undeleting articles. But more to the point, the process works most of the time, and makes Wikipedia useful. Now, if you think you have an idea to better the process, please feel free to suggest it. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The articles that I have created from scratch were generally drafted in Word first, and polished a bit, and the references added, before the whole thing was cut and pasted into Wikipedia as the "first" version of the article. If I had started by saying "American plaice is a fish in the ocean," someone might have concluded that it was nonsense and that I could not spell. Instead the first thing that appeared was [1]. I encourage this, with the only caveat being that if you spell correctly and use good grammar, people may assume it is a cut and paste copyvio. The defense against that is having multiple references. Edison 02:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I would be willing to only create a stub but do not feel motivated. On the one hand, there are people out there who are 'experts' in some area(s). On the other hand, there are college kids here aka reviewers and some admins who have no appreciation for what is being discussed. So, one writes an article in ms word, as you suggest, after several revisions, it is uploaded. The next day, you go to check it and a reviewer deleted it as insignificant. The next step is trying to get the reviewer to appreciate the value of what you wrote, however, after reading their responses, I realized how immature many of them are. The battle of posting new articles will have to be fought by others.65.87.185.73 04:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Its an absolute disgrace - some of the reviewers are both stupid and devoid of a real life in order to gain perspective. I mean, if you spent every minute of every day in front of a computer screen, you would have some amount of pent up sexual frustration - which you would undoubtedly take out on peoples good faith attempt to add to an encyclopedia. Orrelon 19:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed policy revision to one section of Wikipedia: Overcategorization (non-notable intersections)

I am proposing a revision to the non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preferences section of the Wikipedia: Overcategorization policy. Primarily, I believe that it would be helpful to clarify in regards to subcategorizing nationality (or citizenship) and race or religion. The proposed change is here. I don't doubt that there may be issues I'm overlooking, and I would be grateful for feedback. :) --Moonriddengirl 21:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

We must have a policy for the company lists

I have been trying to discuss this for quite sometime now at different places, without much success. But, the issue still remains at large - the company list articles seem to be quite wild. Most are either useless or powerful spam magnets, some are way too long with some more promising to become so, and all are growing without the slightest notion of guiding principles. For details please check the discussion here. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 19:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I would bring this up at the talk page for WP:CORP which is the notability guidline for companies and organizations. I would support inclusion of your concept there. --Kevin Murray 19:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have trying to get this serious issue across for along time now, but no one seems to be interested. May be instead of bundling those lists in I should go list by list and get them deleted. After the first few debates it would not be difficult to figure out most, if not all, the keep arguments, as well as the counter-argument. But, I guess that would go against WP:POINT. Well, after seeing so much ignorance, while this silly lists proliferate, I'd rather igonre that policy and concentrate more on WP:BOLD. Please, advise. I am posting part of this to the policy discussion page as well. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 23:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT essentially says that you shouldn't do something that hurts the encyclopedia just to prove your point that (for example) a policy is wrong. I strongly suggest starting with a couple of lists that you consider "useless", rather than (say) proceeding alphabetically, or listing dozens of articles in a single deletion nomination (the latter two approaches could well be considered WP:POINT violations). And make the nominations separately, not together, so the merits of each case are debated individually. (And finally, I suggest not raising the policy issue in the AfDs; rather, let the discussion focus on the merits and problems of each list, and from there, see if you can find some basic criteria to use. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the problem is inherent to the whole idea of "list of companies", I'd consider my actions as WP:POINT even if I go case by case in an order of problem-judgment. It'd be infinitesimally more useful if the community could have a consensus on, at least - (1) intro and organization guidelines; (2) inclusion criterion policy; and (3) external link control. It's terrible to see adverts, spam, redundancies and endless lists taking hold of the idea. Besides, why do we need such a list at all, when there's a way to put relevant companies bunched together in categories? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, saying "I think we should have a policy" and actually having a policy get written and put into place are quite different. If you're not willing to raise the issue via AfDs (you don't seem to agree with my interpretation of WP:POINT as forbidding damaging actions, which AfDs - in good faith - would not be), and you're not willing to post at WP:CORP, then nothing much is likely to happen.

And the issue of lists that should be categories has been discussed before: see [[Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, and Category:Lists that should be categories. The general guidance for lists, of course, can be found at Wikipedia:Lists and Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) (Manual of Style); if the lists you are complaining about are not in compliance with these existing guidelines, that's another reason to take them to AfD. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I am not willing to take it to WP:CORP, I am apprehensive that this discussion will do any better there, since it is stated as a tool to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise) is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article. Do you think that one is the right place to discuss this? This discussion is rather about lists, not company articles, and a very specific type of list at that, probably making the overall list vs. category debate a bit too all-encompassing. I have seen those debates, and those don't really call for a guideline to maintain critical lists. AfDs are for deleting improper articles, not raising issues on guideline/policy or whole category of lists. Do you think AfDs are the right place to do this? Not all complaints or observations have to be about not being in-compliance with existing policies. You'd notice that WP is an evolving project, and now we have a lot more guidelines than even a year back. I know having a policy get written and put into place is quite different from talking about the necessity of one. But, I really don't believe that policies are created without people asking for them and discussing the needs. Thanks for taking an interest. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

OMG too many essays

As some of you may have heard before, our category of essays is a complete and total mess, because for years people have dumped anything they wanted to say in there. In an effort to clean this up, I would suggest the following, preferably using a bot:

1. Find all essays that lack sufficient outside participation, feedback, or incoming links
2. Since presumably few people care about these, move them into the userspace of their author
3. Remove all essays in userspace from this category (by removing {{essay}})

ThoughtS? >Radiant< 12:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems like a very good first step. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 13:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

May I ask what is the problem with essays in userspace? Many people (myself included) actually prefer writing essays in their "own" space, so as they're not that mercilessly edited and always reflect the author's intentions. I would strongly oppose a plain removal. An acceptable middle ground would be to create a {{useressay}} template that categorizes pages to a subcategory of CAT:E, so that they do not show up there, but are nevertheless accessible. Миша13 14:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem with essays in userspace, and nobody is saying that there is. Note that most people do not in fact bother with "tags" in their userspace, so there are at an approximation ten times as many essays in userspace as we know of. I have no objection to {{useressay}}. >Radiant< 14:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that segregating userspace categories is the solution. Suggest massive MFD of low quality essays (in whatever namespace) that either duplicate the content of better essays or whose primary contributor has been inactive for 3-4 months or more. Would prefer to slant this toward older essays which never gained many incoming links and don't get updated. Durova^Charge! 14:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have no objection. Please pick any five from CAT:E you like; nearly all of them are in fact low quality. However, I suspect that people will miss the point and go "keep, it's an essay". >Radiant< 14:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Do we really need that? An essay is an essay, distincion is already made at the "publicity level" they have, that is, essays that are "respected by the community" even get to be linked from policies and guidelines, while other only sit in the category. currently we have two sources of possible revert-wars: link or not from a given policy/guideline, and stay at wikpedia: or user: namespace; doing this we'll get another source: is it an essay or not. Do we need to add yet another layer of policy-like categorization? (there's a somewhat related discussion at Template talk:Poldetail - Nabla 15:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's one possible option; not earth-shaking, but available. You can use the category Category:Wikipedia editing advice, if you want, to draw further distinctions to identify some of those essays which should be used especially as guidelines or suggestions on editing Wikipedia entries. --Steve, Sm8900

I agree with the idea of moving personal essays back into userspace, but it shouldn't be done by bot: each deserves to be evaluated by a human -- using pre-determined criteria (e.g., no outside participation) but personal judgement as well. There are only about 500 essays in the Wikipedia namespace; this task can be done by hand.--Father Goose 17:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and in the cases where users object to the move, go to RFC or Requested Moves to see which of the moves are endorsed.--Father Goose 17:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I support userfying the obviously userfiable essays and subcategorizing the category to make it easier to navigate. Deleting essays outright seems illogical, both because there's really nothing to gain over userfication, and it'd be a hassle to deal with the MfDs. Atropos 20:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, let's start this simple. I suggest that every essay that has only be edited by a single user (not counting typo fixes, adding the essay tag or a category, nominating it for deletion, or similar minor stuff) should be moved to that user's userspace. The only reason I suggested a bot is because it's a lot of work; if some people chime in to help, we can do it by hand. >Radiant< 08:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a perfectly good start. I'd additionally exclude essays less than a month old, to give them a chance to grow. I'm not volunteering, though, I have salmon on the grill.--Father Goose 18:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. violet/riga (t) 19:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong recommendation: I'd like to add one recommendation to this sensible proposal. To the extent that "human eyeballs" get involved, it would be great if people could identify essays that touch upon the same or similar issue, and flag those as merge candidates with each other (regardless of whether they get moved to User space).

This will help reduce redundancy, and inform essay authors that their ideas have been addressed elsewhere, possibly encouraging further collaboration and conservation of effort. dr.ef.tymac 19:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable. >Radiant< 07:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Radiant's proposal, but suggest that we delete essays substantially the work of one person, from contributors who have not contributed to WP for at least 6 months, and only include in the contributing editor count those editors who have contributed to WP in the last 6 months. --Kevin Murray 19:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is that necessary in contrast with just moving it to their user space?--Father Goose 20:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Kevin - to keep things simple, I suggest we move them to userspace as suggested above, and let people who wish them deleted invoke WP:PROD to do so. >Radiant< 07:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have no strong feeling on the matter other than to support a good plan which moves us closer to your goal. --Kevin Murray 14:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should write an essay about this. Wikipedia:Radiant's Idea Sounds Fine seems to be available. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

WP isn't a free webhost. If you're going to write non-collaborative documents that no one else cares about, please do it someplace else. I support MFDing low interest essays, or upmerging them. It would be easiest enough to make lists of such pages with the fewest editors and incoming links. --Gmaxwell 16:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment: Uhh ... there are a *lot* of essays out there. Yeah, we all knew that already, but the mountain of sand seems so much larger once you start plucking at it with your pair of tweezers. Would it not be a good start to automatically tag essays that have been edited by *only* one contributor? Some kind of time-saving idea seems fitting here. dr.ef.tymac 15:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This could help. Whilst at it, it should distinguish essays with no refs (can't trust it) or no inward links (i.e. seems irrelevant). Add a date so there's a chance to fix it. Ignore bot edits in criteria. LeadSongDog 16:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding essays with no refs (can't trust it), perhaps you're thinking of mainspace. An essay in Userspace or Wikipediaspace (say, for example, about how to improve disambiguation pages) would obviously need no external links (refs).

Regarding WP isn't a free webhost, if someone wants to write an essay about a particular aspect of how Wikipedia works (or should work), why in the world would we object to having that within his/her userspace? Certainly an essay about (say) "My dog Spot" is inappropriate, but those are already being taken care of by CSDs and MfDs. We're talking about essays that are about improving Wikipedia; if they're not high quality, let them sit in userspace (IMHO), where they occupy trivial amounts of disk space, essentially use no bandwidth, and might - perhaps - someday be useful. In any case, if we start purging essays from userspace because "no one cares about them", then presumably other pages that no one (but the user him/herself) cares about are also fair game - and I don't think we want to go there. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. One person essays are essays. Wikipedia is not paper and it can live with many essays; what is needed is a way to rank them, as suggested here - not 'userfication and decategorization'. PS. To be clear: I don't mind 'userfication', it's 'decategorization' that I strongly object to.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that OMG there's too many essays, but OMG there's too much "other stuff" that needs cleaning. If cleaning essays is going to cause grumbling then it might be an idea to get some of that other stuff cleaned first. Having said that, some essays are going to be Just Plain Wrong - maybe the author misunderstands policy, or wants a change that's never going to happen, or the essay is old and stuff has changed. All of those can go. Dan Beale-Cocks 12:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Question and comment So are we basically getting rid of essays with one contributer who makes three edits; the writing of the essay and two typos? Essays are supposed to be the opinion of "A number of editors" so I suppose these one's would have to go--Pheonix15 17:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Podcasting

I've seen spammy, poorly formatted lists of podcast episodes, but recently one that was [2]. As I responded there, the list was writen like an advertisement, prone to attacks based on the myriad external links, and contained no independent analysis. However, the contesting editor does raise an interesting point: What is the bar for note for episodes on other media? Is there a rational reason to cover every episode of a radio program or issue of a magazine? If not, why not, and are there preexisting policies that cover the point? MrZaius^talk 19:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Repetition of personal titles/functions

I've raised this issue in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies), but have received no answer. I'm unsure where else to raise it (please inform me if there's a more suitable forum).

In one section of the currently topical article 2007 Greek forest fires, I deleted a repetition of the phrase Minister for Public Order, Vyron Polydoras, replacing it with Mr Polydoras. In the subsequent discussion it was clear that the original author thought of Mr Polydoras' function in the same way that we would think of the title "Dr". Similarly, Costas Karamanlis is never mentioned in this article without the epithet "Prime Minister". In UK usage, at any rate, this sounds extremely clumsy. Are there any clear WP guidelines on this matter? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 09:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You are correct: WP:NAMES#Subsequent uses of names. ←Ben^B4 10:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the prompt confirmation of my instinctive feeling! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Simplified usurpation

I need feedback on my proposal. Park Crawler 14:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Park Crawler

This is a bureaucrat-only problem, not an administrator problem (Administrators can't perform usurpations; b'crats can). If I'm not mistaken, Deskana came up with straightforward rules regarding username changes and ursurpations. The fact is, certain criterion must be met by the account to be usurped, and this effectively circumvents all of them. Your proposal makes no provisions for the owners of the accounts to be usurped. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 05:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Adblock in site screenshots?

Let's face it, websites are ugly with ads and they can look really good adblocked. See Ars with ads and Ars without ads. Mm. Is there a policy on this? It looks a lot like the adless one is how the site is "supposed to look" if that makes any difference. --froth^t 02:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Animé Character Names

Just noticed something odd and inconsistent with articles about animé characters. Some of them use the full name, while others only use the first name. For example, the article on InuYasha's Kagome Higurashi is at Kagome Higurashi - just plain Kagome is a disambiguation page. However, the article on .hack//Legend of the Twilight's Rena Kunisaki is simply at Rena, and no article named Rena Kunisaki exists. Why the difference? I would think Rena would be a disambiguation page (or a redirect to Rena, Norway which links to one) and Rena Kunisaki would be the article on the character, as it is with Kagome, both for consistency reasons and because I get the idea more people want to know about Rena, Norway than Rena Kunisaki. 205.206.207.250 06:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

...actually, after reading the one-line article on Rena, Norway, maybe that's not true. ^_^; But the consistency issue remains. 205.206.207.250 06:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Which is all about consensus. The current standard seems to be adopting the name that is most common (and when things are not obvious, straw polls or discussions leading to consensus or lack of it on the talk page) - though correct me if I am wrong - I am thinking of a debate I once saw on North Korea and a move to its proper, full name. If it's not broken then don't fix it, I guess - but you can be bold and move the articles yourselves (just don't cut-and-paste them - use the move tab). x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not just create redirects to make sure that all of the possibilities are covered? Corvus cornix 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus basically decides how it goes. On the Rurouni Kenshin articles, for instance, the character article names still use the Japanese order because that it used during the English anime. In the Bleach and Naruto articles, they are in the western order due to that order being used in the English adaptations of both. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Radiant!/Everything

I've written this page as a "different" kind of introduction for novice users, a bit like {{welcome}} only not so. I would appreciate feedback on its usefulness. >Radiant< 12:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• It is mostly a link to humorous pages, for example pages like User:Cyde/Admin criteria are amusing but it is an "in-joke" kind of thing, one which one must have some experience with RFA to understand. (A novice might not realize that the page is written in jest even.) For a novice, introduction to the core policies is more useful. To get going on a reasonable note, WP:V (give us some references), WP:NOR (don't make up things), WP:NPOV (don't advocate), WP:N (don't write about trivial miniutae) and WP:NPA+WP:CIVIL (be nice) are pretty easy, even for a novice to understand and they can learn about the other policies and guidelines later as needed. Sorry Radiant, but in terms of usefulness to a novice, I'd give it the grade "worse than useless" since it might confuse them. :-( (Consolation: For someone looking for humorous pages on Wikipedia culture it does well.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Sjakkalle. A serious academic thinking of contributing to Wikipedia might well be put off by that page. A less serious contributor (who might still become a very good contributor) might react very positively to that sort of page. It would require judgement to know who to send to this page. Carcharoth 15:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Web sources vs. print sources

Today, some edits were done on Kunkle, Ohio, to correct an error in the road name (originally Ohio State Route 17) that passes through the community. However, the other editor that's helped has a different source than I: s/he's using maps.yahoo.com, while I'm using a DeLorme atlas, and we're getting slightly different results. Of course, I'm not going to start an edit war over this, but I am curious: is there a policy whereby print source trumps web source, or the other way around, or neither? Nyttend 03:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I wouldn't trust either. I know the road I live on currently goes by one name according to the USPS, while the latest atlas' (and some deliverymen) give it an older name, and MapQuest gives it another name altogether (lumping it in with a nearby highway it interconnects to). I would simply note that it may be known by either name, and provide both sources.

That aside, there's no specific policy giving more weight to either print or online sources, with exceptions given at WP:V and WP:RS (blogs, forums, etc are not reliable sources). -- Kesh 03:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

An atlas is not really the most reliable source, online or offline. By virtue of the shear number of roads and other information they gather, some errors or at least outdated information is to be expected. Instead of thinking of this as an online/offline thing, just try to find a source that's more likely to be accurate... in this case usually official information, from the State Department of Highways, would be best. THen there's the naming conventions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/U.S. state highway naming conventions, which may or may not be useful here. --W.marsh 03:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean WP:USSH- note the inactive template at the top of the page you referenced. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing what might have happened is that the road had one name originally, which was used by the atlas but the name then changed and the new name was used by Yahoo. If this is the case, it would be useful to find a source that mentions the road name changing (e.g. a local newspaper article) and use that. The only problem is that it might be difficult to find a source like that. Another possible explanation is that the road has two names that are used interchangeably. Tra (Talk) 16:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Gender & worm cans

Hello,

I wanted to open a can of worms, or find one that has already been opened. What is the current consensus on the use of gender neutral expressions, and the substitution of gender-neutral expressions for regular ones already in an article? My example edit is this [3]. My personal opinion, which i state in order to identify my interests, is that the less "politically correct" version "men" should be used, as it teeters on being a weasel word and generally obscuring readability. Think Life of Brian scene :

• Cleese:"it is the right for all men"
• Idle:"or women" Cleese: "Or women, to have his"
• Idle : "Or her"

And so forth (Its not quite correct, but close enough to illustrate).

Thanks User A1 15:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

While I'm pretty sure noone would mind changing less common terms (like laymen to laypersons) if you are proposing changing all the "he"'s and "men"'s in the project it will likely reduce the readbility as editors clumbsily use "persons" or singular theys. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think, quite the opposite, that User A1 isn't fond of the practice. :) I have not seen a specific policy addressing this. I am myself inclined to use the grammatically correct pronouns (although sometimes I might write a sentence to avoid gender specific pronouns). Conversely, if there is an acceptable gender neutral term I will typically try to use it. If I encountered an article where an effort to be politically correct had significantly impacted readability, I'd probably try to revise to streamline without compromising the other editor's concerns. For example, with the difference provided, if I were uncomfortable with the use of "laypersons" (which is awkward), I might revise "the puzzle is advertised as having only "billions" of positions, due to concerns that the larger number may be less comprehensible." No men, women or persons need necessarily be involved. :) --Moonriddengirl 17:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Something acceptable today might have been thought odd a few years ago, and might be unacceptable a few years from now. And whatever you suggest is going to annoy someone, so I guess you just have to avoid causing deliberate unnecessary offence. Dan Beale-Cocks 18:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I tend to use the old-school gender neutral male, but have no problem with other people using the singular they so long as it doesn't alter the meaning by causing ambiguity. I've never seen this be an issue though, except in the single case of the article waiter, which was peaceably moved first to waitron (a word nobody uses), and then waiting staff.

Other than in the case of neologisms (Spivak pronouns, etc.), which are obviously unacceptable except in direct quotes or articles related to them, I'd suggest treating this like American/British English differences: write in whatever comes naturally to you, but don't make waves about it and if an article is noticeably written in one style, don't change it. --tjstrf talk 18:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a much stronger proposal being made at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Proposal_for_guidelines_on_gender-neutral_language. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Much stronger than what? The proposal is far too mild for some editors, but I've purposely framed it as a recommendation only, because it's a contentious area of the language. No one is forcing singular they as an alternative. It was good enough for Shakespeare, Austen and many other greats, and is endorsed by The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Often, it grates with me, but not always. See this andthis. Tony 02:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• We should at the least avoid awkward grammar for the sake of political correctness. Terms like "xyr" are, despite efforts of their proponents, not widely understood. >Radiant< 09:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Who, in any of these (current) discussions, suggested "xyr" etc? SamBC(talk) 14:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • So far, nobody, but I have seen the "singular plural" thing suggested, which is bound to offend some grammar sticklers. >Radiant< 09:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Blanking

We were here in May on this issue, but now this edit is again needlessly disrupting WP:CHICAGO. We can not manage the project if people outside of the project are running around behind us making their own determinations of the projects assessment. This edit is clearly meant to pick a fight with me during my current WP:RFA discussion or else he would have also deleted the Illinois tag. I have accepted WP:DR and then the counterparty refused to communicate for 3.5 months until my RFA nomination. I continue to be willing to pursue a WP:DR on whether people outside a project should be able to come to a consensus to override a projects use of its template.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Really, is it that important? Why not just leave it, and concentrate on all the other stuff that's tagged for the chi project? It remains the only page of the 9800 with the WP:WPChi tag since April that does not seem to "get it" There seems to be plenty for them to do. Dan Beale-Cocks 18:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Of the 11,700 plus articles now tagged they continue to be the only one demanding self rule. The issue, is that once one page can make their own determination of how we manage our template, then every page can. I see no reason for one page to start an avalanche whereby we can not perform the objectives of the project. Of course, we could leave it. Then, we could leave the next one and the next one and before we know it every page that does not like how we parameterize them is keeping us from watching them. It seems like interference to me and the begining of undoing our project. If the overwhelming response is to just keep doing what we are doing and then one page starts a commotion, where will it lead?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like an ownership issue. If you disagree with the editor's assessment, talk to them directly and invite them to the WikiProject talk page. Vassyana 19:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"Self rule"? Tony, Wikiprojects have zero authority over any page (even their own project pages and templates; see e.g. Esperanza). The appropriate place to discuss disagreements over an article is the article talk page. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What the duck? We can't let this page have self-rule! Then every page would want self-rule! It would be anarchy! Let me repeat, what the duck?' Wikiprojects are not empires. This user feels this page is not relevant enough to Chicago to be part of the wikiproject. Do you disagree? Great! Go talk about it. Atropos 20:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

While WikiProjects are given wide latitude for establishing styling and organization guidelines, there is no such thing as "self rule". I've also looked at the article on Corzine and agree with Pmanderson that Corzine's status as a public figure are nearly nonexistent with regard to Chicago. I also must state my pet peeve about seeing both state and city WikiProject banners on the same article. Only the most applicable banner(s) should be kept on the page while the other should be removed. --Farix (Talk) 23:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Let’s analyze the inclusion of the {{ChicagoWikiProject}} on the dimension of whether the project would be better if we had our project tag on a page such as Corzine’s.

What are the arguments that the project would be worse off if the tag remains? The talk page is cluttered is probably the strongest argument and that only exists because the page has chosen {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} instead of the generally preferred by consensus {{WikiProjectBanners}}. If they were using the preferred shell this argument would be very trivial. How would the project be better if our tag remained. Chicago is one of the better editorial groups, as individual editors I have been highly productive and User:IvoShandor has as well although often his work is outside of Cook County, Illinois. User:Teemu08 is also quite skilled. Furthermore, WP:CHICOTW has been productive as a collaboration. There are numerous editors who if an article became their focus could vastly improve it. Corzine’s is a Start-Class article so it could probably be improved easily. However, we are all busy and it has not risen to the top of anyone’s to-do list yet. Nonetheless, many articles that do not rise to the point of editorial focus benefit from the Chicago tag. Corzine’s article has a lot of WP:GA potential. 4 time out of 5 when an article gets promoted to GA with a Chicago tag and has multiple tags, we are the first to give it a {{ArticleHistory}} template. Check all Chicago GAs and you will see this is true. The majority of the time, we are the first to give it a {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} or a {{WikiProjectBanners}} shell. We have a great track record in talk page space. Take our tag off and I am sure someone will get around to these types of things, but leave our tag on and when you become a GA these things will likely happen because of us. In article space we are pretty good as well. Often we are the first to alphabetize its categories. We are better than most projects at adding categories and templates to articles we care about (see List of Chicago Landmarks).

I just added auto peer review to my monobook, so it is likely that there will be additional benefits to having a Chicago tag on an article. Please explain to me how the project and Corzine’s page would be better if our tag were removed? Aside from a weak clutter argument, I don’t think there is much of an argument.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

How backwards! You should be asking if the article is improved by inclusion in the project. It doesn't matter at all how well the project is doing if the article isn't being served well. Atropos 07:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You are making almost the exact same argument. Analyze it based on whether this particular page would be better or worse off with {{ChicagoWikiProject}}. The arguments above all apply.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at. Are you trying to say that editors from WP:CHICAGO can't edit the article unless the WikiProject's banner is on it? If so, I would say that kind of logic is utterly absurd. --Farix (Talk) 17:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents: because Corzine grew up in Illinois, and because Chicago is within Illinois, I think it should be sufficient for just the Illinois WikiProject tag to be used on his talk page. Corzine seems to have spent many years of his life in various parts of Illinois; not so for Chicago specifically. Editors from WP:CHICAGO could just watchlist the Corzine article, and perhaps have it listed under the WP:CHICAGO's list of open tasks. After all, isn't improving the actual article more important than tagging the talk page? --Kyoko 18:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Some more comments on WP:CHICAGO and the Jon Corzine article: I've been doing some thinking, and it seems to me that the most important argument for tagging the talk page is that it facilitates the assessment of the article within the WikiProject. Giving an assessment to the article can be done manually, by using categories such as Category:Start-Class Chicago articles and Category:Low-importance Chicago articles. That way, WP:CHICAGO can keep track of the Corzine article without inserting a tag that other editors have objected to. --Kyoko 21:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And WP:Mathematics surveys all articles in related categories without any tagging at all. (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity. The only refinement needed to classify them would be a list of A-Class and B-Class articles (a bot can recognize FAs, GAs, and stubs). Since the project has only 1 A-Class article, this should not be arduous, especially since the bot can update the list. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me help you help me help WP. I use the Chicago_articles_by_quality_log to manage the project. Articles with {{ChicagoWikiProject}} appear on the report. Others do not. There are all kinds of extra things I could do if I wanted to contribute more than the dozens of hours I contribute a week. I am not saying we could not all watchlist Corzine. I am saying that articles that appear on the quality log, that are current and past WP:CHICOTWs. that I have created and that are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago#Reviewed_content get most of my attention. Most articles that get my attention get improved. Corzine is not an article likely to be selected at WP:CHICOTW because we (or at least I) do not do well editing articles that have a lot of extant content. I care about all article in our categories, including Corzine's. I do not believe the solution above would cause Corzine to fall into any of the types of Chicago articles I pay attention to. If I am mistaken let me know. Otherwise, I ask again would the article be better off untagged and not likely to appear at times on my report.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) I don't know how the assessment bot works, but you might try manually inserting on the Corzine talk page:

[[Category:Start-Class Chicago articles]]

[[Category:Low-importance Chicago articles]]

Another method might be to include the following text on the Corzine talk page:

<!--{{ChicagoWikiProject|class=Start|importance=low|nested=yes}}-->

I'm just guessing with these suggestions. I'm trying to find some way that will balance the desire to assess the Corzine article within WP:CHICAGO with the desire not to have the tag. This project page and this user's talk page should be able to give you more guidance about the feasibility of my ideas. --Kyoko 23:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

More and more, this seems nothing more then trying to mark territory within Wikipedia. Working through the parent WikiProject, WP:Illinois, should be more then sufficient. --Farix (Talk) 00:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am investigating Kyoko's query. I work well with several people at WP:Illinois. However, this does not help me manage WP:CHICAGO. Did anyone answer whether Jon Corzine would be better or worse with {{ChicagoWikiProject}}? I may have missed it in all the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how whether Corzine's article is tagged by WP:CHICAGO has anything to do with managing that WikiProject. --Farix (Talk) 01:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the main benefit to tagging the Corzine article would be that it would let WP:CHICAGO give its own internal assessment, but I was trying to come up with less intrusive (for lack of a better word) ways of doing that. I'm not a member of WP:CHICAGO, and I don't particularly care either way whether or not the Corzine article gets tagged with its template. I do think that WP:ILLINOIS is more relevant to him than the Chicago one, because he spent more of his life outside the city, and as I said, Chicago is part of Illinois_{struck through because when I reread that, it sounded patronising, which was not my intent}. I still think that the best thing would be simply to work on the article if it interests you, regardless of WikiProject. --Kyoko 01:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC), modified 02:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

But why is it important for a WikiProject to assess an article that is outside of its scope? --Farix (Talk) 02:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There are a few reasons other than assessing for putting a project tag on an article. I have pointed out in my RFA essay from which this debate partly arose that this can help us catch talk page blanking. If an article becomes a GA or FA this alerts us to that fact, which then puts it in a high editorial alert status where it gets monitored more closely and where its talk page gets much more attention as I pointed out above. In addition, a project with a tag is in the group of similarly assessed articles for our project, which may in and of itself garner it editorial attention. I don't believe I have made more than 2 or 3 edits to the page personally, but being in the project may get it some more editorial attention. The primary arguments are those mentioned earlier in this paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 11:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Tony, but after reading and rereading the arguments presented here, as well as the Corzine article, I'm now convinced that his connection to the city (3 years of studies) is too tenuous for me to consider him a Chicagoan. I admit that I'm not familiar with him, but he doesn't seem to have made a significant impact on Chicago either. So I guess now I'd oppose putting the tag. --Kyoko 14:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think my prior sentence is better stated as "I'm not convinced of the need for the template, especially in the face of general opposition against it." --Kyoko 12:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the argument outside its scope is a function of the word scope. If scope means contains editorial content of which Chicagoans are likely to contribute to then his 3 years of education and less than 2 years of employment is on the extreme border of our scope if not outside it. However, if scope is defined as an article that would be of natural interest to Chicago editors, it is in those categories that clearly are within our scope. In fact, who defines a projects scope? I believe it is the project itself. Is there someone who wants to argue with whether Chicago editors are interested in articles about University of Chicago alumni? If we are interested in such articles and do a better job at managing them is this within our own scope. The decision should be based on whether if our project is interested in a certain article or type of article would it be better or worse of with our project tag on it. The argument should not be whether other non-project editors believe we are interested in an article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I should also present as an example David Rockefeller who is probably less related to Chicago than Jon Corzine. Because I stumble upon this article I am considering making a template similar to Template:S._C._Johnson_family for him. Forcing a WP us to give up the option to define our own scope as long as it is reasonable is not within the wiki way.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Almost all WikiProjects define their scopes on their project pages. Articles should then be tagged based on the "defined scope" of the WikiProject, but not on whether project members may be interested in or have edited the article. The determination of whether an article is or is not within the "defined scope" of a WikiProject is not left up to just the WikiProject members, but to all Wikipedia editors. When there is disagreement, consensus should prevail. Since several other editors have expressed that they do not think that Jon Corzine does not fall within the "defined scope" of WP:CHICAGO and you are the only one who thinks it does, then his article shouldn't to be tagged by the WikiProject's banner. --Farix (Talk) 00:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: WikiProject scopes should also be defined around general subject areas and not on specific articles, or groups of articles. --Farix (Talk) 00:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment It seems that this is not correct. It seems that WikiProjects have since 16:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC) been proposed by an interested editor or group of editors at WikiProject Proposals. However, WP:CHICAGO was born on 04:07, 6 July 2005. Thus, there is no official scope that has been recognized by the WikiProject Council for WP:CHICAGO. It seems that a group defines and proposes its own scope, which is either accepted, modified or rejected. The current group of active editors were not involved in the birth of WP:CHICAGO and have been operating on an ad hoc scope of articles for which the relation to Chicago is sufficient to have a Chicago related category. We (not I as there are several people aware of this scope and actively working towards that end) continue to volunteer to pursue this scope. This definition of our scope is easily verifiable and thus does not lead to conflict in general except for the rare .00854% of complainants.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Addendum The project is currently only managing Chicago related articles, defined as articles relating to Cook County, Illinois and not the Chicago metropolitan area as stated under the scope defined on the page. We could expand our project to articles slightly more remote from Chicago and still fall under our stated scope.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don’t think this talk of “official scope” and such is of much value, given the body of policy governing Wikiprojects is effectively zero. What we are left with is common sense. Wikiprojects have a core topic and their scope should be limited to those articles with a significant connection to the core topic. A glance at the article will indicate that effectively none of the content (to be precise, 2 sentences) is in any way related to Chicago, and that these sections are unlikely to warrant expansion, since they aren’t relevant to his life as a famous public figure. He has no significant connection with the city of Chicago, someone researching Chicago would not be likely to have great interest in him, someone expert on all matters Chicago would quite possibly never have come across his name. I don’t think Wikiprojects are at liberty to establish a scope that defies common sense. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That's sort of convenient. Most WP arguments are based on policy. In this case it seems policy is inconvenient and possibly contrary to your argument so you choose to ignore it. In a few weeks the University of Chicago will be back in session. This is the first year that WP:CHICAGO was really active at the start of a UofC school year. It would seem that to UofC volunteers at WP:CHICAGO, Corzine could be an important figure. However, since official policy seems inconvenient, if you want to see our unofficial scope, you can see Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Priority Scale. You can see the common sense by which Corzine falls under our unofficial scope, since official policy is inconvenient. I would be glad to reapply for an official scope with the WikiProject Council, if our unofficial scope does not seem sensible.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not that policy is inconvenient, it's that policy doesn't exist. What do you imagine is the relevant policy? Christopher Parham (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The relevant policy would be for WP:CHICAGO to formally propose a scope to the WP Council as I mentioned above and get an up or down on whether our scope would benefit the project and whether it is reasonable or whatever the council evaluates. You said scope is not determined by a project it is determined by a collective. You were close. It is proposed by a project and approved by the council.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, this is the first I've ever heard of the council "approving" anything. It's a discussion forum, nothing more. Kirill 02:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As a somewhat different aside, I fail to see the common sense by which the WikiProject tags warrants inclusion. Apart from a job and some schooling in the city, neither of which are all that notable to the city, if at all, there's nothing linking this guy to Chicago. Therefore, what use is it to tag this article with a WikiProject tag when that project's only real interest in the article is "he worked here once and studied at our university"? I fail to see why you simply don't move on to bigger and better things. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the link i directed Christopher to at 22:45.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

All that link shows me is that your concept of "scope" is ill-defined at best. Scope does not include "people from here might be interested in this." A Wikiproject exists for the aim of improving articles related to a certain subject, not tagging articles someone from that subject (in your case) might find interesting. As has been said before, no one else seems to think this page needs the tag, and your consistent position has been, in a nutshell, "people from this city's university might find this guy interesting." This is not a valid reason. By that logic, anything could be included anywhere by the most marginal and insignificant of connections. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Tony, just a quick point here. Can you conceive of any circumstances under which you would accept that your idea of the scope of a WikiProject differs from others? Rather than use the WikiProject tag, might it not be better to investigate alternative ways to allow participants in WikiProject Chicago to become aware of the Jon Corzine article and to give them the opportunity to contribute meaningfully towards it? It is trivial to get a bot to generate lists from categories. You can then create a watchlist for the articles in a set of categories. University of Chicago students editing Wikipedia can be directed to Category:University of Chicago alumni. All the things you want to do with the WikiProject tag can be done other ways, and sometimes those other ways are better. Working with your fellow editors is important. Tenaciously refusing to let an issue die will not be helpful in the long run. Carcharoth 16:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Silence equals consent

WP:CON suggests that "silence equals consent" in the context of editing an article. Does that translate to silence equals consent in terms of approving proposals for new policies, guidelines, etc.? --Kevin Murray 23:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That depends very strongly on the circumstances. Do you have a specific issue in mind? If you're not sure about whether consensus exists on a policy, wider consultation and comment will always trump 'silence' or an assumed consent. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's be blunt. Sometimes an interested party does not notice a change to a particular section of WP until it is brought to their attention. Silence may mean many things. dr.ef.tymac 01:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is reasonable given how we treat guidelines and policies. The premise that silence is consent needs to be complemented by the idea that if someone raises an objection the old consensus is overturned and a new one (possibly the same of course) has to be constructed. Generally, however, once something is a guideline more than a single voice is needed to remove that status. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree it's very difficult to provide an answer without a specific example. In terms of proposing entirely new policies/guidelines, a strong and clear consensus is needed to establish the guideline or policy as such (obviously moreso for policy than for guidelines). If it's standard tweaking and revision that takes place constantly in a wiki, than in the absence of objection, consensus may be assumed. If it's a significant revision, without outside solicitation (here for example) and clear discussion, such changes can validly challenged as inappropriate or invalid. At least, that's my understanding of how it's intended to work. You're welcome to some grains of salt with those thoughts. :) Vassyana 02:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Silence equals consent when it comes to common practice, I think—and common practice may eventually become a policy or a guideline. When practice varies too much, however, or if practice is criticized, a more formal type of consensus is required. (Commonly in the form of supermajority, and preferably in the form of unanimity.) Gracenotes^T § 03:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I should think a wording of "silence defaults to consent" would be better applied when it comes to policy, guidelines and the like. As mentioned by dr.ef.tymac silence is sometimes a result of non-awareness, but also it is the case that proponents of change argue they have implied consensus since the supporters of the status quo have not demonstrated their support previously - although the proponents have never demonstrated how this might be proven. It is difficult to define the degree of consent by silence (even by counting traffic against non-consent comment), but it should be recognised that it forms part of the process of consensus. LessHeard vanU 09:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I certainly do not think that one person raising an objection means there is no longer consensus - that is not feasibl in a Wiki environment, with thousands of editors varying their attention. I think this is especially so when it comes to policies. "Airplane" pretty much means the same thing around the world and anyone who knows anything bout airplanes, even a newbie, can ad significant important content to the article on airplanes. But Wikipedia policies are unique to Wikipedia and there is no reason why a newbie would understand their value or implications. When thinking about consensus and decision-making and editing processes in gneral, we need to consider articles and policies separately: the former ideally require expertise in a subject matter; the latter ideally require expertise in Wikipedia. For that reason I think the threshold for change of policies must be much much higher than for articles - one person's objection surely is far below that threshold. I would even say fifty editors who have been around only a few weeks or months would still be below the threshold. Moreover, I think we need to distinguish between changing the text, and changing the policy - again this is because policies are fundamentally different from articles. An article about airplanes is about real things out there in the world about airplanes. A policy is itself the actual policy. A policy page is about itself, not about something out there outside of Wikipedia. Now, when it comes simply to improving the wording of a policy page - editing the text for a more elegant style, or clarity - newbies may have very valuable suggestions, and if say ten editors are active on the page and seven or eight agree to an edit, fine, why not. But if an editor - even someone who has been here 5 years ith 100,000 edits - proposes an edit that in effect changes the policy itself, I do not think that a consensus of "whichever editors happen to be active on the talk page that day" is enough. Ideally, I think such a proposal should involve creating a new page that presents the proposal, with its own talk page dedicated solely to debaing the proposal to change the policy (the talk page of the policy should be reserved for improving the text). And I feel very strongly that any editor or group of editors who want to change a policy need to publicize the proposal as widely as possibl: an announcement on the list-serve, on the Admin's bulletin board, and on the talk pages for other policies and guidelines, minimally. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes improving the "clarity" of policy has the effect of subsequently altering the perceived meaning of policy. This both is usually a consequence of good faith editing, and unremarked by those who check only the diff and not its overall effect. Also, proposed changes to policy is often worked upon outside Wikipedia space, for very good reasons, and then presented as a proposed change. The authors will then have a their considered arguments marshalled, while other interested parties only become aware of it at that time and whose responses are fragmented and hastily assembled. Having a workshop space linked to relevant policy pages may be useful in reviewing the gestation of proposed policy change. LessHeard vanU 10:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Silence equals consent only if sufficient people have actually read the page. That goes for articles as well as policies, though. For instance, if there haven't been any edits to an article for over a month, it does not follow that the present version is therefore consensual. >Radiant< 12:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Based on the responses above, I would say that the phrase "silence equals consent" as it it used at WP:CON leads to potential confusion. I think that it should be removed or more clearly explained. --Kevin Murray 17:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note recent changes to WP:CON, which attempt to reflect the concerns above. But we may need to fine tune or go further. --Kevin Murray 22:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• NOTE: active discussion has moved to WP:CON. I think that a collaborative effort among diverse opinions has improved this policy page. --Kevin Murray 17:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection due to linkage from high traffic sites?

An anon made a comment on the talk page of Larry Craig and I feel the point was a valid one. The article was semi-protected here. Looking at the recent history I don't see a great amount of vandalism so I would have to agree with the anon that it's not really justifiable under policy as written (specifically it seems to be a case of pre-emptive protection). It doesn't seem to be justified under any of indefinite semi-protection criteria either. It's obviously heavily watched and there doesn't seem to be any evidence it falls into the GWB category. Note that this isn't a comment on the admin. This just got me thinking since I'm pretty sure I've seen this before. I'm wondering whether other editors agree and if so they feel that the policy either needs to be re-worded or all admins reminded that they shouldn't semi-protect just because an article is expected to be heavily vandalised Nil Einne 18:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I will unprotect and watch closely. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User page collection of material against others proposal

There is a proposal at User page: Collection of material proposed language to address user page posts about other Wikipedians at MfD that do not rise to the level of a WP:CSD#G10 speedy delete attack page. Please participate in that discussion. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia is what Wikipedia does best

Since the world already knows that Wikipedia is only a temporary social experiment, and not a reputable inclusion of actual human knowledge to the serious and deadly pursuit of organic survival values in a cold, remorseless universe of strange, complex, exciting, and inexplicable wonders, the fountain of trivia should continue unabated. The new and absurd signs indicating "This is trivia, Wikipedia discourages trivia" should make any seasoned viewer of Wikipedia laugh a speculative laugh. Wikipedia articles are written by unknown people with unknown credentials. Surely Wikipedia attracts self-aggrandizing "experts" in actual fields of study, who add and edit with care and zeal. But it is obviously run by people who have either nothing better to do with their lives than "edit" an encyclopedia, or by people who have time on their hands, for whatever reason -- be it disability, alcoholism, laziness, or inherited wealth. Since the world should not and does not and will not take Wikipedia seriously, it should continue to be a repository of unsubstantiable trivia. That's what makes it fun to read. There's a catagory page for "mysteries," which contains much speculation. Since this speculation is from "sources," does that make it authoritative ? Wikipedia should stop trying to represent itself as it would like to be seen and represent itself as what it has actually become. That will help to clarify to non-Wikipedians what it intends to be, whether or not it actually achieves what it sets out to be, which it has not, and cannot do. The hyper-emotionalized, utterly non-intellectual bickering evident on these talk pages simply runs counter to what it purports to be, but it serves as a source of comedy that these days I cannot live without. Acrimony is hilarious. Kreepy krawly 15:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Leave Trivia sections alone

It is my feeling that the latest trend in wikipedia is to put the "we don't like trivia" note on articles. But I submit that trivia sections are everywhere for a reason; that being: people appreciate them and want them. Many people read articles in hopes of learning the kinds of facts that are found in trivia sections. Tagging an article with the note is not helping the community nor is it helping make better articles. It is arguably hurting them. Nobody else seems to care, but I thought I'd put my note here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claytonian (talk • contribs) 10:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Some people are uncomfortable with trivia section because they seem to snowball into a list of unsourced statements. They can make interesting reading, but if they are not based on reliable sources can drag down the accuracy of articles. Recurring dreams 13:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This would be best addressed at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Vassyana 19:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections instead. However, the original poster should realize that the main reason why Trivia sections are being removed is because they are almost always Original Research, unsourced, and unverifiable. Corvus cornix 16:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Almost always is a gross overstatement. My experience has been that most trivia sections contain a point or two that fits your description and can't be worked into the article at large in a clean manner, but the vast majority of individual points can normally be integrated into an article with relative ease. MrZaius^talk 16:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? Most trivia sections can be worked into the article in a clean manner? You mean, all of those trivia points are referenced? Very few of the ones I've seen are. I still stake the claim that "almost always" is the proper wording. Corvus cornix 16:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

And I still contest it ;) They normally can be worked into a clean manner. Just like you hopefully would in an AfD debate focused on notability and lack of references, a good faith effort should be made to source unsourced statements prior to deletion. If they can't be (easily?) sourced, axe them, but the vast majority of the points that I've seen could be backed up with relative ease and then merged back into the prose sections of the article. MrZaius^talk 22:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting question, whether people like and appreciate trivia. And if so, why. And if so, who likes them? Readers? Or editors who want to feel like they're contributing something? Sometimes items that are relatively trivial are things that really do help readers identify the subject, but sometimes, things are so trivial that there really is no good reason to include them. I get tired of being the bad guy and deleting all this cruft. It can cast doubts on our credibility if half of the articles are suchandsucha song appeared on the suchandsucha movie soundtrack. A good rule of thumb for inclusion threshold, is that if something can be worked into the text of an article, it's probably important enough to include. That's a good reason not to have trivia sections. -Freekee 04:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but then it may sometimes take effort to actually incorporate that "trivia nugget" into the text of an article. Even for legitimate "nuggets" that actually enhance the credibility and usefulness of WP. Let's face it, not many people (probably an infinitesimally small number close to zero) get paid to generally improve WP articles, especially regarding this kind of improvement. That leaves the vast majority of contributors being motivated by desire to share what they know instead of a desire for compensation. Unfortunately, *everyone* knows some kind of "trivia" ... so you can bet it is never going to go away, not unless WP fundamentally changes in some drastic way.

Some might say a "trivia section" is good, just like it's good to have NIMBYs in a separate part of town. It keeps the inevitable unpleasantness separate in its own area, and if you don't like it you can simply stay away from it, and avert your eyes lest they be defiled. dr.ef.tymac 17:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No, but many a WikiProject exists for such mundane tasks as categorizing, stub-sorting, sorting expert requests, et al. Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Trivia should be worked just like {{stub}} - by a careful set of eyes that works to integrate what can be cleanly integrated and that recognizes the material for a new section of prose when one exists instead of simply deleting them. MrZaius^talk 16:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. There are many articles, sections, categories and other things on Wikipedia that have great potential if left long enough for careful editors to clean up. Unfortunately, some less careful editors think that ruthless editing = clean up. In same cases, ruthless editing is needed, but in many cases ruthless editing is destructive, and a careful clean-up by linking, sourcing and integrating, is 100 times more productive. Carcharoth 16:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to say that I agree 100% with what User:Carcharoth said above. Too often, Trivia sections are deleted with no effort to incorporate the information into the text of an article. Some editors lack confidence in writing prose - but can contribute information, which others can then, given the chance, turn into good prose within the body of an article. DuncanHill 23:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit war at WP:NOR

There is an edit war (page now protected) at WP:NOR over the wording of the section on the use of primary vs. secondary sources and the implications for Original Research. Both sides are claiming that there is consensus for their view and no consensus for the other. Perhaps some outside oppinions will help to break the deadlock. Blueboar 20:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a rule of thumb for this kind of thing, when each side claims the other has no consensus...assuming you there is nothing convincing in the edit history or talk history, or some other policy page, to prove that one side is right? What if one side holds the turf of the policy page because they can point to a historical concurrence among editors on that page, and the other convincingly argues that the position does not have widespread approval on Wikipedia as a whole? Or says that the actual wording does not reflect what people agreed on? Or is there as an accident and just sat there unnoticed for a while? What if one side wants to edit to reflect what they show is a widespread consensus, or conformity with other policies, and the other gets enough people to oppose the actual edits to claim that the decision to edit the page has no consensus? Are there any principled ways to resolve these kinds of things or all they just a big rugby scrum? Wikidemo 21:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, WP:POLICY says what policy is: "The codification of current convention and common practice which already have wide consensus." Former consensus from the edit history is only of historical interest, because consensus can change over time. Arguments over which past version represents current consensus are not productive, or even relevant. If something represents true consensus, it should not be hard to show this clearly. As far as your concern over a few anarchists or trolls upsetting consensus, WP is completely transparent, and all editors have edit histories, so this problem would not hard to identify. The real problem with putting controversial material in policies, no matter how well intentioned, is that it allows people with fringe views to generate additional controversy to argue that the entire policy has no consensus; then the people on the opposite fringe end up painting the moderates as extremists to defend their position. This ultimately leads to a "rugby scrum". Dhaluza 04:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Obtaining copyright...

I have a picture from the University of Wyoming of their head football coach Joe Glenn. This image was sent to me by the University of Wyoming Sports Information Office per my request. I want to use this image to illustrate Coach Glenn's entry. What do I need from the University to satify copywrite policies on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DCPoke (talk • contribs) 02:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I would think that a statement by the University that it is indeed the owner of the image copyright and that it agrees to release the image under the GFDL or compatible license would work. Note that a statement that restricts the image to non-commercial use will not work. Dsmdgold 03:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Provide your permission (if you get it) via COPYREQ. Adrian M. H. 15:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If getting the appropriate permission is confusing, I've written a "how to" that might cover your situation (5 steps to obtain a free photo). R. Baley 04:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

FC Dynamo Kyiv/Dynamo Kiev

There is an ongoing discussion on talk:FC Dynamo Kyiv regarding the name of the article. A number of users feel this article should be an exception to the WP:NAME policy of use English. I am not sure how to resolve this deadlock so am asking here, if there is a better place to ask please point me at it. GameKeeper 23:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)

Please note that the content of the abovementioned guideline is currently being discussed. Due to the potential repercussions of the guideline, as it currently stands, more input is requested. G.A.S 16:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Expert editors for a content dispute

Hi, I need some help on what to do next in a content dispute on the Talk:India page, where a recent RfC was concluded between two disputants, user:Rueben lys and I (user:Fowler&fowler). The dispute was about whether certain topics (in the history of the Indian independence movement) were notable for inclusion in the highly compressed history section in the FA India. The history section there has been fairly stable for over a year now, and has exactly two sentences devoted to the Indian independence movement. There is some sympathy for expanding the history section, which perhaps would allow another two to four sentences for the Indian independence movement (i.e. a total of four to six sentences). The dispute is about what other topics merit inclusion in this slightly expanded sub-section. (The statements in the RfC were both long, so you might want to skim through them first.) Here is my statement in the RfC: Statement by Fowler&fowler]] and here is Rueben lys's Statement. The RfC resulted in seven comments (not including those by user:Rueben lys himself); of these, five (see: Comment by Doldrums, Comments by John Kenney, Comments by Abecedare, Comments by Sundar, Comments by Hornplease) were supportive of my position, and two (See: Comment by Sarvagnya, and Comments by Lara bran) that were supportive of user:Rueben lys's position. user:Rueben lys now says that while I have made the case that his topics (for inclusion in the history section) do not get coverage in reliable sources, I have yet to show that they are not regarded to be notable by my sources. I am at the point in this entire process, where I'm fast losing patience and where I feel that I have made an effort to be both clear and logical; in contrast I feel user:Rueben lys has been unfocused (see his long string of comments with eight sub-sections here) and difficult to pin down. I suggested to user:Rueben lys that we consider a second RfC on WikiProject History where, hopefully, some expert editors will be able to weigh in on the evidence. Although he agreed at first, he now says that he would prefer to have the RfC on WikiProject India. Since the first RfC had already been advertised on WikiProject India, I don't see how a second one will help.

Could someone please help me with some guidelines? Wikipedia has to have some expert editors in History. How can I find them? And how and where do I have an RfC in order that the experts can weigh in; otherwise, I see a Featured Article – India – becoming the object of highly idiosyncratic edits, well-meaning though they might be. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ask the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal--Phoenix 15 19:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Links to publishers in cited book references?

A user has been on a compaign to remove links to publisher sites out of cited books. Seems to me that the Template:cite book has a url slot for a good reason, to make an external link to some info about or way to find the book. He argues that a commercial site selling the book is not appropriate there. Is there policy about this? What kind of url is preferred in a book citation? Google book search? ABEbooks? Publisher? Review site? Other? I just noticed the template page says "url: URL of an online book." Is this really the only use desired here? Dicklyon 06:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I use the url to link to the page in the book on google books if I find it there, see example at Ördög. I would say that if the editor is removing part of a reference because he does not agree with it, he should replace it with something more appropriate in his vision. Maybe a link to the book in library if he feels strongly about a particular commercial site. The url to the book at commercial site is helpful in identifying the particulars about the book. An editor can choose any reliable source as a reference and an reader can choose any reputable source to obtain a copy of the reference. Wikipedia does not support any commercial book site but an editor may use any reliable source they are comfortable with to cite as part of their reference. Wikipedia:Reliable sources does not limit commercial sites. Ask the editor for a Wiki policy to support his assertion. Jeepday (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue I see is that sites like Amazon (the likely targets of such links) store every single edition distinctly. So we end up in effect advertising a single edition at a single retailer. I would tend to expect that the exact edition used for consultation be referenced, I suppose. Mangoe 13:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Amazon was the target of any that were recently removed; I seldom see Amazon or other retailers as the link target; usually it's the book publisher or google book search. Sounds like others agree these are OK. But Amazon seems OK to me, too; a specific edition makes sense especially if the ref has page numbers; and Amazon does typically have a link to other editions. But I do agree that linking a retailer is not as good as other choices when they are available. Dicklyon 17:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I see a difference between a Publishing house's website and a comercial site such as Amazon. I have no problem with linking to the publisher's URL, as the publisher is a standard part of any citation... but I would have a problem with linking to a site like Amazon. Blueboar 17:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

My sentiments are the same as Blueboar's. WP:EL is silent about links to publishers' web sites, but strongly discourages links to commercial bookstores. The user's campaign to remove links to publishers' sites is misguided, and misinterprets WP guidelines. JeffConrad 22:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I would also agree that a link to site such as Amazon would not be the best choice. A link to the publisher would be good or a site such as google book (particularly for out of print books). But removing a link and not replacing it with a more proper link borders on vandalism, even if the link goes to site such as Amazon. Jeepday (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. Does anyone think we should try to put something about this into policy? Or into the cite book template description? Dicklyon 03:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is entailed in getting this put into policy, but I'm not sure it's needed, either. As I had indicated, I can't find anything in current Wiki policy that supports the user's crusade. In any event, if mention is added to Template:cite book, it probably also should be added elsewhere, such as Template:Citation. In the latter, the function of the url slot is stated as “An url of an online location where the book can be found”, which would seem quite consistent with a link to the publisher. JeffConrad 22:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed policy about foreign language users on the english wikipedia

I think there should be a policy that requires registered users to be able to speak english. There are so many of them and I can't understand their comments. Whats more problematic is that they do not seem to understand me. This becomes a problem when in a dispute and trying to explain your reason when they don't get what you mean.

Its a handicap on the development and advancement of the article. Good friend100 02:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

We do require you be able to write English in order to edit, since if you can't write in English your contributions qualify for deletion under WP:CSD#A2. --tjstrf talk 02:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, their edits are not large scale, and its not a big problem, but sometimes their minor edits are really bad. Does that qualify them for deletion? They mostly argue on the talk pages for this proposal or that proposal. The english is bad enough that you cannot understand about half of what they say. Good friend100 03:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If the edits are nigh-ineligible, you can delete them without incident. There's no need for this proposal. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I would not that only articles that are not in English AND that exist on another language Wikipedia are eligible for speedy under A2. If they do not exist in another Wikipedia they are tagged with {{notenglish}} instead. Dsmdgold 03:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• I've seen some good information and ideas come from people with weak language skills. To me the cleanup is worth the knowledge. It would be nice to offer a mentor program to help fine-tune the text. --Kevin Murray 18:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a need for this proposal: a smart user that doesn't speak English can still be helpful, especially with the aid of a bilingual user. Together with Oxymoron83, I've made some additions to the German Wikipedia, mostly the addition of maps and lists of communities to counties in the USA. Moreover, if we prohibit non-English-speaking registered users, we'd likely have more IPs using non-English. Nyttend 04:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Such a proposal would be IMO highly problematic - how do we define "being able to speak English"? What standard of English do we mean - fluency, native tongue, advanced second-language user? Do we specify a particular variety of English - eg Indian English can be significantly different from British English, and may strike some as being incorrect when it is perfectly correct in its own terms. Do we ask new editors to submit proof of their language skills before allowing them to edit? I think the very nature of the Wikipedia enables us to cope with editors whose command of the English language is limited - we have editors from all over the world, and from many language backgrounds who are able and willing to help. If we are to bring all human knowledge to the world, then we can ill-afford to exclude those whose background (whether linguistic, cultural, ethnic, economic or whatever) differs from ours. Rather, I believe we should embrace and support editors who can contribute from these differing "spaces". DuncanHill 23:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Its a non-starter and some people would find it pretty offensive, SqueakBox 23:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've occasionally had to make a small edit or leave a comment on a Wikimedia project whose language I don't speak. Let's be patient everyone who's trying to help, even those that don't have the language skills of us native English speakers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I did a significant cleanup of communism vandalism on the Navajo Wikipedia, without speaking a lick of Navajo. It's a pointless proposal that can be detrimental. WilyD 17:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Right to vote

I need feedback on my proposal. Park Crawler 01:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Park Crawler

Good intent, bad practice. I've seen anons add reasonably decent arguments to discussions; and we get rid of vote-stackers easily enough. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 01:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As Jeske pointed out, most socks and meatpuppets are easily detected. This is also rather bitey against newcomers, and might discourage them from participating in such things. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No-way! Here at wikipedia we don't vote. We just voice our opinions on various matters and establish consensus. I know some serious vandals who "came over to our side" after week-long blocks and warnings who are brill contributers. Plus, this bites newcomers--Phoenix 15 19:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Plan to remove spoilers from article space and place them in project space

Can we get some more opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Here's what we'll try? (Not here, there.) I am concerned at the "solution," cutting spoilers out of articles and putting them on subpages of the wikiproject, The Hybrid (talk · contribs) is planning on implementing on wrestling articles, based on a "concensus" of a couple project members. I think a consensus of the community at large should be required for this change. Picaroon (t) 02:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Project Coordinators

I have noticed recently that several WikiProjects are starting to have "Coordinators." Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history and Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement are among the two principal ones I noticed. Now I believe we have all read Wikipedia is not a Democracy and Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy, and as far as I can tell this a violation of sorts. At least WP:MIL is where a method of voting is employed with no real discussion. I don't what other's opinions are on this, but I believe it would instrumental if we had some sort of policy prohibiting or at least restraining the power given to these "people in charge." Perhaps, I'm wrong here, but I thought it should be brought up. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 00:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• We generally frown upon adding ranks or hierarchies for editors (or in extreme cases, simply take down the concept, as was done with esperanza). In general such coordinators do not appear to be necessary. This is especially true for projects that are small, or new, or have not made significant contribution to articles (but note that the Military project falls in none of these three groups). If the added bureaucracy is getting harmful (e.g. it is used to exclude some people from discussion, or add an "executive veto" or whatever) that'd be the time to step in. >Radiant< 11:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• If these coordinators do not fall into the trap of behaving like bosses and restrict themselves solely to the task of helping the project to run well and help their fellow members, then I don't have a problem with that. Although, saying that, none of the projects with which I am involved actually have coordinators (just a core group of active members) so I don't know whether I would feel entirely comfortable with it. Even if WikiProjects are sometimes given (or take) a bit more latitude, the most important thing is that their decisions and actions should not in any way adversely affect the rest of Wikipedia. Adrian M. H. 21:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. There's a "bureaucracy watch" on the admin noticeboard that is occasionally invoked to cut through red tape. >Radiant< 09:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Successful Wikiprojects tend to have one person, or a small group, who act as de facto coordinator(s) anyway. It's not unreasonable for MILHIST to elect coordinators, seeing as they're so big and successful (FA machine), but for smaller Wikiprojects coordinators are really not needed. Moreschi ^Talk 10:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Okay then. As you guys have no real concern we can drop it. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Start to worry when they get uniforms. Johnbod 02:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is unreasonable for any election to take place. That de facto group is de facto because they're the ones who want to do it, not because they were elected to do it. Atropos 06:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Its not unreasonable, its consensus of thoes involved with the project. There is no BOSS mentality or WP:OWNership attached. An election is simply a way to feel out the direction that the project could proceed in before letting a de facto group take over. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As a current nominee for co-ordinator of the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wkiproject I see having one person as a designated contact as more of a convenience for outside organisations than conferring any powers in Wikipedia. Having one person who can contact or be contacted by potential collaborators seems quite useful, and doesn't really lead to any on-Wiki bureaucracy. Tim Vickers 00:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:GAME

This "behavioral guideline" seems to have sprung up a couple of months ago. I have serious concerns with it, one being that the discussion under point #7 is out of sync with Wikipedia policy on verifiability and the associated reliable sources. How does such a guideline take effect without broad community input and with substantial deviation from established policy? Raymond Arritt 02:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the page over, and saw what your possible concern is. I think the example is a good one, but an incomplete one. The specifics were "music journal". The reviews of the band could be on a website, newspaper, etc. and the person questioning the source discounts those on the basis they disagree with those being reliable sources AFTER the rest of the community has agreed that they are. We are currently having this problem with RPGs. Turlo Lomon 02:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• If the example is poor, feel free to replace it with a better example. The point that "gaming the system" is inappropriate stands. >Radiant< 11:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course "gaming the system" is inappropriate. As noted above my specific concern is with item #7 regarding reliable sources. Note that it includes reference to scientific theories as well as music. People have begun using WP:GAME to argue that peer-reviewed journals have no particular value as sources compared with newspapers and the like. Raymond Arritt 12:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It sure doesn't look like there was any discussion about this having become some sort of policy or guideline between the time it was a redirect to WP:POINT and the time it appeared, fully formed, from the head of Zeus, as it were, back in July. Corvus cornix 17:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It is inappropriate that this has guideline status with virtually zero input from the community. Downgrade it to an essay until there is an established record of widespread input/discussion and consensus. Zeus indeed! R. Baley 19:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(addendum) Exactly how many "policies" or "guidelines" are out there. Apparently this too (link: Wikipedia:Revocation_of_GFDL_is_not_permitted) was policy (up to) a few days ago, for what looks like almost a month. R. Baley 20:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition to Wikipedia: Biographies of living persons

I am hoping to generate an addition to Wikipedia: Biographies of living persons to specifically address the inclusion of sexual preference in biographies--not in categories, but articles. Problems with this are frequently presented at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. The conversation is here, and I would appreciate feedback. --Moonriddengirl 19:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a good idea to point out that including speculation or inside info on sexual prefernce is bad. But sympathizing with rule creep, I agree it must be brief; why not just add it to a list, like it's a bad idea to publish birthdates, addresses, sexual preferences, etc. unless they are relevant and from reliable public sources. Dicklyon 00:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The current proposal looks like this: "Sexual preference should not be asserted unless self-professed in a reliable, published source. Information related to sexual behavior or controversy regarding sexual preference may be notable and, if reported in a reliable published source, can be included without speculation about preference. Inclusion must not give such material undue weight. (It may be noted that a pop star has been convicted of sexual activity with a minor, but that pop star may not be labeled a "pedophile".)" There seems to be quite a lot of disagreement in the discussion at the moment about relevance to notability and whether or not controversy related to sexual preference actually is notable. I'm hoping to see some sort of consensus emerge. :) --Moonriddengirl 02:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Username policy questions

Hey all. I'd like to get some wider participation regarding the username policy to find out what the community's feeling is regarding certain usernames. The full discussion is at WT:U#"Vulgar" usernames, or at least it will be; so far I've posted the question. The general gist is, are the de facto behaviours of WP:UFAA in line with the general wishes of the community? SamBC(talk) 14:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Delay edits to articles two days to weed out vandalism

I propose that wikipedia delays edits to articles by two days to weed out vandalism.This Two day period would allow wikipedia's editors or "Watchdogs" to watch for offending or unconstructive edits to articles. I recently showed a friend the article on Canada. It was vandalised in an attempt to offend French Canadians. This destroyed all credibility wikipedia had in the eyes of my friend. Most Vandalism is commited as a spur of the moment thing with the aim of immediate gratification. If after the vandalism, the perpitrator recieves a message that the edit will have a delay of two days before posting to weed out any vandalism, This may demotivate the vandal to perform any further vandalism. Dullahan2000 04:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Won't it take the reversion 2 days to become live as well? If so then doing this has no effect at all. Prodego ^talk 04:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the 2 day delay would be too weed out vandalism. If the edit is found to have been vandalism, the article would not be changed therefore there would be no need to reverse any edit.Dullahan2000 04:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

How would you propose dealing with multiple overlapping edits then? You can't lock up the article for two days. And since wikipedia doesn't have a staff of watchdogs to review edits, who would you suggest do that? Dicklyon 04:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Indeed, this is very incompatible with the Wikipedia philosophy. It also does not fit with Wikipedia's structure, both social and technical. Who decides what is vandalism and what not? And which versions do other editors work on while a particlular edit is in Limbo? I also suspect that such an approach would destroy much of the motivation to contribute and very much slow down the development of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Stable versions and associated pages for some perspective on similar ideas. --Stephan Schulz 04:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Who decides what is and what is not vandalism now? There already seems to be a community of dedicated.... Wikipedians, if you will, who act as a sort of watchdog community. The article would not be locked up. Simply that specific edit for that time period, assuming it passes the vandalism filter. Perhaps bots can weed out obvious vandalism, and alert dedicated members to edits that the bots can't automatically filter.Dullahan2000 04:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

But how can you sequester an edit and still allow more edits? And who gets to decide who can approve what? Doesn't this require defining a privileged editor class about the normal editor class? I don't see how this can work. If I saw a way it could work, I might propose something like this for IP editors; that should get me yelled at. Dicklyon 04:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There are actually already bots that detect and revert obvious vandalism, and most vandalism is reverted very quickly thanks to them. As for the rest of the vandalism, I think we already have enough tools--such as watchlists and recent changes monitoring--to keep it in check. --CrazyLegsKC 04:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

At least I put the suggestion out there and got some gears turning.... maybe. Wikipedia is a great tool and it's unfortunate that ignorant people find it necessary to destroy or vandalize it. Although I had to recently change a small edit in the Hubble telescope article (Testicle to Terrestrial) that seemed to have squeezed by the bots. Just a suggestion. Dullahan2000 05:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Most such vandalisms are still reverted by people, not bots. It works pretty well, but about half my edits or more are simple reverts; I wish there was a better way. Dicklyon 05:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

People interested in this discussion might also want to check out Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions proposal, which uses the new Flagged revisions feature. -- Ned Scott 05:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There is certainly a better way. The problem is, the Foundation refuses to compromise the principle of "anyone can edit immediately without logging in". So if we want to do anything to restrict the damage that can be caused by people editing, it has to be plausibly squeezed into a subnote. So, currently it's "anyone except banned users can edit immediately unless the page is protected, or they are blocked without logging in unless the page is semi-protected. There's no way that making changes show up two days later could be subnoted into "immediately". -Amarkov moo! 05:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with delaying an edit 48 hours is that it makes wikipedia much less addictive ;-) --Kim Bruning 05:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Turnover is high, how will we get more new editors?

See my suggestion about ratings of users and articles. I'm quite sure that this would prevent most vandalisms. --D98rolb 18:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Adult sexual imagry

Should be subject to ESRB ratings, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.96.227 (talk • contribs)

Proposed new section for WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not "entertainment software". TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Damn, you beat me to it. Yes, ESRB is a mainly video game rating system, and Wikipedia, to most people, is not a video game. Wikipedia isn't censored either. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not subject to RIAA, MPAA, PEGI, etc. ratings either. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 01:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not censored", sometimes it is necessary for pictures with adult content be hosted here to elucidate a particular matter, however we do try and keep these to a minimum or we should. -Icewedge 06:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we'll host as much unrated hardcore porn as we want, thank you very much.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:38, 09/20/2007

Equally relevantly, Wikipedia is international, whereas ESRB ratings very much reflect the priorities of North American culture. Different cultures find different things offensive. TSP 09:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to start getting rid of things a lot of people find offensive, the article on Britney Spears won't last very long. --Dweller 09:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget all the Junk Food pron like Cheetos the gallery of McDonald's menu items:). There is a legal limitation. Anything that qualifies as sexually explicit imagery under 18USC2256 has recordkeeping requirements under the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act with criminal penalties for noncompliance. That used to cover just hardcore but as of 2006-2007 they added softcore too. There's no critical commentary / educational exemption. We wouldn't want to deal with that. Wikidemo 13:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)