Wikipedia talk:The grey zone

The grey zone

• The grey zone exists, in Wikipediaspace, or perhaps in some mindspace yet unexplored. It is the twilight zone of accusation, counter accusations, and BADFAITH all around.
• Although there is the opposite quandrary, which is what to do when the *heroe* really does exhibit all the signs of being dangerous and disruptive?
• Try to avoid the gray zone of accusations, and avoid also the grey zone of failure to communicate.
• Discussion previous to this page's creation took place here.

1. Additional material from NAZI WOMEN, Chapter 2, Cate Haste, Channel 4 Books, Pan Macmillan 2001. ISBN 0-7522-1575-2
2. Fair use for study purposes claimed--
3. Grey is British English for Gray in US English, or vice-versa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newbyguesses (talk • contribs) 00:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(In case you didn't guess, the *here* of the text on the page is Adolf Hitler, though I really didn't want to say that, it's in the grey zone too!!)

• This edit removed all the material referring to Hitler, and the Nazis. Update as necessary Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 08:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Image

There was an image in the black message-box, but it was Non-free and so can only go in articles, not WPspace. The image The image was of Rod Serling, the host of the creaky ancient TV show, The Twilight Zone. Appropriate image could still go there, in the black message box, if there is a suitably one that's free liscence. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Janus cassini.jpg perhaps, or something similar with free liscence? Newbyguesses - Talk 05:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• 18-Oct-2008: (8 months later) Actually, per copyright law, any image could go almost anywhere, so long as the associated text discusses the image as required by law. In some cases, an image might limit use to a single copy, such as a DVD cover, but an unusual image of a DVD box could be used, as long as a section of the page discussed the particular DVD in the manner required by copyright. The biggest problem is not the copyright, but rather, the wiki-superstition that some images can only legally appear in some articles. In reality, almost any image can appear in any article which contains the required text, and avoids the unwanted insults, as specified by the copyright. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

See also

• WP:NPOVFAQ Neutral Point of View - Frequently asked questions
• Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent Explaining another person's point of view as clearly and fairly as you can, similar to devil's advocate. The intent is to satisfy the adherents and advocates of that perspective that you understand their claims and arguments.
• Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade#The duck test · Aka WP:DUCK
• Wikipedia:Don't be inconsiderate
• meta:Don't be a crybaby aka keep'm in the DARK - gone, or never was.
• Wikipedia:What is a troll?#Not_feeding_the_trolls aka WP:DFTT

The current items constitute an interesting mix. The NPOVFAQ and "writing for the opponent" are sensible entries - perhaps that means they are disqualified from a HUMOR page?

WP:SPADE, WP:DICK and META:Don't be a crybaby represent the danger inherent in labelling any behaviour precipitously - in other words, BEWARE of the grey zone of accusation.

(Personally, I find META:DICK quite peurile, I reckon it is well past its *Sell by date*!!)

WP:SPADE and WP:DFTT both are subject to this same problem of mis-direction, or as a double-edged sword -- BEWARE of the grey zone.

So that completes the current list, and why these items are included.

UPDATE AS NECESSARY. Newbyguesses - Talk 11:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I am hoping that the value, if any, in this discussion page, is if thoughtful editors care to comment on, and discuss approaches to or remedies for the underlying tension between say, assuming good faith and calling a spade a spade?

The advice offered on the project page itself could be UPDATED as necessary to reflect the findings of such a thoughtful discussion, if (forth-coming) necessary. Newbyguesses - Talk 00:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirect from Wikipedia:The twilight zone

Created a redirect to this essay. I am sure you can see the parallels, and I am always Googling for Wikipedia:The twilight zone when recommending this essay to other editors. Igor Berger (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

User box for Wikipedia:The twilight zone

I recommend making a user box so editors who understand Wikipedia:The twilight zone editing and attend to its problems would Shout it out on their user pages. The more editors "C" are aware of this, the less wikidrama we will have. Igor Berger (talk) 05:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

User box capture, This user lives in a the Twilight zone Igor Berger (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Connecting zone with bigger fish to fry

18-Oct-2008: In my years of conflicts with other users, the grey zone has not been a major issue, but instead, the overall scope of what each article should contain has been the much "bigger fish to fry" in solving user conflicts. For example:

• Theory vs. reality:  Some users want short, esoteric articles on subjects, such as units of measure, while others want to add a few "messy" examples from messy real life, which could be seen as "cluttering" the article with school primers for beginners, and such.
• Extensive article sets:  Some users want to split a subject into 3,000 articles with massive gigantic-navbox tables connecting the articles, such as converting a list of 3,000 tiny villages in Germany into an article set with a village-dot map of Germany in each of those 3,000 new articles. Another example is the list of all numbered asteroids, a set of 37 data-list files from Harvard, which was converted into 1,900 articles of only 100 asteroids per article.
• Name-that-tune article size: Some users have an obsession to "describe that topic in 10 words" or less. For example, many film articles have been chopped to remove details about film-making, removing details of animation techniques or details about the film editing and sound-effects used.
• Deletionist vs. inclusionist: In general, all of Wikipedia is in a massive, over-arching struggle to include value-added details, not found in 10 other websites, against a notion to make Wikipedia a very short intro to only the "important" information about the world. Few people realize that, at any given time, importance is relative to the events at hand: with a world of over 6 billion people, it can be difficult to see that a proposed 3 million wiki articles about people would treat only 1 in every 2,000 people as "notable" whereas other people would demand that 1 million soccer players be included. Overall, it is a massive struggle, on an astronomical scale.

Those problems have had a much greater impact on my editing in Wikipedia, so perhaps this grey-zone article could be tied into the larger picture, in some appropriate way. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

5 February 2012 (UTC) Ah,yes, connecting with bigger fish is the purpose of the See also sections, and also any thoughtful links which are added properly and seriously to the project page. That is why WP:Wikiquette is linked and WP:NPOV and such, but at the same time humerous essays in Cat Civility essays have useful things to say, about the frying of same, perhaps. (smileyface) NewbyG ( talk) 18:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarity

Is there a way to make the point of this more clearly, and more up-front? It meanders a lot and doesn't have much apparent focus.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)