Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 71

• 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This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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, 197, 198

Declared alternative accounts voting?

WP:ILLEGIT has the following to say:

Editing project space: Alternate accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections.

As an admin, I maintain a declared alternate account (User:Nyttend backup) for use when I'm on public computers, so that my main account's password can't be stolen by keylogging or by my forgetting to log out when I'm done. Should I interpret this statement to say that I'm not allowed to participate at AFD or RFA when I'm using a public computer? Between the name of the account and the content of the userpage (essentially nothing more than "this is an alternative account of Nyttend" and "please tell me if this account starts to misbehave"), there's no way that anyone could be deceived into thinking that Nyttend backup is anyone but me. Accordingly, is there any good reason that I shouldn't be allowed to participate in discussions with my backup account? Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'd say as long as it's _really_ clear (and perhaps "Nyttend Alt Account" would be a clearer name) it would probably be fine, though I'd suggest it should be avoided when possible. Obviously both accounts should acknowledge each other, and in anything controversial you might want to clarify it's an alt account being used for security in the sig. My 2 cents. Hobit (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Nyttend, that language is bad (and fairly recent). The rule is about creating confusion and duplication by using undisclosed accounts. There should be no problem using both "Nyttend" and "Nyttend backup" editing projectspace as long as you aren't confusing anyone into thinking these are different people. Dragons flight (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• I think that the primary concern is using both of your accounts in the same vote-oriented process (e.g., RfA). But as to which one to use -- who is to say which is the 'real' account, after all? If the names weren't so obviously similar, you could reduce some confusion by giving identical signatures to all of your accounts (and thus being visibly "Nyttend" in all signed discussions), but I think this unnecessary in this instance. As a more general comment, I also don't see any good reason for saying that editors shouldn't be allowed to edit, e.g., WikiProject pages (which are in the 'project space') or similar pages from alt accounts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think the solution to this would be to use identical signatures, but to append "(public computer)" to the alt account. As long as you're not trying to mislead anyone, and the accounts are linked, and they're not both voting, it should be alright. The Wordsmith^Communicate 23:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Policies with legal considerations?

Are those policies written by Wikipedia's lawyer(s)? How would one go about having part of one rewritten so its meaning is clear, where it does not appear to be clear at present? WP:LINKVIO is being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Scribd_links.3F and it seems like something WP's lawyer(s) should address, not Wikipedians guessing at what the correct legal course of action is. Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Suicide_response_template_needed is something that seems like it should be run by a lawyer too. Шизомби (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Could point them out to Mike Godwin. Fences&Windows 02:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Responses to threats of suicide should be drafted by a lawyer. I like that. ;-) Reminds me of the story of the doctor who stopped by an accident and treated an unconsious person beside it - and was later sued for treating them without their consent. Dmcq (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Targeted Flagging - maybe a way to break the impasse

I'm putting forward this new idea to implement targeted flagging on low-watched BLPs. It avoids the complicated proposal of WP:FRPR and does not need massive development delays. Please look and comment on it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Subject specific Notability Guidelines has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Subject specific Notability Guidelines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This one as well. (Incidentally, if redirecting to category pages, it seems you have to put a colon before "Category:" to stop the redirect showing up in the category.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Holdon template

I have a question, since the documentation on {{holdon}} doesn't mention it. Who is allowed to remove the template? I ask since I tagged a hold on to a CSD candidate, and the CSD nominator deleted my hold on after I added it.

70.29.211.9 (talk) 05:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you quite done complaining about every little thing all over the place? It was removed by accident. Chill out and try some good faith or eggnog or something. I'm doing so in not suspecting you are not just some random IP that you keep plastering pointless and silly complaints all over the VPs everywhere.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverted 2 edits by 70.29.211.9; Rv; IP doesn't know what he's talking about. using TW does not seem like an accident to me. [1] I do apologize for making a mistake on the restore of my hang-on though. And why is it silly? Shouldn't there be mention about who is allowed to remove the hold-on? I'd like to know regardless of why you removed it, who is allowed to remove it and when, since it would be informative. I thought I'd ask some third parties on the issue of talk page archival as well. 70.29.211.9 (talk) 05:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Its removed by the deciding admin if they decline it. It can also be removed by anyone if it lacks an explanation (i.e. someone just put the tag with nothing with it), or if the page is not actually under CSD. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

A talk page does not have its own talk page, so it was attached to a {{tmbox}} beneath the {{holdon}}, which you also removed when you reverted my hold-on. It is evident in edit http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Primeverse/Archive_1&oldid=333920137 . So you removed it because you didn't see the tmbox? 70.29.211.9 (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Once the holdon template has been added to a page marked for speedy deletion, there are 2 possible outcomes for the administrator: either he declines deletion and removes both templates, or accepts it and delete the page if the original rationale was correct (as pointed by the template itself, "holdon" is not binding, and doesn't prevent from deletion an otherwise clear SD page). I hardly see a reason to remove just the holdon template and keep the other: all possible circumstances for it (like no explanation, unacceptable explanation, etc.) are up to the admin to check. Even more, the user who placed a speedy deletion template to a page should never remove a holdon template added to it: it may be conceived as some kind of edit warring in order to get a page deleted by concealing to the admin the disagreement about the deletion MBelgrano (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

MBelgrano, perhaps you can answer this since I havent had an article of mine put up for deletion in two years and so am not well versed in the matter- a speedy deletion is for deletions that are uncontested if I understand correctly, wouldnt a holdon template mean that it is now contested and should go to AfD instead of the Admin making a unilateral decision? Wouldnt that be the best way to settle a dispute instead of one Admin making the decision based solely on two individuals explanations (or lack thereof).Camelbinky (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if a page can be speedily deleted or not is determined by fitting or not the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. The choice is of a "black & white" kind, if an article falls in the "shades of grey", then there's no speedy deletion. There may be deletion anyway, but with other non-speedy process. Chech A7 for example. A speedy deletion isn't denied simply if the creator opposes, but if he opposes with a credible reason. This isn't about hand-raising, have in mind that, except for tests, no deletion is truly uncontested: for each page in wikipedia there's at least one user (the creator) that thinks that such page should exist. MBelgrano (talk) 04:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I didnt think about it that way. Thank you, that was very informative. I like learning new things. Very interesting.Camelbinky (talk) 04:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of names in alternate scripts

Hogenakkal Falls is already on record as being one of the lamest edit wars of all time, and I as a participant have to agree to that. However, there is now a question which I think might deserve some attention and possible policy or guideline clarfication. The idea is proposed at Talk:Hogenakkal Falls#Possible need for a consensus on a general policy that we have some sort of explicit guideline or policy regarding what to do with alternate names in other scripts which themselves have some degree of notability. Particularly for areas which have had several different types of scripts dominate, or in areas where multiple scripts are in use today to varying degrees, I think that it would make sense to have some sort of guideline or policy regarding how to deal with such matters. Unfortunately, I haven't got a clue which if any extant policy or guideline would be the best place to propose such a matter. Any opinions, on either the porposed guideline/policy or which extant one would be the best place to propose such a change? John Carter (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, as one of the members of the aforementioned lame-men club, it would be a very tricky situation. In all honesty, what extra information does writing the same place name in different languages impart? For the example quoted (Hogenakkal falls), it is still Hogenakkal in both Tamil and Kannada although the word for falls might vary. It would be informative only if it gives a pronunciation guide rather than just the script - which most might not be able to read. As for the ones who can read the script, there are links to those languages Wikipedia to read further. Having said that please let me not be misinterpreted that am implying that alternative language scripts have no use, but rather my point is "I’m not aware of any of such rationale".

In case those scripts being there do have a purpose - is it the language of jurisdiction or the language which contributes to the etymology of the name needs to be spelt out? If there is going to be a uniform rule covering all articles, are we leading to another type of edit war where people can fight over the etymologies. Moreover, what do we do for countries like Indonesia where the name is derived from two languages (Greek and Latin). As for Hogenakkal falls article, I would say that both scripts staying there doesn’t harm anyone (at least would help avoid a bit of edit wars). But to use that as a global norm will only lead to complications. And now that’s my POV. :D Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 09:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Local location names in local scripts should be included, as per Japan.

If people can't agree on where to have it in the lede, move the details to the etymology section, per Wikipedia:Lead section#Alternative names.

Refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Waterfalls#Article Structure (and ask at its talk) for further info. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As we do for any person whose name may be in his/her's native language in addition to English we can have the article's name in the ledge in both English ( for the universal info / as this is wiki en ) & the local name Tamil should be more than enough . If people want to try other language's like Hindi & Kannada then i too want New Delhi ( cuz we have the parliament there which is common to all the official languages of the nation ) & Bangalore ( cuz we have a sizeable amount of tamil's living there ) in Tamil . Kindly understand that i'am not biased but trying to say that the universal law must be applied or let the universal law change if it goes here alone .--Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 17:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I should clarify that I was thinking in this particular case of locations which are, effectively in either political or linguistic border regions where more than one local script may be in current use. Obviously, Indian names are the ones which prompted this discussion, but I rather doubt they are the only ones facing this question to some degree or other. I do think having some sort of clarity as to how to deal with such situations might be useful for potentially several articles. John Carter (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Japan is a good example where it makes sense to have native script in the article. The country is not called Japan in Japan, but Nippon (if am right). If we apply that to Tamil place names, it would make sense for places likeJaffna and Batticaloa which are known in Tamil as Yazhpanam and Mattakalappu. These places are always writen in the "alternate" name in the local language (Tamil) in these regions. Whereas, for cases like Hogenakkal it is still Hogenakkal in Tamil (the official language of the region) or Kannada (the root language of the name). The script give no information what so ever as far as I can see. As I said earlier, I might be completely wrong. Nevertheless, I would like to know why am I wrong. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 19:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably it is a good idea to have a global norm on this issue, but the norm cannot be merely on what alternate sits on the article and what doesn't, but should start from the first question "does the article need alternate scripts in the first place". First let us make sure we understand that alternate names /= alternate script. May be breaking down the issue into smaller questions will help deciding on the "alternate name/script" issue. I have used examples mostly from South Asia.

Q1. Does the place in question have English language alternate names (as used by the English media)?

Example 1: Varanasi is also known as Benares. Both the names mentioned in the article lead.

Example 2: Bangalore was recently christened officially as Bengaluru. This makes the latter an English name as well. But the name Bangalore is still predominantly used in the media. This is an alternate name in English and hence the article on Bangalore says also known as Bengaluru. This is in contrast to Chennai which was earlier called as Madras in English. Although some English media (including the BBC) uses Madras to refer to this city, Chennai is more commonly used. Both names are mentioned in the lead.

Q2. Is the place in question known by a different name locally?

Example 3: Batticalao is locally referred to as Mattakalappu in Tamil. Although Mattakalappu is not an English name, it is the name used by the locals and thus deserves to be added to the lead. Since is it not an English language name it also needs to be mentioned in the native script.

Q3. Is the alternate name non-local and non-English?

Example 4: India is referred to as Kaek in Thai. So Kaek can be India’s alternate name. But since it is non-local and non-English, it really doesn’t need to be added to the article.

In simpler words, the alternate script would make sense only when accompanied by alternate names. And the alternate names make sense only when it is English/local language. Place name etymology should sit in the right section where it needs to be. If the local name and the English name are the same, there is no need of alternate scripts. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 11:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that this requires a change in policy, more like using common sense. The name Hogenekkal is of Kannada origin, the place is on a linguistic border, use common sense and have both. Now, the article of course appears to have an interesting history with quite a bit of nonsensical edits, but this one appears logical, it's not an alternate name, it's just addition of the name in the script of etymological origin/language with a sizable population locally. And on the other front, why is the Tamil script required in the caption for the infobox image? -SpacemanSpiff 17:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with having both. But the question is, what extra information does the alternate scripts give to English language Encyclopedia? For a person who can't read Tamil or Kannada, it wouldn't make any sense of those scripts being there. And for those who can, there is a link in the right to read the langauges. As I said, it is very likely that am missing the point. But can you or anyone please explain me the common sense of why we have other language scripts if they are pronounced the same as the English language name. Sorry am not trying to be a pain. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 21:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If we go with "there's no point in having other scripts", I'm completely fine, but that's not our policy, we have regional scripts for the name in most articles. However, in this particular case we have one script based on the geographic territory but not the one which the name is derived from. Common sense dictates that the script for the language the name is derived from should be included (as is Sanskrit text and IAST for many Sanskrit derived words in different articles). Having only the geographic territory script, but not the etymological roots script is not neutral, it should be either both or nothing, and we don't need to modify policy to address such anomalies. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 21:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't agree more with you about having both in case we are to have the scripts. This issue with scripts doesn't stop with Hogenakkal falls article. FYI, when it comes to issue like this I would rather be an inclusionist. Although small the time I spend in Wikipedia, I have come across other editwars in articles on Rajinikanth and Periyar E. V. Ramasamy on the same issue of adding other langauge scripts. Once again the languages were Tamil and Kannada (here, here and here). At that point I did not know about Village pump and hence tried to start a discussion here. Later CarTick (Docku at that time) brought up the same issue on the worth of having other language scripts. I think John Carter is trying to get this sorted for good (sorry John if am putting my words into your mouth). All the drivel I have written here is to make the point that Hogennakkal entry is not a sore thumb, but to the contrary the issue had been going on - although subtle - for a long time now. Its better sorted to avoid anymore edit wars. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 06:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

In most cases, these script wars generally tend to be irrelevant. While I don't agree with the solution arrived at on Rajinikanth, it's harmless. The same thing happened on R. K. Narayan where birthplace and scripts were constantly changed, but a talk page discussion ended it, in his case it was pretty straightforward, he was Tamilian, his contributions were in English and a wee bit in Tamil, so the fact that he lived in Karnataka for half his life shouldn't affect scripts. Either ways, I think these discussions are best solved on the talk page, increasing policy lines will just complicate things further. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 06:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose extending this topic to every articles talk page would only add vandalism & heated debates which was happening for ages , when there is an article in kannada i fail to see a reason to why we have to add the name's in other language's , when a Russian article is given a [Tamil]] translation then we may add Russian & English to it which is fair cuz the article is a translated stuff but this article is a tamilnadu based one & hence addng the alternative languages may not be necessary .Then why dont we extend the topic to bangalore ( with a sizable tamil population)?? --Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 10:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You're still missing the point, the name is a Kannada name. -SpacemanSpiff 06:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

not the fullname ...but only a part of it , "kal" is the same in both the languages ...ok then Madras was a Portuguese origin did we have the portuguese translation in the title ?? , trying like this would be fair [2] but anything more would invite nothing but edit fight which has happened since ages in this particular article . ok then what major difference would it bring ??--Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 19:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, not to make an argument out of this, but FYI Kannagi was from Chera land from her own words and that part of the world is now officially Kerala. So do we have Malayalam in Illango and Kannagi's pages? Just a thought there. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 17:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Signpost Policy Report

{{rfctag|policy}} An ongoing RFC: click on the last link below to give us your take on this week's selected content policy, and a summary of all the comments will appear in the Policy Report in next week's Signpost. If it helps, monthly changes to this page are available at WP:Update/1/Content policy changes, July 2009 to December 2009. All responses are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Week of Dec 21-28: WT:Biographies of living persons#Signpost Policy Report
• Week of Dec 28 - Jan 4: WT:Naming conventions#Signpost Policy Report

Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

On 18:08, 6 December 2009, on Wikipedia talk:No original research I suggested that WP:PSTS should be a separate guideline, rather than a section of WP:NOR. This got some approval on the talk page, including at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Renewing the call to move PSTS, so I have created a draft page at User:Yaris678/PSTS. Take a look! I'd like to know what people think. Yaris678 (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As the author of "Renewing the call" thread pointed to above... I obviously approve of this proposed move. Having WP:PSTS as part of the NOR policy has repeatedly resulted in editors mistakenly concluding that citation to Primary (or Tertiary) sources is in some way "not allowed"... that material cited to anything but a Secondary source is automaticlally OR... when that is not the case. Furthermore, moving the section to its own policy or guideline page will allow us to expand into other areas that impact or are impacted by source typing. Blueboar (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:PSTS should stay in WP:NOR, as it derives solely and directly from WP:NOR, and is extremely important to building articles. However, it could be abbreviated and linked to a guideline, "Wikipedia:Interpreting WP:PSTS". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I said something similar on the NOR talk page, linked to above. I certainly wouldn't object to also creating a separate guideline, though. I wouldn't use a name utilizing abbreviations though. I would recommend something like Wikipedia:Classifying sources.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think in practice there isn't much difference between my proposal and SmokeyJoe's. I haven't explicitly stated this before but I will now: Under my proposal WP:NOR would still mention primary, secondary and tertiary sources briefly. It would also link to the new page on the subject. Yaris678 (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding a {{Main}} link to the current section on NOR would almost be mandatory. I don't think that the current section within NOR ought to be summarized or shortened at all though, as it's a central component towards understanding the NOR concept.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ω, I disagree with you there. For example, there wouldn't be much point in defining primary, secondary and tertiary sources in WP:NOR when anyone who is unsure could go to the new page. Yaris678 (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If you read the whole NOR document then the section on PST sources fits in directly with the other content. As a matter of fact, that section should probably be indented one more level to become a sub-section of the "Using sources" section (or somehow better integrated into that sub-section). It's inclusion in it's present form is vital to understanding the whole document. That being said, a separate document specifically about Using/Classifying/Interpreting sources for use on Wikipedia is easily supportable, and should probably include much more detailed information which pulls together components of WP:NOR, WP:Verifiability, and WP:Reliable Sources. All three are closely related when it comes to sources.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

a congrats from a wikipedia newbie ^^

just saying thanks and stuff,wikipedia`s policy of secondary source listing makes it really easy for me to research state law statutes.....And other important stuff

Also i dont see why people complain about the notability requirement,if they want to see that info so bad,why dont they make there own website or something,freewebs is pretty easy to use....Anyways,thanks for the informative info wikipedia community ^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.10.54 (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Because some people think Wikipedia is the Internet :) Anyways, you're welcome. –MuZemike 18:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

public domain photos

I found an image online, that I'd like to use in an article. It's a pre-1900 photo of a US subject. That makes it public domain. I found it at a US university's historical society website, and the image is stamped with their name. What's the protocol? Do I ask them for an unstamped version? Do I use this one until then? Do I Photoshop out their name? -Freekee (talk) 04:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried finding the same image on a different website, one that might not have their logo stamped on it? Which is pretty dickish of the university to do. If its something like a postcard alot of times you can find those on eBay because someone is selling it, I've found alot of images that way. The photo may be in archives of the Library of Congress (a link to the LOC and how to use their images is at this wikiproject). Sorry cant answer your question though.Camelbinky (talk) 04:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I've added the site to my bookmarks. It didn't help me out this time, though. -Freekee (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to Photoshop out their name, if you can. If it's truly public domain, then they have no claim to it notwithstanding that they hosted it on their website or that they may own the physical photographic print in their archive. But credit their website as the source of the image. postdlf (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You can still upload it with the stamp (providing that it is just in the corner or something smaller) to see if one of us can photoshop it out. I was going to suggest tagging it with {{watermark}}, but it is nothing like Commons' version. Killiondude (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I ended up cropping the stamp out. I still acknowledged that I got the image from them, in the image description page. I kinda wondered if we didn't want to annoy them by cropping that out, if we wanted to get images from them later on. Or something. Thanks! -Freekee (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

William Connolley & report of alleged Wikipedia manipulation in the Financial Post of 19 Dec 2009

The allegations were addressed at the appropriate noticeboard. Participants in discussions on Wikipedia are reminded not to engage in personal attacks

Allegations of impropriety made against William M. Connolley by Lawrence Solomon in the National Post and then repeated uncritically by James Delingpole in the Daily Telegraph were addressed in this discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. I was shocked to recently see this news report about purported large scale POV pushing by Climate change scientists. It sounds really fantastic and ominous to me, an (relatively) uninformed editor. I could not find any reference to this issue on Wikipedia. Can anyone give me a reasonably NPOV perspective on the matter? Or a pointer to the discussion? In case this is a tiresome repeat of a much flogged dead horse, please pardon me! AshLin (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC) This surprises you? hmmm... start with User talk:William_M._Connolley and skim through some of the talk page posts, administrative acts, and contributions - then decide for yourself. Connolley is not someone I've run across myself (not in any way that I remember, at any rate), but from a glance at his talk page he runs with a well-known crowd of aggressively pro-science editors. They would say they are saving wikipedia from the clutches of the scientifically illiterate masses; others - myself included - would phrase it differently. The article you linked strikes me as hyperbolic, and seems to lack a proper understanding of how wikipedia editing works, but it does not strike me as wholly inaccurate. hope that helps. --Ludwigs2 05:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Well, that 'article' post is a pretty good example of why blogs aren't considered reliable sources — especially not for the purposes of a living person's biography. As you say, the story is indeed 'fantastic'. (The National Post, in which the blog first appeared, is Canada's print equivalent to the United States' Fox News.) Lawrence Solomon, the blog author, has his own particular axes to grind. Why he has chosen William Connolley to pick on is not entirely clear; perhaps it is because Connolley is one of Wikipedia's more dedicated, effective, and qualified editors of climate change articles. Unfortunately, the hysterical numbers in Solomon's blog are demonstrably false. I won't rehash the numbers yet again, but Talk:William Connolley#Solomon op-ed and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:William M. Connolley and Global Warming have both already examined (and dismissed) the blog's claims. Solomon didn't do his homework, and his lack of fact-checking borders on libel. In the future, please consider checking the talk page of the subject's article first, before posting an inflammatory, defamatory link like this on the Village Pump. As an aside, I'm a bit taken aback that 'aggressively pro-science' is actually considered a derogatory term in this day and age. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC) I don't want to pursue that last here, except to say that "aggressively pro-anything" constitutes a bias that needs to be taken into consideration. personally, I am aggressively pro-peach_cobbler, which means I would have to put in extra effort to be circumspect if I started editing apple pie. I like science; in fact, I probably know more about science in general than the vast majority of wikipedians (including a good number of pro-science editors). But science is a tool, and like any tool it should be used prudently and then set down when done - otherwise you risk damaging the tool. If you'd like to discuss the issue more, please see me on my talk page (or someplace else). the debate is too gnarly to continue on the pump. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) Thanks for the responses. The links indicated by responders have brought the issue into perspective. I did not mean to inflame any emotions by bringing up the subject. I normally don't frequent the Village Pump. Being located in India, I also don't read what may be 'normal' journalistic resources that my fellow editors from USA may read. The Village Pump seemed to be the right place to ask about what seemed to be a blatant and major attack on the Wikipedia editor community. My thanks once again. AshLin (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Ludwigs2, I'm also a bit disappointed that you (an experienced Wikipedia editor) decided to denigrate Connolley and (partly) endorse the Solomon blog before doing your homework — whether you agree with his pro-science perspective or not. (And how do we take a 'neutral' point of view on scientific issues? Unlike the peach cobbler question, I can't see the value of giving equal credit to pro-scientific and anti-scientific viewpoints on science issues — including climate change.) Please don't import your biases and conflicts to the Pump. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC) TenOfAllTrades: I hardly think that what I said was anything close to 'denigrating'. The OP asked for a reasonably NPOV perspective on the matter, and I did my best to offer one. I'm sorry if you don't see that, and happy to clarify anything that might have offended you. With respect to your parenthetical point, we take a neutral point of view on scientific issues by remembering that science doesn't lay claim to truth. Science crafts theories to conform to observable evidence and produce pragmatic results, so the most it can say about any given theory - no matter how bad that theory is - is that the theory doesn't account for evidence and can't be used for anything practical. A lot of science editors (and some scientists) want to go the extra mile and attack bad theories as dumb or unscientific, even to the point of trying to exclude or 'denigrate' them or the people who present them. I understand that urge, since I feel it frequently myself, but it is a counter-productive move that ultimately reduces the credibility of science and leaves scientific investigation as a whole open to counter-charges that science is merely a political endeavor. That is not NPOV, and it is not wise. The climate change issue is no exception, and I am reasonably sure that Mr. Connolley (with the best intentions, of course) has had a hand in excluding or repressing some number of those "antiscientific" theories from multiple pages, and the result is exactly what you see: hyperbolic and somewhat paranoid claims about censorship and impropriety, which (true or not) reflect badly on him, on Wikipedia, and on the science of global warming as a whole. see my point? --Ludwigs2 04:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

ENGVAR help

I'm really not sure how this should be handled, so I'll just post this here and see what happens... If anyone has a chance, please look at Talk:International Space Station#British English?. Thanks.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 10:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Using AWB to remove "words to avoid"

Should AWB be used to remove wholesale words listed in WP:Words to avoid? The specific case here is the use of AWB to remove every instance of "untimely" preceding "death". While "untimely" does have POV connotations which has earned it a place in the words to avoid list, it does alter the meaning of the statement to remove it. The revised statements no longer communicate that the death was premature. Related discussion here and here. Gigs (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

IMO yes, but the last occasion something similar was tried under AWB, to my knowledge, led to this discussion and the parking of the issue as an unfulfilled feature request. So good luck with it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion link. As luck would have it, the same user recently did a mass change with AWB to change all instances of "passed away" to "died", so I guess history really is repeating itself. Gigs (talk)

That is what AWB is for. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as care is taken to not replace it when used in quotes, I see no problem with this. Fram (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

← Please note that the "AWB" part of this discussion is irrelevant. No one (to my knowledge) has suggested that this be included in AWB's typo fixes or general fixes, or that an AWB bot be set loose to do it. AWB is just a tool which helps to perform tasks faster, easier, and more accurately. Similarly, the discussion linked to above is not relevant to this issue, as it was about changing "passed away" to "died" as an AWB typo fix. AWB does not currently do that, and I wholeheartedly agree that it should not.

As for the real question of whether the edits should be made, rather than repeat myself, please see my comments. Short version: yes, with care.

Also, please note that characterizing me as removing "every instance" of "untimely" and changing "all instances" of "passed away" is not true. I only make the change when it's appropriate. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt your good intentions. The AWB part is not irrelevant; AWB is only supposed to be used for non-controversial changes that don't change the meaning of text. What you have been doing is both of those. You are right in that the earlier discussion was slightly different, but the discussion isn't irrelevant, the same concerns apply. There is no way that you can judge the context of these when you are doing 6 of them per minute. 10 seconds is not enough time for you to decide whether the passage is losing meaning by the removal of words. If you were doing these slowly and replacing "untimely" with "young" or "early" when it's more appropriate, or something else that, then we wouldn't be here. Gigs (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think untimely always means young or early or even unnatural or unexpected. Besides which, young is incapable of being defined in this context. Untimely is always pov and unencyclopedic unless it is part of a title or quotation. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia: the only encyclopedia in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year. A systematic quest to erase the existence of certain words in the encyclopedia is very different than simply having a style guide discouraging their use. Gigs (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Bad idea in almost every respect. AWB is only tolerable because most of its edits are non-controversial (e.g. a blank space before a comma). The idea of having the Usage and Style Police (USPol) patrolling articles in general for perceived lapses in style, taste or judgement is abhorrent. That's very different from keeping an eye out for profanities, obscenities or racial epithets that are a strong indicator of malicious vandalism. Let the editors decide, and if someone's who's reading the article for some other reason dislikes some euphemism, let it be hashed out on the Talk Page. If there be an Almighty, then perhaps all deaths are untimely, or all are timely, or some are timely and others untimely. And a death can be untimely for a group of people that the decedent has affected, or even for the decedent himself or herself, e.g. just at the point of finishing a masterwork or reconciling with an estranged loved one or leaving prison after exoneration from someone else's crime.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakescene (talk • contribs) 05:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree: A bot should never, ever be changing "content", as in the actual text or wording of anything. Never. Period. Just because things are words to avoid doesn't means they're words that should be essentially enforced by oversight. The words are occasionally appropriate in some contexts, or used in normal conversation, as well. I'd revert any and all edits I ever saw performed on my edits in this way. This would most certainly never get wider community acceptance, either, given there have been several recent incidents of SmackBot operators sneaking in a change in reference formatting in articles and the bot being shut off immediately after discovery. General consensus was that even that is far too much involvement of a bot into the actual text or code of an article. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Datheisen, to be clear, we aren't talking about a fully automated bot, we are talking about semi-automated AWB-assisted edits. IMO many of the same concerns apply, but I wanted to point that out so that no one is confused. Gigs (talk) 14:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Gigs is breaching WP:CANVASS. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I notified the previous participants in related conversations in a neutral way. The discussion here had stalled so I solicited input from a few editors who had interest in the topic. This is not improper canvassing. Gigs (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It seemed to me (on almost no information) to be a neutral notification. I don't think that I or Baseball Bugs was notified in the expectation that I or he would necessarily agree with the proposal, which we don't. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think any pattern should be set for the unthinking removal of "untimely" as in "untimely death." I don't approve of the phrase, but it is always possible that an instance can arise in which that phrase is perfect. Bus stop (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with that. Using any sort of automated or semi-automated process to remove particular words is to open a can of worms. It should remain up to editorial judgment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As I've been invited to comment here: Removing such terms in a fully automated way (with bots or the "typo fixes" list) should be an absolute no-no, I think we can agree on that. I'm not so sure about semi-automated removal. In the end, everyone is responsible for the edits that he/she is making, whether AWB was used or not. Care must be taken not to make any mistakes either way. --Conti|✉ 15:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think a better solution would be to have a bot look for this pattern and then record all articles where this happens (on a user subpage?). Then a real person can manually look through and fix it where necessary. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I dislike even that approach. It's not the kind of thing that should be trawled for blindly. If someone actually reads the article and comes across a jarring, clumsy or inappropriate phrase that doesn't fit the context, he or she can edit it with the backing of a previous consensus on Words to Avoid. Other editors can explain why they disagree with that point of view, or what makes a particular death untimely. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Bots are supremely able to take reasonable prose and make it unreadable. When it comes to choosing precise words, I suggest a human is superior to any bot with an automatic response to seeing a particular set of letters. Collect (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the above comments against the use of bots or tools like AWB to alter language in a way other than fixing obvious typos. Individualized editorial judgment is always a must for phrasing choices rather than drive-by mass editing.

On the issue of "untimely" as a word choice, there may be better ways to express it, but what it most clearly communicates to me is that the death was substantially before the life expectancy for that individual's demographic at that time in history. So if used in that sense it isn't subjective. postdlf (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

In which case it would need to be supported by a WP:RS. Kittybrewster ☎ 00:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't require sources for every statement on Wikipedia, only "quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged..." (per WP:V) and I think it's pretty clear that this policy envisions challenges being issued by a human editor, not a bot. --agr (talk) 01:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to use semi-automated processes to remove words listed in WP:Words to avoid or any similar value-judgement editing. I'd like to see bots/AWB/scripts limited to specified and approved tasks that editors have agreed are completely non-controversial, (and when necessary thoroughly discussed, as for example the current date delinking bot runs.) --Kleinzach 00:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Upon review, I believe that in this instance insufficient care was taken to ensure that the meaning of the article was not degraded. I suspect that the fact that AWB was being used encouraged Mandarax to act carelessly in this project. This word is not empty of meaning and if it is to be removed, the surrounding context will usually need to be changed to ensure that the meaning nevertheless comes through. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have never edited carelessly, with or without AWB. I am responsible for all of my edits, and I do not make edits with AWB which I would not have made otherwise. I inspect every edit before saving. Whenever I felt that there was a chance that removing the word would alter the meaning, or would not improve the article, or would in any other way be inappropriate, I left it.

Christopher Parham wrote: "...if it is to be removed, the surrounding context will usually need to be changed to ensure that the meaning nevertheless comes through." The whole point is that there is no meaning without surrounding context. If there already is surrounding context to give meaning to the word, then the word is superfluous, and if the proper context is not present, then the imprecise and emotional word has no clear meaning. Was the death untimely because the person was young? (How young must one be for their death to be considered untimely? Are the deaths of people older than the cutoff point "timely"?) Or was the person on the verge of doing something important when they died? Or did the writer feel that the death was untimely merely because the person was famous? Or was there some other "untimely" criterion? Who knows? In many instances, it appeared to be used in the most emotional and, in my opinion, incorrect, way: as a quasi-synonym for "sad", to describe the death of someone whom others cared about deeply, in which case almost any death at any age under any circumstances might be considered "untimely". The word is, at best, merely an emotional way of repeating what should already be explained elsewhere with relevant facts from reliable sources. These are supposed to be encyclopedia articles, not eulogies.

I haven't made any of these changes since I was first informed that someone had concerns, and after all of this dreary discussion, I don't intend to do any ever again. While I still feel that these changes are correct, I don't use AWB to make potentially controversial edits. Carefully removing the word where it added nothing to the article certainly seemed uncontroversial to me, especially as it was listed at WP:Words to avoid. Note that at the top of that page, it says: "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus." Any reasonable person can thus assume that words listed there have already been discussed and have been listed there to reflect consensus. I followed the advise there, and used common sense, letting the word stand when it seemed appropriate. A previous discussion also showed a clear consensus that it was, indeed, a word to avoid. Anyways, I don't really have any strong feelings about this. I guess it doesn't hurt to have the occasional meaningless word in an article. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Heya Mandarax. I haven't actually looked at the edits in question (which is why I haven't replied here prior to this), and I know exactly what you mean about taking responsibility for your edits (People seem to jump at any chance to criticize AWB, probably because it's easy to do so).

I did want to comment about the language issue which is part of what is underlying this though. It seems that you're making what is essentially a minimalist argument regarding the use of the English language, above ("If there already is surrounding context to give meaning to the word, then the word is superfluous..."). to be succinct about it, I'd just like to mention that not everyone agrees with this philosophy. The point being, this is a style issue. I think that plays a part in people complaining about your use of AWB here, since the one thing that automation does well with language is to kill style, when it comes to writing. My take is this: you're as free as anyone else to change style, within certain bounds, but you need to be sensitive enough to the issues around such editing not to use automated tools for assistance. It doesn't matter that you're responsible with said tools usage, but the fact that you're using tools opens you to criticism. This sort of thing is essentially a political issue.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 08:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The problem is that there almost never was any surrounding context to support the use of the word and give it meaning. The reader is left to wonder what the writer had in mind. Personally, this reader felt that, more often than not, the writer was either using "untimely" as I mentioned above, as a quasi-synonym for "sad", or was just familiar with the term "untimely death" and liked the sound of it and how "untimely" seemed to soften the word "death". The reader can check the age at death, and wonder if the writer might have been expressing their point of view that the death was untimely because of that. But it would only be a guess, and even if this is what the writer intended, readers should be free to form their own opinions about the timeliness or untimeliness of death, based on their own experience and religious and philosophical beliefs. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe you, when it comes to the actual use of the phrase and context. The specific phraseology itself isn't so much as issue for me here as pointing out the "political" issue itself. The one thing that I've noticed about Wikipedia is that it's really easy for us to be dragged into disputes over issues that are relatively tangential to the actual content, if you see what I mean (I hope that makes sense...). It's the fact that you were using an automated tool (AWB) to make the edits, and that you were systematically editing to persue a "stylistic" goal, which seems to have created the issue here. The validity of the edits themselves tend to become lost in these sorts of discussions. I understand completely how that can be (very) frustrating, but that's the reality which we are all faced with.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 11:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

SUGGESTION: Cross-reference between different language versions of Wikipedias

Yesterday I added an update to the list of commercial CD recordings of organ works of the composer Dietrich Buxtehude - and that was done successfully.

However when I now pause the mouse over the name of the artist whose CD recordings I added, Bernard Foccroulle, a bubble tells me there is no entry for that person. While it is true for the English version of Wikipedia it is worth noting that there is an entry in the French version of Wikipedia.

Is it not possible to re-configure Wikipedia to direct users to an entry that already exists in a different language version? Many people are multi-lingual and I think this would, in general, be a good improvement to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.54.224 (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You can do this through interwiki linking, though generally speaking (for a number of reasons) it's better to create a page in the same language. Read Help:Interwiki linking. generally you would do something of this form [[:fr:Bernard Foccroulle]], which gives this: fr:Bernard Foccroulle. You might also want to add a bit of text to warn that the user is about to click into a different language. --Ludwigs2 05:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to modify the software: simply create the article (a stub may be enough), give it the interwikis, and place the {{Expand language}} pointing the developed article in the talk page. MBelgrano (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

ah... one of those well-presented ideas I wish I'd thought of myself. --Ludwigs2 14:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there any parallel template for populate category from language? For example, there's only one article in Category:Sicilian_musical_groups, but 30 in the Sicilian version. I've temporarily used the {{Expand language}} tag for Sicilian, but that really seems more for articles than populating categories. Suggestions? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion before Reversion

Could we discuss certain edits before they are reverted, so everyone can come up to an agreement as too many edits are being restored after being reverted. This would be good policy to follow and keep vandalism to a minimum. Paul2387 (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Which edits? Examples? Fences&Windows 23:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked Paul to reinstate this discussion after he removed it due to (I believe) thinking this is not the place for it. He did have particulars listed per Fences question; however I do think they arent needed as we can discuss the general question of- if an edit is reverted and then restored when is a good time to discuss it; ie- do you bring the discussion immediately to the talk page when reverting to give a headsup, do you bring it only when you restore, or do you bring it after its been restored and the original reverter wants to revert it again?Camelbinky (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with Carmel as that was what was being highlighted in my question above regarding discussing reversion/restoration on the related talk page. Paul2387 (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The question seems too general for there to be a definite answer, imo. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the village pump, not the OR/N or RS/N or AN/I where definitive answers are looked for. The Village Pump's purpose is for people to discuss their opinions and see what the pulse of the Community is. There isnt a question to be answered; nor does there need to be or should be. The Village Pump is about getting ideas out there and making people think and putting everyone's thoughts together into a consensus that can be used in the future, whether codified as policy or guideline or not.Camelbinky (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The question is too vague, it needs clarification to be a useful debate. What kind of edits are we talking about: unsourced; poorly sourced; disputed sourcing; poorly worded; non-neutral; potentially libellous; gibberish? What is the actual problem that needs solving here? Fences&Windows 14:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent). I don't think this is a good idea because it puts the responsibility for discussion solely with the reverting editor (also in the case of vandalism). It could as well be decided that change must be discussed first before they are made (putting the responsibility completely with the editor proposing this change).
Both options are some kind of "talk first - edit later" solution; that require a lot of effort from the editor having to do the talk. In my experience in over 90% of the edits (and reverts) there is no objection, so such a labour intensive necessity seems over the top.
Of course this leaves the edits that are made, reverted and then in the end are restored. In my view we do have a way to deal with this the bold,revert,discuss WP:BRD cycle, where an editor can make an edit with (or without) talk page discussion (but preferably with edit summary) another editor reverts (again without mandatory talk but preferably with edit summary). In the cases this does not lead to agreement, the next step would be to start discussion, by the editor originally proposing the change of the standing(=previous consensus) article version. (In my experience there is one problem with this, that either reverting or adding editor feels personally offended by the other's approach. But I don't think any change would help that.)
The Bold-revert-discuss cycles creates a little bit more work for those edits that are finally restored, but it saves a lot of work for all other cases. Therefore I would not be in favour of adding early talk obligations, not even to special cases, as this would make rules more complex and editors more likely to make mistakes in identifying which edits would require talk before reverting and which can be reverted without. Leaving vandalism up maybe one of the results. Arnoutf (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

watch list for contributions

If we could watch not just whole topics but specific contributions, I could have found the vandalism to my talk-page posts months ago. (Talk posts may be answered but the posts themselves shouldn't be edited by other than original posters.) I restored my original posts and the IP for the vandal shows up anywhere on Wikipedia only for one day, and the other vandalism was taken out by someone else. But it's still a problem in general and this can help.

Technically, the hook can include the page-comparison diff method.

The downside is whether someone who does bad content and scrams will thus learn of a change they otherwise wouldn't have cared enough about to visit to see, and will make more bad work.

If most people are good about these things, then the downside will be far outweighed by the upside, because careful writers will respond to bad changes and leave good additional contributions intact.

Only links should be provided and not full article texts, so users will visit pages, and watch pages will be shorter.

Thank you.

Nick Levinson (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean that you want to be able to watch article sections or talk page sections, rather than whole articles? mw:LiquidThreads might change how we watch talk pages. Fences&Windows 23:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

At present there is no way to watch specific sections of a page (see WP:Perennial proposals; you're far from the first one to think of it). —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 23:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

email for watch list & money

Why not offer email for watched topics for a fee or for advertising exposure?

For free, people can log in at will.

You can use the revenue.

Email provides a convenience.

Advertising may influence editorial content, but Google and Yahoo have shown the viability of independence of editorial from commercial, and Wikipedia can do likewise. And Wikipedia itself can still be ad-free.

I speak as one who might not qualify to pay for it if you require payment to be online. It's still a good idea.

Thanks.

Nick Levinson (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean, a watchlist update delivered by email, say daily? I can't see why anyone would pay for it if it was developed. How does this involve advertising? Within the email alert? Fences&Windows 23:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No. This would be, inevitably, a Foundation issue, not a Wikipedia one. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 23:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

We already offer the ability to syndicate an RSS feed of your watchlist, which is much more flexible - see Wikipedia:Syndication. Even if we didn't offer this, it's unlikely that we could make money off an email feed, and just as unlikely that we would attempt to do so. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the few times I will speak in absolutes is now. This idea is logistically not doable - period. Because content at WP is under various licenses like the CC-BY-SA/GFDL there would be nothing to legally prevent any person from (a) redistributing a watchlist under the same license, (b) creating their own watchlist by means of a simple (slow) bot or screen scraper. There is no content at WP that can be directly monetized because the content is freely available under these licenses. Low Sea (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

A serious question about alternative media types as verifiable and reliable sources.

Please see this discussion. Low Sea (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's "NPOV" != NPOV

Here I am - and after a long relationship with this site, I've finally had enough of Wikipedia and its archaic, insanely immature collection of vindictive and non-scholarly crowd-following "editors" who do anything and everything to turn this potential wealth of genuinely useful information into nothing more than a trough of complete bollocks. No more can I deal with various editors (see 9/11 discussion for example) who seem set on arse-licking their own Government ("No sources? Oh that's right! It's fine! It's the American Authorities! Of course they won't lie to the public! Shurely?!") and being straight-out rude to those, any offence largely unintentional, who are far more schooled in particular areas of study than the trigger-happy 12-year-old editors who seem to be putting this website to shame these days.

I've had enough.

Goodbye. 80.229.192.163 (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, the old "I'm smarter than you, but I can't prove it, so bye bye because I'm better than you" argument. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe I remember an episode where Perry Mason won a case with that argument...Camelbinky (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course judges and juries are too smart to be fooled by antics like that these days. Now much cleverer techniques have been developed, like the Chewbacca defense. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone using the phrase "arse-licking their own Government" after having just admonished everyone else for their immaturity makes me giggle. EVula // talk // ☯ // 12:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

And nothing of value was lost. Boy, the world sure seems to have a short fuse when you annoy the piss out of everyone with your attitude. --King Öomie 15:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

well, I personally think it's sad. for an "encyclopedia anyone can edit", we sure do manage to drive off a whole lot of anyones. but c'est la vie... --Ludwigs2 23:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There are certainly cases where we drive off potentially valuable contributors, and I'm chagrined by those as well. On the other hand, it's the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but whether people will enjoy and want to continue editing when they realize the demands imposed by a collaborative, anti-authoritarian, (excessively) egalitarian environment is a different question. Reading between the lines of the original post, I'm inferring that the author desired a more positive presentation of certain minoritarian views of the 9/11 attacks. That advocates of such viewpoints find Wikipedia uncongenial is not necessarily a failing of this website, but more a function of its aspiration to be a serious, respectable reference work. MastCell ^Talk 23:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

yeah, I agree. I'm just hankering after a perfect world (as usual...). --Ludwigs2 00:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think those anyones don't want to keep up with the debate. They really just want their 2 cents out there, not that it is substantiated or anything. While I must agree that the us gov't would lie, I do feel the conspiricists are more manipulated than ordinary folk with common sense. I watched 'Loose Change' and it uses media commentators as experts. I enjoyed the movie though ... Alaney2k (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people would be happier at Everything2 or Knol, but they don't realize it, and think that because they CAN put stuff into WP, it's unfair that others 'take away their hard word on a power trip' (or whatever), when they are the ones who are ignoring longstanding policy and guidelines. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What's needed is for everyone to have a "Me-pedia" where they can tailor the articles to exactly fit their standard of NPOV. Oh, wait, we already have that... it's called The Blog. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I've no desire for "2 cents out there" or anything of the sort; I've no gain from voicing an opinion on what is quite obviously an issue that has many - not just myself - no wishing to contribute to a site that for all intents and purposes acts as no more than a sounding board for the "anyones" who gleefully mis-edit and bastardise the sound, considered results of many a scholar. As an encyclopedia I'd have at least have expected less of the trigger-happy shooting down of so-called misinformation, otherwise perfectly sound within Wikipedia's source referencing guidelines.

It's double-standards. Is my point concise & clear enough for it to be understood?

80.229.192.163 (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I won't deny that wikipedia has an unfortunate amount of 'turf' mentality, and that wandering into some topic neighborhoods is a risky/painful endeavor. However, I think the encyclopedia overall does a pretty decent job, and there's always hope for the problem areas. If what you said above is true, then I think you ought to gird your loins, get yourself a registered username, and start (slowly and gracefully) trying to turn the bad things you're seeing into good things. Wikipedia is just like any other neighborhood: the more people who turn their backs, the easier it is for the thugs.

just for fun: I was talking to my mother about some online thing, and she (slip-o-the-tongue, I think) ended up calling it the 'internut'. That seems to fit wikipedia to a T - maybe we should adopt the word formally? --Ludwigs2 03:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There will be fringe theories, and no matter how many ordinary folk believe in them they wont be true. For example- the majority of Americans can believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11 or that President Obama is a practicing Muslim. Both are FALSE. In an encyclopedia (which is what Wikipedia IS, it is NOT a community; ONLY an encyclopedia) it doesnt matter what the majority "believes" it is what is TRUE scientifically. This isnt the place where NPOV means "everyone gets an equal say and voices their opinions"; this is where science and fact reign. We need to keep the internut ideas to blogs where they belong (or to the voices in their heads, I took a poll and 10 of the 14 voices in my head agree...).Camelbinky (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Since when is "scientifically true" the yardstick we use? I thought the mantra was "verifiability, not truth"?!? — Kralizec! (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yea, agreed. I think that this is what creates the problem I mentioned balow. There are certain editors who a zealously looking for a means to improve the encyclopedia, which is great as long as the emotional aspect is kept in check. More on point though, there are some editors who occasionally seem to be attempting to prove something about their knowledge by trying to rebut fringe (or occasionally mainstream!) theories. It's important to always keep in mind that we should be parroting what others say here, avoiding speaking with our own voice as much as possible.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 15:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. This thread encapsulates the usual lament of fringe POV-pushers who try and fail to inject their own version of The Truth^TM into Wikipedia. Flat Earthers, Creationists, homeopaths, 9/11 Truthers, Birthers, AIDS denialists, global warming deniers, UFO believers, paranormal enthusiasts, ultranationalists, and moon landing conspiracy theorists don't like not being able to present their beliefs as accepted fact, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia is doing anything wrong. Fences&Windows 15:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The only thing is that it's important not to censor out the existence and description of fringe theories from Wikipedia. I've see many an overzealous editor seek to completely excise any mention of many Fringe theories, which is actually worse in some ways then letting proponents add unfiltered content to Wikipedia.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 14:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Where a fringe theory is notable it should be described and the evidence for and against should be presented. Who supports the fringe theory should also be noted. Of course, the theory should not be presented as fact. Yaris678 (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

QR Codes as illustrations (2D barcodes)

I noticed a QR Code, a type of 2-dimensional barcode, used to illustrate the article Midi Onodera, and wondered if it made sense. QR Codes are widespread in Japan, and probably other places, as a way to present information, such as web addresses, to camera phones. For instance, a store or park can put up a sign with a QR Code, and customers or visitors can snap the image to visit the website from their phones. Many online encoders and decoders are available, such as zxing encoder and zxing decoder.

The article Midi Onodera is about a Canadian artist. As her portrait in an Infobox template, an editor added the QR Code for her website address, an image uploaded to Commons.

I searched Commons for other QR Codes. My search may not have caught them all, and I left out articles about barcode technology itself. (Search terms: "QR Code", "QRCode" and "Qr-code".) I found only one other Wikipedia article using a QR Code image:

• Assaí, Portuguese Wikipedia. The QR Code is below the Infobox in this case.

So, some questions:

1. Do the QR Codes add useful information to articles? My answer would be "no", since the web address can already go in the Infobox. Generally I think Wikipedia should include more information rather than less, but I do not see how QR Codes are useful on a web page, which already has clickable links. Perhaps every Wikipedia page should have QR codes in its "printable version", but that is a larger issue.

2.But what if the artist created the barcode as a self-portrait? Then the article should state that, and the image would be a great addition if licensed free.

3. If the QR Code is OK, does it belong as the portrait in the Infobox template? My answer would be, "it depends."

4. Is QR Code a free format? I get bored reading legalese, but here are previous discussions I found:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_18#Barcode_images
• http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29/Archive_55#A_proposal_for_the_use_of_2D_barcodes_in_museum

--Colfer2 (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I would generally agree with you that we shouldn't put QR codes in articles right now. It is an interesting feature, but though. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding disambig pages

Do we have a policy regarding tagging disambiguation pages with projects other than the disambiguation project? If so, where can I find it? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation will know. Fences&Windows 21:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(Examples are always preferred, for clarity in questions).

Talkpage wikiproject banners? Add anything especially relevant. Eg Eid could hypothetically have a WP:WikiProject Arab world banner added to its talkpage, I think.

However, mass-additions should probably be discussed somewhere first, if you think they may prove divisive. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling this is related to a content dispute that Purplebackpack was involved in, which I skimmed over earlier on ANI. Killiondude (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Purplebackpack is upset because the dab page Lincoln is tagged as part of the the Lincolnshire WikiProject, which he perceives as encouraging bias in the ongoing discussion at Talk:Lincoln about whether the title should redirect to Abraham Lincoln. Propaniac (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• WikiProjects are generally free to set their scope as they wish. –xeno^talk 20:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, marked as guideline, accepts as a regular procedure (even if not all projects do it) to include the "disambig" type MBelgrano (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Each project can decide whether they want to tag disambiguation pages. Some do, some don't. There is no policy issue about it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the question wasn't if it was mandatory, but if it was allowed (see the related discussion for bigger context). The answer was yes, it is allowed, projects that want to do so can do without problem. Other projects may decide not to do so, that's up to them (they can even decide to skip the article tagging completely, if desired) MBelgrano (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Signpost Policy Report

{{rfctag|policy}} Naming conventions, Verifiability, Neutral point of view, No original research, What Wikipedia is not: click on any of these links to give us your take on one or more content policy pages, and a summary of the comments will appear in one of the upcoming Policy Reports in the Signpost. If it helps, monthly changes to these pages are available at WP:Update/1/Content policy changes, July 2009 to December 2009. All responses are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Also Attack page. - Dank (push to talk) 00:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Who is coming up with category names?

Ok, I have a big beef with whoever came up with the category names of "Settlements on Hudson River" and "Settlements in X County" (in regards to New York counties). Cities, towns, villages, hamlets, and CDP's are all being thrown into these broad categories. First off towns in NY are large and have many "settlements" (in NY we call them hamlets) and towns cant really be called a "settlement" themselves. CDP's arent "settlements" either, and also may encompass two or more hamlets (in one case I know of a CDP that has three hamlets mentioned in the name of the CDP itself). The only thing in NY that can truly be called a "settlement" is a hamlet. If further breakdown is needed instead of cities, towns, and villages being in the "X County" category itself then I suggest using "Cities in X County" and "Towns in X County" and "Villages in X County" etc etc so the same types are with each other, with doing the same thing breaking up the "Settlements on the Hudson River" category. The term "settlements" implies that these places are something they clearly not and shouldnt be a word used for modern-day incorporated places. Not all geographic/political places are the same and a categorization scheme that may work in other parts of the US or world may not work in NY or other states (like in New England, Michigan, or Wisconsin where towns cant be called "settlements" and are different than "civil townships" of other states). I really wish there'd be more leeway in allowing Wikiprojects to cover their own turf and allow them to come up with things themselves instead of "conforming" to some larger group-think about how things should be organized.Camelbinky (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Consistency is ...

After poking around a little, our usage of "settlement" seems to come from Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) and the primary human-habitation infobox {{Infobox settlement}}. You'd best bring it up in one of those places first, if you want to change things.

Consistency is not necessarily equal to group-think. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In the discipline of geography as in WP (Human settlement), 'settlement' is the collective term applied to any place where people live, from hamlet to major city or larger. Hmains (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well thats nice about the discipline of geography, however in NY we dont use it in that manner and I'd appreciate it if people didnt mess with categories they have no intention of working on the articles themselve. The most relevant Wikiproject to a topic should have primary responsibility for wording so that it is correct to that topic. For the articles I am worried about and the categories I have mentioned that would be the Wikiproject NY and daughter wikiprojects such as wikiprojects capital district, syracuse, hudson valley, and new york city. Using a word like settlements gives the wrong impression; NO ONE is going to call the city of New York a SETTLEMENT; it isnt correct and you'd get laughed at, and I took quite a bit of urban planning courses in college (at least 7 including the courses I had to take to become CADD certified) and I dont remember once hearing that a settlement is anything from a hamlet to a major city. In the anthropology courses I took settlements referred to rural fringe hamlets on a frontier.Camelbinky (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

New york is a fairly classic river estuary settlement. Certianly run across london being described as a settlement and it would be rather odd for a single city on the planet to somehow have something special about it to escape that designation.©Geni 21:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

the difficulty is that each state in the US uses the terms differently, and each country in the world has its own terminology. a reader or editor here may know intuitively the one for his own area, but is not likely to know everywhere else. If they are to find things in categories, the terminology needs to be universal. There have been a good number of long lame disputes about whether to call some place a town or village or whatever, and the fewer reasons we have for them the better. We're just a general encyclopedia, not the Board of Geographical Names. We want to be a good ready-reference, but not are not aiming at being a definitive authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Agreed, settlement seems to cover all cases around the world. WE can't define classes of things using the terms used in one region of one country. The definition of a city in the USA, UK and Spain (to take just three examples) is quite different, likewise for town, village, township, parish, townland, municipality, metropolis, conurbation, hamlet, community, commune, pueblo, etc. And definitions vary in different parts of all of those countries. We are dealing with over two hundred countries/nations/states on Wikipedia, all them have settlements.Jezhotwells (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, though, that real people (as opposed to WP editors) don't recognize "settlement" as referring to towns and cities. I remember the days when I was a real person using WP, and having difficulty finding a category of cities in some country because it was hidden away under "Settlements in ...". I would suggest changing the "Settlements..." categories to "Towns and villages...". It might not be 100% accurate (some settlements are not even villages), but it would be much more helpful to the ordinary reader.--Kotniski (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In all honesty, I'm not sure what the problem is here, but I have a guess. Maybe those opposed to the term settlement are interpreting the word in some way they don't make explicit. To me settlement is a fairly generic term that would cover all of these cities, towns, and other sorts of communities. Do Kotniski's "real people", for example, use a more specific definition of settlement that would make the categorization misleading in some way? Ntsimp (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I missed Camelbinky's earlier "rural fringe hamlets on a frontier." OK, so I guessed right, but it was made explicit. Looks like it was recognized a long time ago that Wikipedia needs some unifying term, and settlement was chosen. I'm fine with it, but anyone is welcome to propose a different word. But I think it has to be the same consistent term throughout the project. Ntsimp (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a lot of hulaballoo over semantics. "Settlement" was chosen as a neutral term used to encompass disparate entities such as town, city, hamlet, village, and so on. An alternative could be "Populated Place" but settlement works just as well. It is unfortunate that some folks working on articles in New York may feel this is not an elegant solution for their situation, but consistency across categories of this nature are pretty important if they are to remain useful tools to the reader and the editor. Shereth 19:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

They're not useful if they describe perfectly everyday things with a quite un-everyday name. People just don't read "Settlements in England" and expect to find London and Manchester there. At least, they don't if they're like me. What do you think of my "Towns and villages in..." idea?--Kotniski (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

For my part, I would expect to find London and Manchester under Settlements in England but not under Towns and villages in England. London and Manchester are cities (and thus settlements) and not towns or villages. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Echoing the previous statement for the most part. That settlement = small is a point of view that is held by some, and I suppose to an extent any word we choose will have different connotations for different people. The way I see it is that settlement = place where people have settled, and thus city, town, village and hamlet are all a subset of "settlement". Each type of settlement therein has a different definition depending on jurisdiction and thus cannot be applied universally; to my knowledge, "settlement" is not used as a legal definition for a populated place and safer to apply in a universal fashion. Shereth 20:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I still don't believe that ordinary readers (and it will be quite ordinary people - not specialists - who are looking for these articles) understand the word "settlement" in the way you want them to. I can't prove it, but I suspect that those who come here saying they have such an understanding have it only because of the strong influence of their Wikipedia experience. (Oh, and America is also a place where people have settled.)--Kotniski (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, our own article on City states "A city is a relatively large and permanent settlement ..."; Town, Village and Hamlet all use similar language describing each as a settlement. Hence, I believe the term "settlement" was rightly chosen as the simplest and most objective term for the purposes of categorizing. Shereth 21:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think either viewpoint here is compelling. I'm not exactly sure why, but "Settlement" does seem... odd. "Populated place" seems, to me, to be much more representative. I wouldn't bother taking the time to change either to the other though, outside of remaining consistent.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 05:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, America and the Earth are populated places. Why not simply "Towns and villages...", which all readers will immediately get? (In fact, in many cases it probably isn't necessary to have such a category at all; we could go directly to a "Towns..." category and a "Villages..." category (and "Cities..." if applicable), without forcing readers through an extra level of navigation.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Because "town" and "village" are particular classes of municipality in many states in the U.S. and so would be ambiguous if used as generic terms. postdlf (talk) 08:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI: the United States Board of Geographic Names uses "Populated Place". I'm almost positive that "everyone else" follows suit, but I honestly can't remember who "everyone else" is off the top of my head (I used to know, dammit... frustrating).
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 13:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The USGS in general uses the term, as well, which was why I suggested it as a possible alternative. Personally I find it a little inelegant compared to "settlement" but if that term is causing so much consternation, I would be ok with that as an alternative. Shereth 14:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

AFAIC "populated places" has all the same disadvantages as "settlements" (ordinary readers won't realize that it means something very familiar). If we can't say something like "Towns and villages" because of the trans-Atlantic divide, then it looks like we're stuck with settlements, but I'd like to see some of these categories eliminated from the hierarchy as I suggested above.--Kotniski (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What do other gazetteers use? The USGS usage seems to dominate in US sources, but elsewhere there may be more variety.LeadSongDog come howl 15:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any merit in eliminating settlement categories as parents for all classes of settlements, if that's what is meant by "some of these categories [being] eliminated from the hierarchy." In the U.S., each state has municipalities (which are often divided into two or more classes, such as "cities" or "villages", which often reflect substantive differences in local government), incorporated communities, census-designated places, neighborhoods...and there are categories for former settlements, categories for fictional settlements, categories for the histories of settlements... All of this needs to be grouped together based on the shared underlying topic. I don't think that's reasonably debatable. So it's just a question of what the best generic term is to use. I used to support "community," but that was deprecated because many thought it was ambiguous as to whether it meant a geographic, brick and mortar community (i.e., a settlement) or a cultural community (i.e., Twilight fandom). postdlf (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, some states have "settlements by county" categories. Some have "by county" categories for each type of settlement, such as cities, CDPs, etc. Some have no county subdivisions, in which case the settlement articles, regardless of type, are just placed directly in the county categories (this is the system set up when categories were first introduced). The category system works best when it presents multiple levels of navigation and grouping, rather than intersecting facts more and more into narrower and narrower categories. So I believe the best system would be to keep the type of settlement categorized only at the state level, and then settlements broadly categorized at the county level (or maybe municipalities and unincorporated communities by county, but no more finely drawn than that). So that way readers could browse either by type or by county, rather than forcing them to browse by type and county at the same time. This is a good principle generally in categorization; preserving different levels of generality rather than merging all into the very specific. This results in articles being directly linked to more articles by a variety of shared characteristics rather than only to those articles that share multiple characteristics. postdlf (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• I would rather see "Populated place" because to me a "settlement" means a place where people live that is surrounded by uninhabited land. For example, I really don't see Oak Park, Illinois as a settlement, since it abuts other populated places on all sides, and its street grid is a continuation of its neighbors. Abductive (reasoning) 20:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what it means to any individual editor. Given that all Wikipedia content should follow reliable secondary sources, "settlement", as defined in Human settlement and used in city, town, village and hamlet (place), is the correct term to use. It should be preferred over "populated place", which has a specific legal meaning in the US only. Any categories that editors feel are ambiguous can have a note added to explain (e.g. "The definition of settlement includes all cities, towns, villages and hamlets" in Category:Settlements on the Hudson River). OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

humm... first, I'm not aware of any actual "legal meaning" to the term "populated place". Would you care to elaborate on that? Second, I'm almost positive that there are European and Canadian sources that also use the term "populated place". As a matter of fact, I'm fairly certain that the term originated in Canada.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 13:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I read USGS as having some kind of legal standing: Populated place. I don't really know how this American "incorporated town" thing works. In the rest of the world people just live places. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 21:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You might be interested in Municipal corporation. As far as the USGS and the term "populated place" is concerned, it is one of the Feature Classes used in the GNIS and is a defined term, but it's merely a definition and does not have any legal standing [3]. Shereth 22:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The American (although not the British) term would be municipalities. Note that several states recognize "unincorporated municipalities" and I believe NY is one of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

But ALL of these things are also settlements, which is why the categories, articles and lists all use the term. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 21:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that. I suspect that the original choice of "settlement" over "populated place" is idiosyncratic to En.Wikipedia. Perhaps one could argue that it is better to use fewer syllables. I really don't care, but I would back a change if enough people felt it was important. Abductive (reasoning) 22:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

For the most part "municipality" is confined to incorporated places, and requires a local governing body; not every settlement in the US is a municipality. Shereth 22:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Password recovery from blocked IP

Apologies if this is a silly newbie question that's been dealt with before. I searched and couldn't find anything relevant.

Having a mental blank this morning, I couldn't remember my wikipedia password, so I clicked on the friendly "E-mail new password" button on the login screen. Imagine my surprise to be presented with an error message: "Your IP address is blocked from editing, and so is not allowed to use the password recovery function to prevent abuse." I already knew that this IP address was blocked (it's on a university campus, shared by many people); I registered an account for the very purpose of being able to use wikipedia from my work computer. I thought the purpose of blocking an IP address was to bar those people who don't wish to sign in to an account, not those who do.

Surely there is some good reason for this policy (besides teaching us the meaning of irony). Can someone enlighten me? (And if there is a clear and concise reason, it would be a fine idea to display it as part of the error message.) Jowa fan (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps they think that other (bad) people use your computer, then they might also gain access to your e-mail account and steal your password? Doesn't seem very likely to me, I admit.--Kotniski (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If it were not prevented, anyone at that IP (i.e. the entire campus) would be able to request your password and steal your account. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Only if they hacked his e-mail account.--Kotniski (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The email new password function sends an email to whatever username you put in the box. This can hence be used to spam users that you don't like. For that reason blocked accounts are not allowed to use the email password function (since historically it has been used to throw emails at the people who blocked them, etc.) Dragons flight (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh right, I see. But is this a big enough problem to outweigh the problem described here? (Presumably the number of password requests for an account could be limited to a reasonable number per time period, to keep the potential spam burden insignificant.) Well, I guess this would be better discussed at WP:VPT or bugzilla, if anyone wants to press it.--Kotniski (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, this does make sense. But with modern email software, it shouldn't be a huge problem: most email readers can now set up filters, so unwanted password recovery emails can be automatically deleted. Jowa fan (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Jowa, I put in your username and clicked the button, so you should be getting a new password emailed to you. Problem solved. Dragons flight (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Very thoughtful. But my mental blank was only temporary, as you can tell from the fact that I managed to log in and post here ;-) Jowa fan (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting problem. I guess having some requests throttled rather than locked might solve the problem an I wonder if there is some use in having the facility to throttle different types of requests for users or IPs. It is impressive how inventive vandals can be. Dmcq (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps requiring you to input your email address and username in order to get a password-reminder (vandals presumably wouldn't know your address)... ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 22:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

New notability guideline proposed for software

See: Wikipedia talk:Essay on the notability of software#RfC: Should this notability essay be promoted to the status of a guideline. Pcap ping 20:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing Articles by Forwarding

Are changes like this one generally made without a vote? What I mean is, is a vote only required for such a change when someone thinks it's necessary? If a vote is required, why does the software allow such changes without alarm bells going off? If there was a vote, how can I figure out where the 'vote log' is? --82.171.70.54 (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That redirect was as a result of this WP:Articles for deletion/Ad van den Berg, an AfD debate in May 2007. i found this out by looking at the Revision history of Ad van den Berg. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes; article merges do not require a vote if they are uncontroversial. But (1) the link you posted is from 2007 and (2) it was the result of an AFD discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If an article is not nominated at Articles For Deletion, then in almost all cases I would strongly suggest that merging one article into another article, and changing the first article into a redirect to the second article, be discussed first on the talk page of the first article. The redirect does have the effect of deleting an article, and so it should generally only be done after such a discussion takes place. Most of the time you'd want to wait at least a week before doing the merge. The {{Mergeto}} and {{Mergefrom}} templates should be placed on the two articles to alert editors to the discussion. If the merge is super-non-controversial then I guess this could be skipped. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 17:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that sort of beurocracy is not, and should not be, required. If there is any foreseeable controversy about performing a merger then a discussion should be started, but you don't need permission to perform a merger.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 18:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a bureaucracy, it's a procedure that, in my opinion, should be used in most cases of merging articles that don't have an AFD nomination. The idea is that, in general, editors should not unilaterally delete articles. Instead they should open a talk page discussion and try to create a consensus that the article should be deleted, i.e. merged into another article and changed to a redirect. If a reasonable person would not object to the merge, then by all means just do the merge. Otherwise there should be some kind of discussion before an article is deleted. I'm not sure, but maybe we are already in agreement about this -- you said, "If there is any foreseeable controversy about performing a merger then a discussion should be started, but you don't need permission to perform a merger." I'm saying the same thing, I think. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 19:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The advantage of a wiki is that any change can easily be undone,so there's no need to forbid edits that turn articles into redirects without discussion. In many instances this may be exactly what should be done. Following the Be bold editing guideline, there's no need to stand on formality. Just go ahead and do what seems right unless there is a clear sign that it might be a controversial action.

The example given is a good one. All usable content from an article about a person whose sole claim to fame is as treasurer of a minor political party was merged with the article about the party and the original article was changed to a redirect. Note also that in this case the merger had been mandated after a deletion discussion, but this is not always the case, nor is it a precondition for a merge or redirect. In some cases, where two articles are duplicates in content, a redirect without merging is appropriate. --TS 19:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. We need to be really careful to prevent the development of bureaucratic cruft around around merging. Just grow a pair and do the merge, for crying out loud. If you see one that you disagree with, go ahead and revert it and start a discussion. If you're reverted, then discuss the issue. Otherwise, just let them happen. There's already enough of a problem with mergers without intentionally making the problem worse.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 21:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the idea of not adding unnecessary rules and procedures. Being bold is often a good approach. But, "growing a pair" has nothing to do with it. Articles should not be merged into other articles without discussion, except when doing so is truly non-controversial, in which case it's fine. So, once again it's a case of using common sense. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we basically agree, and continuing this thread would be like arguing over whether the glass is half full or half empty. --TS 22:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right. And, just to show you that my heart's in the right place, here's an example, where I merged one article into another, without any prior discussion. Cheers, all. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

My only real concern here was... er, "editorial" (in the sense of newspaper editorial opinion, if that makes sense). The Village pump is basically it for what little community there is here on Wikipedia, so things said here tend to be... magnified? If the commentary here appears supportive of a stance that merges are "not allowed" without jumping through hoops, then there are people who will take that and run with it. It's not that we ever really disagreed, it's just a question of... rhetoric, I guess. Does this make sense at all? I'm having trouble expressing this appropriately, it seems.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 23:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It does make sense. Thanks for the discussion, I appreciate it. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

PROD

I propose that the time a "prod" tag must remain uncontested before the article gets deleted be cut down to three days. Three days should be enough time for the proponents of the article to voice their opinions -- not that it takes much to voice an opinion in the first place, as all one has to do is to remove the tag. Rasputin72 (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

WT:PROD would be the relevant place to bring this up (not that it's irrelevant here). --Cybercobra (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Not everyone checks Wikipedia every day. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Foolish people, they are. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Which is the need for shortening the time period? If an article needs to be deleted inmediately, there is speedy deletion for clear cases MBelgrano (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Not everyone checks wiki daily; seven days is fine. -- Avi (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Seven days for PROD is perfectly reasonable, anything that needs to go sooner than that we have CSD. -SpacemanSpiff 18:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia policy neutral? Are the administrators neutral?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Is_ Wikipedia policy neutral? Are the administrators neutral?

---

[...]

This discussion should be moved elsewhere (WP:ANI, I guess), since it does not seem to be about policy in general but rather about a specific incident of policy enforcement. Rd232 ^talk 19:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bureaucrat rights - adding desysop

Per the discussion at WT:RFA#Unchecking the box, an RfC has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bureaucrat Unchecking. Your collective input is desired. -- Avi (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've refactored this header to make it more clear what this RfC is about. Nathan ^T 15:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

PROD proposal

Hi; I've made a proposal about the workings of ProposedDeletion on the policy talkpage here – eyes requested! ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 08:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has turned into a soapbox of lawyer-wannabies

you can't post anything - even for articles of tiny attention - without being attacked by lawyer-wannabies. this is ridiculous, unproductive, destructive. bye. --Leladax (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what is a lawyer-wannabe? Someone who wants to be a lawyer? ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 15:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think with comments such as [4] and [5], the OP has earned warnings for unproductive behavior. Grsz¹¹ 15:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, he makes a point...

For TreasuryTag (assuming that you're not just making a snide comment), here's possibly a more "Wikipedia like" translation: There's too much process wonkery here.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 16:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

On this occasion it wasn't actually snide, no ;) Given that the editor has gone round demanding stuff, it doesn't sound like he has much of a leg to stand on, however. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 16:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right about Leladax. Chillum is saying essentially the same thing, below. Like I said above though, regardless of his/her behavior and any problems there, I think that the point being brought up here is perfectly valid. There's too much process wonkery here. But anyway, many Wikipedians typically do conflate the actual point with the user (which is a whole other complaint/discussion), so it's not really a point worth perusing further here. I just wanted to reply to a direct response to my earlier comment, is all.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 18:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't see it. I have managed to edit here since 2006 without issue or running into lawyers. I suppose if I went around making demands I might be told I have no standing to make demands, but that is not really the same thing. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Chillum, by and on behalf of the below signed, you are hereby on notice of your lack of standing. Further attempts to stand may and will be construed as grounds for litigation, on causes of action including but not limited to trespass to chattels, false light, false imprisonment, enterprise liability, and alienation of affection. Res ipsa loquitur, postdlf, Esq. 17:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, Wikipedia:No legal threats ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Treasury Tag, here is a perfect illustration in answer to your question. Postdlf's comment is an example of what a comment by lawyer would look like. Kim's comment is an example of what a comment by a lawyer-wannabe would look like. :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we're all lawyers now. — Loadmaster (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Low blow, Low blow! :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't resist. So sue me... --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

:-D . "Can we keep hir, ma?" --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The basic premise is valid no matter how people word it wrongly. There is too much emphasis by certain individuals on policies as laws and enforced and interpretated as if they are laws and discussions are courtcases. If we treat policies as they are supposed to be (as our best known way of doing things generally as we know it right now) and not as set standards set in stone then wiki-lawyering and such would fall by the wayside. We need to make sure we slap down those individuals and make it abundantly clear that we dont have laws or "rules" and that whatever consensus determines at any given point is what is done, policies describe what we've done, not prescribe what must be done in the future.Camelbinky (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you to a point. I've often seen rote quotation of a policy (or worse, just an WP:ACRONYM) presented as an argument when the situation really calls for a reasoned application of that policy. We should keep/delete Content A because Policy B says Characteristic C is not permitted. What may be missing is an explanation of why we think A is C. It's also often a good idea to remind one another of the supposed benefit underlying the policy or guideline, which often helps us decide whether and how to apply it. On the other hand, one of the benefits of policies and guidelines are so we don't have to keep having the same discussions over and over. A lot of time and labor would be wasted if every quality-control issue were perpetually up for discussion as if no one had dealt with it before. postdlf (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is perpetually up for discussion. However, linking to a page implies "just pretend I said this", the other person can then reply with a link back, implying "just pretend I said that". "99%" (made up number) of the time, that might be sufficient. On the other tentacle, that means that "1%" of the time, it isn't, and you actually still need to do more. Looking at the number of edits the young 'uns need to do to even just make admin these days; that 1% means a LOT of times where you need to do something more ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC) These values are an estimate; Actual numbers may vary; offer void in states where offers are voided.

Incidentally: Some things policy can't do. For everything else there's master WP:WOTTAcard. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's also often a good idea to remind one another of the supposed benefit underlying the policy or guideline, which often helps us decide whether and how to apply it — my words exactly. Wikipedia does a very poor job in telling why a given policy is what it is. What is the benefit, and how why did we write this policy up in the first place? Such information is currently very difficult, if not impossible to find. For each policy page, we need an essay describing the process how that policy was developed, which bad things it is supposed to prevent and what the policy's original purpose is. Offliner (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, it seems like layers of "bureaucruft" seem to somehow accrue on stuff, never to be removed. This is actually a serious threat for an online community like ours. I would be very interested in figuring out solutions on how to reverse this process. --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I doesn't add anything the discussion, but just this week my wife accidentally coined the term "bureaucrap", which many times seems apropos. — Loadmaster (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

One way to rectify that problems is to say "we will not have anything as a policy or guideline that does not directly relate to creating an encyclopedia". We are first and foremost and ONLY an encyclopedia, not a community or social experiment and we are not here to find new ways of social control. We are individuals who want to work on an online encyclopedia, any other reason for being here is irrelevant and those here for any other reason are no different than vandals.Camelbinky (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an existing policy or guideline in mind that you don't consider related to creating an encyclopedia? postdlf (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much any of the ettiquette ones, like "dont write in bold on a talk page its yelling!" Though the wording is less harsh now than it used to be before I had to throw a fit about it and got it changed. What does telling people not to write in bold on a talk page have to do with editing an article? I'm sure there's other unneeded, petty, or useless things out there too. I'm sure some wikilawyering can show how it is tangentially related to editing... but I dont believe any of the social control ideas that have come through Wikipedia help actual editing. In fact we shouldnt even be HERE right now we should just have articles that you can edit and that is it, we waste too much time on talking about these social aspect things instead of spending time researching and adding information to articles.Camelbinky (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Then why ARE you 'here'? Go edit articles in peace, noone's stopping you. As for everyone else, well considering it's a completely volunteer project, we all can do what we want. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, I was answering Postdlf's question, and your response was very uncivil and uncalled for. What is your problem? Im not allowed my opinion and to voice it? Since this is your first post on this thread I see no reason why you would even be commenting now and only in response to my last comment unless there was a ulterior motive personally directed towards me. I hope your next response is that of an apology, otherwise we can take this to the wikiquette noticeboard. I believe policy states quite clearly that you respond about comments, not the commenter. And no your not allowed to do "what you want", you cant make Wikipedia a social networking site like Facebook for example. So your very comment is devoid of what Wikipedia is about, which it is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, nothing more, nothing less.Camelbinky (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Translated, your sentence says "IF apology, GOTO end; ELSE, GOTO Wikiquette-violation noticeboard."

In a thread about wikilawyering!

Unless someone has a unique solution to fixing the argumentative aspects of human nature, I propose we just end this thread now. Confucius say, "All people are the same, only their habits differ."^{[citation required]}

First person who responds to this thread, thereby further preventing it from getting archived, loses. Everyone who remains wisely silent, wins! -- Quiddity (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess I lose, then. Just wanted to point out that GOTO should never, ever be used. Also, Camelbinky, weren't you just arguing that we should get rid of the civility policies, and then you go and threaten someone with WQA? Seems a tad hypocritical. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What's hypocritical is that users who go around spouting that civility must exist and take up all their time with these inane topics are the ones that are the most uncivil when you disagree with them or want to get rid of things. My complaint was valid about what she said. Just because I dont care for the civility policies doesnt mean I'm not going to take advantage of the fact that they exist. It isnt being hypocritical, its applying neorealism to Wikipedia; I act within the constraints and benefits provided by the anarchic system that exists as long as it is in my best interest whether I agree with the way the system is or not. Still waiting on that apology. Dont see why a couple words saying "I may have been too harsh" is so hard and why others find that their two cents is needed regarding what was said to me... I thought this thread was a good one until I was personally attacked.Camelbinky (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt you're going to get an apology. I see nothing in that statement that qualifies as a personal attack. is it the "why are you here" part? the "nobody's stopping you from just editing articles" part? the "we're volunteers" part? I'm just not seeing it. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Reading all this, I have to point out some sociological facts of life.

• Wherever you get more than two people interacting, they are going to form a community. In particular, when you put people together to try to achieve a common goal (such as building an encyclopedia), they will naturally begin cooperating, competing, organizing and dividing labor, and creating likes, dislikes and established patterns of interaction that are what communities are. Saying that wikipedia is not a community is a bit like claiming that the earth and the moon just happen to stay close to each other and gravity has nothing to do with it.
• A community without some solid norms of civil interaction will always - always! - create them. The problem is, most new communities begin in Lord of the Flies mode. This is particularly true for wikipedia (since normal social conventions don't translate well into cyber interactions) means several things:
  • Groups organize around collective POVs (wikipedia's equivalent of rotting boar's heads, down the same kind of fearful, mystical devotion)
  • Groups create and defend their own internal norms, and try to force them on other groups, often violently and unreasoningly (I can think of at least four different groups on wikipedia that have developed their own peculiar interpretations of policy and refuse to listen to any other, and there's at least two different interpretations defended above)
  • Outcasts and those not affiliated with groups are actively hunted with a particular viciousness (non-affiiated people threaten the group identity much more than opponents - that's why neutral editors are often attacked if they try to intervene on contested pages)
• This will continue until some kind of common group norm is internalized by a sufficient number of people that it becomes a de facto truth. until that time the project will be dominated by any tribes that are large enough to enforce their will on a given selection of articles, and the whole thing will be an exquisite case study for Machiavelli's next book. honestly, the only thing that's saved wikipedia to date is that most editors really are trying to make a good encyclopedia. their conception of a good encyclopedia is fetishistic (in the non-sexual sense of the word), which spoils a lot of pages and creates a lot of conflict, but at least it keeps the project on focus.

So I can see why a new editor might feel frustrated and paranoid - they wandered into the territory of some wiki-tribe and got hit with an unexpected hail of barbed comments, and probably can't even get a decent explanation for it. very off-putting, that. --Ludwigs2 05:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Iron law of oligarchy. Its will be done. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The real trouble here is that Wikipedia has actively chosen to eschew the abundance of preexisting expert online community building advice in favor of the chaos and institutional anti-social behavior that we currently deal with. A large part of the problem here is technological, which liquidthreads should help with significantly, eventually. The other aspect of this problem though is more serious, in that there's been a groupthink decision made to purposely "go our own way" ("This is Wikipedia! We're so smart and big that we need or own special rules!"). It's sad, but I've become resigned to the fact that "we" want English Wikipedia to be socially dysfunctional.12:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohms law (talk • contribs)

LiquidThreads is only a start. We'd need a WYSIWYG to make real headway in the technology department. --Cybercobra (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

True, but at least it's something (and I can't believe that I forgot to sign my post above...)
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 12:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

And thats the problem! "Anytime you get a group together they are going to need social order" blah blah blah. And NO, that is not the case. I have a degree in poli sci, working on my masters for poli sci as well, and though my discipline focus is in comparative politics, I still know more than most about the social aspects of political organization and such than most. It is not in fact inevitable that INDIVIDUALS who come a website to work on an ENCYCLOPEDIA must form social cohesion. The social aspect and organization has developed because there are those amongst us who want and need social order wherever they are and therefore must impose it on others (we all now those types who think their mores must be enforced on others). If the only reason you log on every day to Wikipedia is to strengthen policies, enforce conformity, make sure policies are enforced, ban people for incivility, and pretty much do anything BUT any meaningful editing or improving to an article (which could be as simple as just copyediting, a very important job) then you are part of the problem of why there exists even the semblence of a "community". If Wikipedia only existed of individuals who came to edit articles (or copyedit, or add photos, or fix dead-link references, etc) then there would be no "community". Unfortunately some are here not for the purpose of working on an encyclopedia.Camelbinky (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, such a viewpoint is the exact reason we have so many problems here. Complete anarchy inevitably leads to conflict. No one is suggesting that an authoritarian regime be imposed on Wikipedia, but some friggin' leadership would certainly go a long way towards settling things down around here. Everything almost inevitably becoming a conflict, and the uncertainty involved in editing here, certainly doesn't help the content or the community.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 03:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing personal, but that's just not true. Conflict that it seems you are worried about is a direct result of there being too much bureaucracy and policy-wonkish behaviour already, not a lack of leadership. Disagreements on "Should IAR really exist?", "what's the real difference between a policy and a guideline?", "should we have republicanism?", "what is the role of Jimbo?", "Does policy trump consensus?", "what is the role of the 5P?" how are those perennial discussions anything about the encyclopedia? (and those are some of the most heated controversial subjects around) A content dispute in an article talk page is no ones concern but those who know and care about the article. A person calling another a dipshit is no ones concern but the person who was called a dipshit. If we stopped spending time on non-encyclopedic matters there would be LESS drama. A little content dispute becomes enlarged to multiple forums, eventually something happens and a wikittiquette complaint or AN/I complaint is filed, shit even Arbcom is dragged in eventually because the dispute becomes so entrenched and drags in other problems and hostility about other issues. Why? Because of bureaucracy and people not just letting things die on their own. Simpler is better. This is an encyclopedia. If you treat it as such and stop with social engineering then there is less to argue and get upset about. If everyone just edited articles and stopped with trying to make people (and articles) fit a certain mold of what "you" (generic Wikipedian) want them to act or look like. Using a word like anarchy is not applicable to this, this is an encyclopedia, cant have anarchy because that implies you can have the opposite, and this is an encyclopedia. Just an encyclopedia.Camelbinky (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Camelbinky, I really have to wonder how much of your degree is purely theoretical. Because saying this is just an encyclopedia ignores the fact that everyone here talking to you is a real person. None of this occurs in a vacuum. And your entire premise of " If we stopped spending time on non-encyclopedic matters there would be LESS drama" seems predicated on the fact that X "is no ones concern" but the people directly involved in the discussion (even if said discussion is really harassment and abuse). I suppose there would be less drama, because no one outside that situation would even know about it... but that's unrealistic as soon as you consider that we're humans. People talk and depend on each other. No matter how many times you repeat "this is an encyclopedia", you can't ignore the fact that there are real people here, and we're social animals. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, rules for conduct are necessary exactly because none of us are editing in a vacuum. How we interact with one another would not be an issue only if we all owned articles so that no two individuals could edit the same content (and thus disagree over how to edit it), which would require us to agree on which articles we would own...and only if no one needed anyone else to help write those articles... Just as rules of conduct in society might be unnecessary only if there were unlimited resources, and no way to injure one another, and no need to cooperate with others to meet our own goals and needs, and... Instead, to function in the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, we need to deal with interaction, discussion, compromise, dispute resolution. If those interactions are marked by incivility, then substantive discussions are disrupted, and good editors are driven away who don't want to volunteer their time in a hostile environment.

But let's put it another way. Why would you ever need to call someone else a "dipshit" in order to write an encyclopedia? postdlf (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Camelbinky: One PoliSci person to another, you are lost in the abstractions of classical liberal idealism. What you say makes perfect sense if everyone who participated was rational, independent, task-oriented, and fully informed on all relevant matters, and if knowledge itself was well-ordered, factual, and fully transparent to human reason (John Locke at his best, yah?). that set of ideals still runs as a motif in politics because it's a very useful bit of rhetoric for manipulating the populace, but no one in scholarly circles (not even Rawls) would take those ideals as a factual reality. knowledge is fuzzy and incomplete; people are uninformed, opinionated, and less than fully rational - In the best-case scenario people in any group get by and make progress by being reasonable, cooperative, polite, and generally tolerant of each other's weaknesses, but those are all qualities of community (and must be, because only a community can give weight to the idea that those qualities must be given as well as received).

You want my suggestion for the quickest way to improve wikipedia as an encyclopedia? Give some serious teeth to wp:civ. mandatory 1 day civ-blocks for any editor who abuses another editor on an article talk page, mandatory 4 day civ-blocks for any editor who reverts substantial additions without discussion in talk, other short blocks for other kinds of rude, uncivil and arrogant behavior, without any mechanism for unblocking and with a firm no exceptions policy. i.e. people get the same punishment regardless of how established or good or whatever they are as editors, and regardless of whether they are IPs or admins; people who abuse each other both get the same punishment, without any consideration of who started it. It's basically the same kind of 'time out' thing parents use on 6 year olds. set that up as policy, enforce it with painful rigor, and within two weeks we would have the most polite, gracious, and civil talk pages you can imagine, because it just. would. not. be. worth it for anyone to let their inner brat out. of course, we'd have to set up civ-blocks as something different (don't want them counting in the same way as blocks for more serious offenses) and we'd have to set up effective criteria for judging (don't want people screaming to block others over minor slips), but if we make people see that the choice is between editing nicely or not editing at all for a day or two, most people will get the idea fairly quickly. --Ludwigs2 20:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit. :-) (Note: When #words > 10, that formal response is statistically assured of being sufficiently true to the case at hand to apply.)

Meanwhile, it seems that , my brief proposal at the Civility/Poll may reinforce some aspects of the BS above. ;-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 20:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

and thus you exclude everything that remotely resembles thought. (I took pains to keep that to <10 words, and <=3 syllables, to respect your self-admitted limitations). --Ludwigs2 21:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And those who believe the world will decide on the basis of more than a haiku, are thinking too hard. :-) (Or perhaps merely enamored with the idea that analytic elaboration naturally leads to assent.)

But as for encoding details in brief transmissions. (1) Is calling "bullshit" a breach of civility? (2) Is a "tax code" version of civility policy a useful idea? (3) Is pretending that someone has not said something useful to consider, when they have :-), a breach of civility? (4-1,000 available upon request) More? ^;^ Proofreader77 ^(interact) 21:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I like haiku! and I do believe that explaining things (within reason) is helpful. I also understand that that there's an evolutionary movement in homo sapiens towards shortened attention span, and I think the result of that will be that we'll eventually have to remove the term sapiens from the nomenclature. of course, if that happens, we won't be the ones doing the removing (that will be the Morlocks).

Wisdom can afford to be pithy; knowledge is always long-winded. (10 words)

but to answer your points:

1. no. 'bullshit' my be emphatic, but it's not personal. if you said 'editor X is spewing bullshit' that's personal, and uncivil.
2. that kind of tax code is unnecessary, as well as a pure straw man argument. comments about editors are uncivil, comments about content aren't, anything ambiguous gets discussed at ANI with a decent application of common sense. which is what already happens, except that since there are no real rules about it, civility issues at ANI are handled haphazardly and with an extreme bias against new, unregistered, or unpopular editors.
3. depends on what you mean, but this isn't really a civility issue (more of a failure of the consensus process). I normally talk to people the way I would to a decent college undergraduate. when they miss the point or misrepresent what I say in drastic terms, I repeat myself once, and then start an age regression: repeat the point the way I would to a high school student, then the way I would to a grammar school student, then the way I would to a six year old. if it's a misunderstanding, the first or second repetition is enough; if it's intentional they will either give it up or get so enraged at being talked to like a child that the conversation grinds to a halt. If I stray over into attacking them as childish, I'd be in breach of civility; if they stray over into attacking me, that would be a breach of civility. so long as it's merely a discussion about content, though, it's not really a civility issue.

Civility doesn't mean being sweet to people (though I know a lot of people misinterpret it that way). civility means acting like an adult, and giving the other people around you a certain degree of respect and consideration. --Ludwigs2 22:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Policy benefits

It's also often a good idea to remind one another of the supposed benefit underlying the policy or guideline, which often helps us decide whether and how to apply it — my words exactly. Wikipedia does a very poor job in telling why a given policy is what it is. What is the benefit, and how why did we write this policy up in the first place? Such information is currently very difficult, if not impossible to find. For each policy page, we need an essay describing the process how that policy was developed, which bad things it is supposed to prevent and what the policy's original purpose is. Offliner (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I found this to be a useful comment to possibly starting a wider conversation about the potential for corrective action to be taken to address the criticisms here, so I've copied/re-factored User:Offliner's comment to this sub-section.

Should we, and could we, come up with a guideline of some sort specifying what and how to include in the lead of Policy and Guideline documents?
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 18:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not so much in the lead, but a "Background" section or some such could provide some explanation of why a policy exists. This may be helpful both for those seeking to understand the policy, and for maintenance (i.e. those seeking to change it). Downside: more text; potential for undermining what the main text of the policy actually says. Rd232 ^talk 19:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

humm... would Downside: more text; potential for undermining what the main text of the policy actually says. really be a downside, though? I mean, if and when the "background" text itself has gained consensus, at least... which brings up a question about how to "properly" implement the potential change.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 20:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

without taking a stand on whether or not this would be helpful, I just want to point out that what you're trying to do here is get people to understand the spirit in which a policy or guideline was intended. This will be helpful for people who are actually interested in understanding what the policy is for, so to that end it would be good, but I don't think it would address this problem, because the wikilawyering problem comes from people who try to use the letter of a policy or guideline to advance their own ends, and such people are not at all interested in the spirit (which they would generally find inconvenient). I suspect if you tried to do this, the efforts would get bogged down in such extensive wikilawyering (as different people tried to insure that the spirit of the law didn't preclude their own self-interests) that it would (pardon the metaphor) burn out the clutch before you even got the darned thing in gear. --Ludwigs2 20:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. In fact I think that most policies for which the reason for them isn't blindingly obvious are already explained in this way. In fact we don't really have many policies, we have pages with "policy" tags at the top, which waffle on about the few underlying policies that exist, and describe detailed bureaucratic processes. The actually useful information - about writing encyclopedia articles - is usually on guideline pages, and there the motivation is often just that a matter has to be settled one way or another, for the sake of consistency and of not arguing about it again every single time it comes up. I'd reduce policy to just one page - literally - and I'd replace ArbCom with a body of people with the competence to resolve the disputes that matter - over content. (Any case of the sort that currently goes to ArbCom should have been solved ages ago with an admin banging a couple of heads together.)--Kotniski (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski nailed what I have been trying to get across right on the head. Things have become too wrapped around solving our social problems and creating bureucratic processes to solve issues, as if once we solve those issues editing and encyclopedic content will fill in itself faster. Yes, I will keep saying this is only an encyclopedia because it is. Tell me what other function Wikipedia was meant to have? It was not created as "an effort to bring people together as a community and create a new online society through the mechanism of all working on a common goal, which happens to be an encyclopedia". This is an effort to create an encyclopedia by individuals. Yes, individuals who (depending on personality) may or may not need to work together. That is their individual choice. Oh, and I'm hoping the editor who called my degree theoretical was referring to my education being in theory and no that the degree itself is theoretical is in not existing. I extend good faith on your part and will assume it was just my poor skimming of your post.Camelbinky (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

no one is saying Wikipedia was designed to be a community - this isn't facebook. however, the fact that it exists creates a community, unavoidably. If I got 100 people together in an office building and told them to write an encyclopedia, they would write the encyclopedia, but they would also make friends and enemies, compete for awards, have affairs, get in arguments over the coffee machine, take each other out to dinner, make company policies about using office supplies, torment new employees, set up divisions, make bosses and managers, and all the other things that communities do. Wikipedia is no exception.

Please read my post above about the limitations of your political perspective. --Ludwigs2 01:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That's all true (though most of it happens without rules). However, imagine you (as the boss, who wants a good encyclopedia produced) discover that these 100 people are spending x% of their time arguing not about how to make the encyclopedia better, but about each other's behaviour and the coffee machine and the supplies and so on. If x were too large, you'd want to find ways to reduce it to a more reasonable level. It's being assserted here that Wikipedia currently has too high a value of x. --Kotniski (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, Wikipedia doesn't have "too high of a value of X". There are literally millions of registered user names, but there are hardly more then ~1000 who are really active at any one time. I'd guess that there are fewer then 100 who are actually regularly active in the community (defined as non-article talk space, such as this one). Aside from that though, we generally all stick to the topic at hand. There is no "off topic" forum here, which is a staple of many online communities, and I'm certainly not advocating that we start one. We're discussing the encyclopedia right now, in that we're ultimately talking about working together on it. A corollary issue has to do with the fact that those few of us who are here in the community are smeared out all over the dang place. There's a good reason to have the different forums (forii? I've always wondered about that), but it should be easier to get "the big picture", which is nearly impossible right now without trolling around for days on end.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 16:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

well, in the real world, if a boss notices that the social stuff is getting in the way of productivity (which is one of the reasons why communities create bosses in the first place) he will make rules to prohibit employees from doing the most egregious things, set goals and deadlines to force people to work harder, and eventually start putting up horrifying posters of kittens and puppies with "You Can Do It!" type slogans. I had a friend who worked in a worker-owned cooperative grocery store (a bit closer to the wikipedia business model) - because they needed everyone's involvement to make business decisions, they built a whole system specifically to deal with workers who disrupted meetings, had emotional issues, or failed to participate. they were fairly pleasant about it - first step in the process was lunch (on the company) with a volunteer coworker who would try to figure out what was going on - but bad behavior just wasn't allowed to continue. --Ludwigs2 17:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Camelbinky, that was my intent: your experience has been theoretical (ie. purely academic) vs. real-world, hands-on experience. Not implying you had a fake degree! Glad you were willing to AGF, and I apologize for being unclear on that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Role of Editors

I'd like to suggest that the Editors of Wikipedia be asked to stop going off the deep end by censoring out every little thing and adding "Citation needed" to every little statement. And in my opinion it really is getting ridiculous and they are going off the deep end. A perfect example is an article I just saw regarding the Model T Ford. There is data concerning how much a Model T would cost in todays dollars, and predictably enough, there is a big huge CITATION NEEDED note added which distracts one from easily reading the article and interrupts the flow of the paragraph. It is NOT necessary to add a citation there, this sort of data is READILY available and is something more-or-less "set in stone," or in other words, something which does NOT require a citation. This is just one of hundreds of examples. There are also many times when an article may TECHNICALLY be better in its original form after someone has changed it - - - but that does not mean that it is NECESSARY to revert it back to its first state. A normal, human level of flexibility is to be expected from the editors and I'm sorry, but in my experience that has been sorely lacking.

I UNDERSTAND the necessity for an increased level of editing. As just about everyone on the planet who's paying any kind of attention at all is aware, Wikipedia was getting a reputation for being "inaccurate" and not for not being a trustworthy reference source, for example for school research papers. Clearly something had to be done. But that gives no justification for swinging off wildly to the other end, and allowing (or encouraging by ommission) the editing of every little change JUST to feed the ego of some editor "who has nothing better to do." Wikipedia's reputation, I feel, is changing now, to become something which "no one in their right mind" would want to contribute too, for fear of having their well-meant contributions ignored. You are going to be losing a LOT of good contributors this way, by ANNOYING them. Stop over-ruling every damn little change that well-meaning people are contributing - or you are going to have far fewer well-meant contributions. And stop adding "CITATION NEEDED" to EVERY damn little detail. It distracts from one's flow of thought and it is NOT necessary to cite every little detail that happens to be mentioned, most especially when that data is readily available elsewhere (including on Wikipedia) and when a reference would not be required at that point even using the most rigorous academic standards. It really does get silly after a point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.200.152 (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

welcome to the human race. please grab a plate and make yourself comfortable.

citations are necessary on wikipedia to assure that information is accurate and not merely some well-intentioned editor's efforts at speaking the truth. sometimes editors get a bit pissy and tag things for citation that don't really need citations - If you discuss it on the talk page they will understand the error. Sometimes you've made an error, and you need to substantiate something that you (originally) thought was obvious. Sometimes everyone screws up, and the whole thing breaks down into a bloody, ugly mess (unlikely on Model T, but you never know). be patient, ask for clarification, add citations where you can or explain why you can't when you can't, and generally keep in mind that the other editor isn't trying to make your life miserable, but just wants to make sure that the encyclopedia is accurate. It's a thankless task, yes, but you should really applaud those brave souls who make their grumpy, pedantic way through wikipedia making sure that everything is validated. they do more to make a good encyclopedia than just about anyone I know. --Ludwigs2 08:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If the data is readily available then there should be no reason why you cannot fix the problem by providing a citation. As it is there are entirely unsupported assertions in the article, and it is reasonable for us to mark these as needing justification in terms of citation. It is ugly and annoying, but so are unsupported assertions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Putting is actually being rather courteous about it; an editor would be justified in just removing the statement entirely if they felt like it. is just a way of suggesting the article could be improved by finding a citation for the statement. Also, remember that editors usually aren't subject-matter experts, so citations are emphasized more on Wikipedia than they might be elsewhere; thus the "citation needed" tag indicates to the reader that the sentence should be taken with an extra grain of salt. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it odd that people talk about WP being "inaccurate for research papers" as if other encyclopedias ARE. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• You know, the other reason for citations is to provide a bibliography for more in depth information. Citation requests are not only made because someone disputes the information. I've seen literally tons of what I like to call "courtesy citations" in all sorts of articles. There a great thing to make available.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 16:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I personally havent seen a problem with too many "citation needed" templates on an article. However I have seen at GA and FA nominations the request by a well-meaning editor that "every single sentence must have a citation"; unfortunately requests like that have forced many of us (myself including) to say "ok, well I'd rather fail a FA than debase the article"; and its editors of a much better caliber than I who are making that sacrifice of not getting the FA simply to show that some of these reviewers have insane ideas (and thats not the only insane idea I've seen put out at FL and FA, or even just GA). Not everything needs a citation, unfortunately some out there refuse to acknowledge that common sense exists and therefore have lost the ability to use it themselves. I dont need a source to tell you that New York (the state or the city) is in the United States; it really truly is a given, or a source to tell you that it is a legally incorporated city. However, you probably do need a source to show that Madrid, Spain is in fact legally a village and is not (as of my visit in 1997, doubt its changed in 13 years) and has never recieved a city charter.

• And Melodia, ALL encyclopedias are not acceptable for any research paper at either of the universities I've attended (SUNY Albany and Mizzou), it has nothing to do with accuracy, Einstein once wrote an article on physics for an encyclopedia, I assume it was quite accurate (and probably still is); the problem is that it is an encyclopedia. You dont use such a tertiary source for a paper, only primary or if you must secondary sources please, as I must mention in those classes I TA. Being allowed for a paper and being reliable are too separate issues. Encyclopedias are reliable and great works; Wikipedia isnt quite there yet. Wikipedia is not and never will be a source for a college paper, but hopefully it will be a good place to FIND sources you can use in a paper (as I've quietly told classes with the caveat that they dont tell the professor as most dont want to hear the word Wikipedia).Camelbinky (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • You really have trouble comprehending what I write don't you? I was saying just that, that they aren't acceptable as sources for papers. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Abuse Response Project

The volunteers at WP:ABUSE are requesting feedback from the community on the first proposal of our 2009 revamping project. This is a proposed guideline that outlines the rationale, purpose, and scope of the project and defines some parameters for its functionality. We invite all to participate on the talk page. I look forward to seeing some great constructive input. Thanks!   Thorncrag  08:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe this project has the potential to reduce long term serious abuse on Wikipedia if it is operated properly. However, abuse response cannot function without the input of the community. It is simply impossible due to the nature of the work done there. Once again, I am imploring the community to at least respond to the proposals that have been made. It doesn't matter what you think of abuse response, but please give your input. Netalarmhappy holidays! 03:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Based on what little I have seen of the project, it could really use some adult supervision. This is not meant as an insult to those involved, but there seems to be a certain mindset which suggests to me that there is an overabundance of teenage males and a lack of moderating influences. The echo-chamber effect may lead the project to repeat such mistakes as contacting the FBI about Wikipedia vandalism. The language used in the proposals is somewhat suggestive of television depictions of police procedure, when it really ought to be as dispassionate as possible. Seeing vandals as the enemy only sets up a win-lose paradigm which can never be constructive. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen WP:ABUSE prior to a brief look just now, and I've got to say that I generally agree with Delicious carbuncle take on this.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the above comments may be premature (although for some other related projects the point is valid). The "Who is contacted" section makes it clear that only the ISP (or university or similar) is to be contacted (the WHOIS contact). I have added a positive comment here and invite anyone else to join in (I think that was the intention). Johnuniq (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

@Delicious, I definitely take your concerns very seriously, we have been following the concerns regarding that situation. One of the primary motivations for developing a single guideline for the project was to address those concerns that you have raised. Without taking a position on that issue, I can say that we are trying to take steps to outline what should be done, and perhaps more importantly, what should NOT be done. I think that you might agree with several of the steps we have taken, such as requiring using an approved email--which, while it may not be perfect, is better than what I have seen in the past, and that these steps are in the right direction.   Thorncrag  01:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the "Who is contacted section" at Wikipedia:Abuse_response/2009_Revamp/Proposal_1#What_Abuse_Response_is_not for the most part; parents should absolutely never be contacted directly, and ditto for law enforcement in most situations. For that matter, I say even AN/I is the wrong place; admins are just Wikipedians with a few extra buttons. Contacting the government is a job for the foundation, and nothing less than the foundation. There should be clear instructions provided for how to bring threats of violence and WP:Threats of suicide to the attention of the foundation in the volunteer manual. Since the Better Business Bureau is no more than a neutral mediator who passes on complaints to the ROs, my opinion slightly differs with that, although if that's ever done, then it should only be done as a last resort. I also think five blocks is a little to long to wait; perhaps three or four would be better. Just my two cents. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 17:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, I've read through this, and agree 110% with Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) – for once. Self-appointed "co-ordinators" alongside "listed investigators" etc. doesn't inspire confidence that this project is quite as professional as it frequently professes (pun fully intended) to be. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 17:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to make it clear that the "self appointment as coordinators" was never intended to give anyone any leverage over other participants in the project. Please understand that at the time this revamp was started, there were very few (1~2) people that had processed anything in months. Furthermore, questions being asked, reports, and other issues that needed attention were not addressed by those that were active. Fearing that potential participants and reporters were not joining because of a lack of response, the coordinator label was created in case someone had any questions about the project. However, this is issue should be addressed if consensus allows this self nomination form to be used. Using that form, everyone would have input on the selection of investigators and such. Thanks for your input! Netalarmwelcome to 2010! 20:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not read the proposal the way Delecious Carbuncle and Ohm's Law do, but I must admit to being male and a few months shy of 18, which apparently places me in an implicitly less effective user group. My key concern is that the current proposal is somewhat overcomplicated and could result in less transparency, which I believe may contribute to Delicious Carbuncle and Ohm's Law's concerns. I have commented to this effect, and I would appreciate comments with your thoughts on the matter at the proposal. The Real Jean-Luc ^Talk/_Contribs 05:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Being a teenage male does not make you implicitly less effective, it merely makes you likely to be more effective in some areas than others. You would probably be great at "fighting vandals", but that is exactly what abuse reporting should not be about. My comment wasn't meant to be insulting although I understand why you may read it that way. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

DC, you do raise some excellent points that I feel we have at least started to address in this proposal. The only thing that I would ask is that we focus on the proposals, not any past interactions that folks might have had with other folks. Suggestions to improve the proposal that may be derived from those interactions however would be most helpful.   Thorncrag  19:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that anyone here is focusing on or even mentioning past interactions. I've tried to highlight what I believe is a fundamental problem with WR:AR that procedural changes can do little to address. At the risk of being taken facetiously, here is my suggestion - ask editors wishing to join the project (and those already in the project) if they are there to fight vandals. If they answer affirmatively, it isn't the right project for them. Just my opinion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of appearing to pile on, I just wanted to say once again that I agree with DC here. Speaking for myself, I'm not trying to make value judgments of the editors involved here, it's just that the sort of situation that "abuse response" appears to be attempting to address really takes much more tack and... well, maturity; compared to what is needed for the "vandal fighting" oriented tasks.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 16:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Footnotes and use of small tags around ref tags

I saw a while ago that Miesianiacal (talk · contribs) apparently has his own preferred citation formatting style, where he wraps <ref> tags with <small> tags, to produce uniform line spacing. See this example article. I happen to applaud the desired goal of uniform line spacing, but I don't like this way of doing it as the numbers are barely readable. But more importantly, this method is not mentioned in Wikipedia:Footnotes as an acceptable style variation. We discussed it a while ago, and he said that the issue in the past has always dissipated without resolution, and I left it. But having bumped into it again at another article, I thought I'd carry through my own suggestion of a discussion on VP this time. I honestly don't think it is too creepy to expect a practice like this to either be explicitly allowed or disallowed in our style guidance, and therefore there should be a proper consensus determined on it either way. What do others think? Ideally there should be a way of having normal size numbers and uniform spacing, but I have no clue where to even raise that request, so suggestions on a postcard for that too. MickMacNee (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There are three questions here.

1. Is this a reasonable method of dealing with footnotes?
2. What do we do about it if it isn't?
3. Does it matter that WP:FOOTNOTES doesn't explicitly endorse it?

I can answer #3 with a firm "No, it doesn't matter". We can't expect WP:FOOTNOTES to list every possible format for inline citation; there isn't room in a guideline of manageable length (for one thing, some misguided genius is going to invent a way of doing sidenotes). This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of guidelines.

On #2: discussion should prevail; if you are alone in disliking the format, you should consider tolerating it. If you are not, the nays should really be listened to. In an ideal wiki environment, people who liked it would use it, people who disliked it would remove it when they came across it by chance, and in the end, the more popular variant would prevail, in a form of online Darwinism.

Technical fixes should be discussed at WP:VPT and by WP:BUGS.

On #1, I would not choose them; but I find them quite readable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Pmanderson's general outline above. Line spacing doesn't bother me personally, but I see it as a legitimate concern. However, I don't see this as a good way to deal with the issue, at all. First, it's obviously a kludge, and the efficacy of it will vary significantly from browser to browser and even from monitor to monitor (I happen to have an LCD and a CRT, both with differing resolutions, and bringing up the same page on either monitor gives vastly different results). So, the solution doesn't actually resolve the issue which it is attempting to address. Second, the added wikicode is a bit ridiculous, and more importantly it really gets in the way. We should discuss a proper means means of implementing consistent line spacing, but in the mean time this workaround should be removed.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 10:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly, I picked up this trick from someone else on Wikipedia; I can't remember where, now. Some points from my observation:

• Since employing it to ensure consistent line spacing, very few people have complained about it, and none with strong objections. This seems to translate into a form of consensus via silence. I can think of only one example where a couple of people were inistant that the <small> tags not be used, and I bowed to consensus at that page.
• As MickMacNee already noted, the topic has been raised before (a number of times, in my experience), but another resolution to the issue of inline tag sizes is ever reached; debate fizzles off as people lose interest. My guess (and only a guess) is that this is because the matter is so wide ranging - thus, involving so many issues and so many people - it's perceived as being too immense to fix except locally.

That said, if we don't want to go with "online Darwinianism" that I've essentially been adhering to so far (but think is rather haphazard), the two possible routes that PMAnderson put forward (one of which - WP:BUGS - I've never seen before) beg the question: is the appearance of inline citiations a matter related to MediaWiki software or not? The answer to that question should guide us towards the next step. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, with respect to "Silence", I'd never personally seen this. I think that I'm fairly well traveled around Wikipedia now, so I'm fairly confident in saying that this practice is not widespread enough, nor has it been advertised enough, to make a claim to consensus by silence yet. I'm not a huge proponent of consistency either, but with something like this, if you're getting pushback at all then it's probably best to stop and start a wider discussion (like this one). The fact that you've bowed to local consensus against doing this on some places is good, but continuing to use it where no one actively objects appears sneaky.

As for an ultimate solution here, I'll point out the fact that other language versions of Wikipedia use different reference formatting. I'm not positive where the change exactly needs to be made, but I'm all but certain that it could be made. Again, I personally would support a change which would actually solve the problem that you've been trying to work around.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 15:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you remember which wikis? If there are no more comments here soon, I think I will put this to an Rfc before it drops off the radar again, and offer up some actual proposals on it. MickMacNee (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Which other Wikipedia's use different reference formatting? I know that the French and German ones do, off hand. It's not wildly different, but it's different. Note also that we're talking about m:Extension:Cite/Cite.php here, not the core MediaWiki software.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This is where {{reflist}} and {{refbegin}} will help. Since they use classes, any registered editor can customize the font size and columns though their CSS. I wish we could customze the view with a gadget, but that isn't possible. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to say two things: One, the way they look is out of proportion to me. This is opinion. The second is that this should be done with CSS, not with the use of html tags which means something else entirely. --Izno (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• So, are we saying this is already achievable by Wikipedia:Customisation? Is it actually possible right now, or would it require someone to code something? MickMacNee (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

  Essentially, yes... although, you shouldn't be required to change your personal CSS. I'm not sure where the sitewide CSS should be changed exactly, but adjusting one or more of the files listed at Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes should make a solution which addresses this issue possible.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 22:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

  • There should be uniform linespacing, we spent a year finding a solution for it. What browsers are you using, and can someone make some screenshots ? Oh and what skin are people using when they see this problem. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh wait, users of Internet Explorer excluded of course. You should switch browsers if you want proper rendering :D All hacks we tried caused unreadable content (rare situations of nested sups, but still unacceptable) on IE6. And I call them (and the currently deployed version) hacks, because the uneven line height distribution is what is expected behavior in HTML/CSS. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
      • So even a personal CSS customisation to give the effect of uniform line spacing is impossible for IE users, who are the only people who see uneven line spacing as standard anyway? MickMacNee (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Well I can give a hack that will likely work for most of the references for most of the IE users. You can add importScript("User:TheDJ/IEsupreffix.js") to your monobook.js. I have no idea how it behaves on IE8. I have limited it to references (because other sup/sub can be nested and then it breaks). It is a JS, because if people like it, it will be added trough Javascript as well, like all our IE-only CSS hacks. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

So, the essential answer here is, once again, that there is no solution to the problem. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 11:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure there is. Avoid using Internet Explorer, or test my IE script. Adding small-tags however seems like a bother to everyone else. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, truth be told, the small tags aren't a bother to everyone else; just some people; and, even then, not terribly so. Your suggestions aren't satsfactory, either: they're dismissive of IE users and only provide a solution that (theoretically) works on an individual, rather than universal, level. One would think the way forward lies in altering the root reference tag template script; but, finding that is becoming like the epic quest for the Holy Grail. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me take a stab at de-escalating this before it starts distracting from the main issue here. The comment about not using IE derives from an, in my view particularly arrogant, meme which has been established primarily among the software development community (among web developers in particular). It is, pretty much intentionally, dismissive of IE users, but we shouldn't really focus on that here other then to say that editors should be sensitive enough to avoid stating the viewpoint here among a general audience, and readers should realize that such viewpoint come from a place of frustration amongst many in the various development communities.

In terms of the line spacing issue itself, the point that TheDj is attempting to convey is that we can't go messing with site wide settings without knowing ahead of time what effect that they'll have. He took the time to use his knowledge of the issue in order to take a stab at developing a work around solution, which requires (an) individual user(s) to install the script into their personal javascript. It would be most constructive for everyone if you would install it and provide some feedback on how it works, with the eventual goal of possibly coming up with something to add/change the site wide javascript files with.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 18:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Ohms law for translating. I am dismissive of IE because it is a subpar product that is very difficult to work with for website professionals. I'm not dismissive of IE users, though I will at any opportunity advise them to use a different product.

1. The english Wikipedia community taking care of all these script and CSS issues has a lack of people using IE. Personally, I don't even HAVE Windows, so I can't even install IE and test the script. That makes this issue difficult to test efficiently.
2. The lineheight issue is a hack for any platform (IE or FF). The nature of HTML/CSS standards prescribes that these superscript elements increase the lineheight spacing. I can't change that, we can only try to find a way around it.
3. There is a consistent way to correct this lineheight issue for FF/Opera/Webkit browsers. This method is well tested and deployed (for all super/subscript elements).
4. Your 'trick' affects the readability of the reference elements, by making it smaller on many platforms. It also makes the elements harder to click and the wikicode even harder to read and understand than it already is. A trick like that is usually frowned upon by other users. We should not effect the usability of the page simply because there is a bug in a browser. It also adds unneeded structure to the document, making it potentially harder to reuse for future generations.
5. A similar hack to fix this for IE supposedly exists. It is not well tested, and it can only be used in cases where no nested super/subscripts occurs (common in math and science articles), or it breaks layout. As such if this (my suggested script) is ever introduced, it will only be introduced for reference sup/subs where such nesting is less common (and even then I don't really feel comfortable with it). The basis for ANY JavaScript/CSS hack we deploy on the English Wikipedia, is that it should not affect the readability of the content. This hack however, can cause sups/subs to run onto/over/under other text surrounding it, which in general, people will hate even more than the current behavior. That said, if we only deploy it on IE and only on the references, after it has been tested by IE6, 7 and 8 users, I think few people would object to the proposed hack.
6. If you can find an IE hack to keep lineheight, and that does not run into other lines upon nesting on IE6, 7 and 8, then we surely would welcome this hack. However so far no one has been able to find such a hack.

I cannot change reality for you. IE has it's quirks and you have to live with them. I'm here to honestly explain to you that as far as we know, there is no true fix for the lineheight issue on IE (unlike other browsers). Your trick is also no solution, and worse it is a solution that other platforms users don't require/want. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for uninvolved NPOV opinions in a "Category for Deletion" discussion

There is a category which is being discussed for deletion which I think could use more NPOV perspectives. It is: Category:Musicians who have served in the military. I wonder if you would check it out, and offer your opinion, either way, "Keep" or "Delete", Comment, Suggestion, or otherwise. You can find the discussion here. I hope I placed this request in the appropriate place, cheers!--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Userspace links in main space

So there are some cases where User: links appear in the main space that they may be acceptable. Here are some examples I've seen from my report:

1. References that say "from (foo), translated by User". Example: Cologne War, Pope Alexander VI,
2. Wikipedia-centric articles. Examples: Larry Sanger#External links, History of Wikipedia#2003, Criticism of Wikipedia, GroupLens Research#Contributions, WebCite.
3. Copyvio templates seem to use them. Example: Dionne Bromfield#Early life.
4. Userspace templates. Example: diff.

Thoughts? The last one is certainly not correct, I've removed it. What about the others? tedder (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(I changed the bullets to a numbered list, for ease of replying. Feel free to change them back if you'd prefer) Personally, I could go either way on this.

1. My question about this issue is, are translations by "User:X" reliable? I don't question any specific user's ability to translate, but since there really is no such thing as an expert editor with verified skills it seems to beg the question here. Translation is normally seen as something requiring expert skills, so I tend to think that those instances (along with the reference) are probably not something that we want to keep.
2. More likely OK here, although... I'd think that we'd prefer links to the article space in article space, vs. linking to User space. I think that the largest worry here would be self-references.
3. This is the one use where I think that these are not only valuable, but should be more generally encouraged. Those types of templates are not actually article content, so I don't see it as even being part of the issue at hand here, other then that the templates happen to show within the mainspace.
4. I definately agree that these are inappropriate in the mainspace.

So, overall a mixed bag. I think that we could easily implement a general prohibition, with the coincidental template exception, but I'm on the fence in terms of need.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 04:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

On #2, on review I'd much prefer some of them being unlinked, others turned into actual references, and others linked to via URL instead of wikilink, just for style consistency. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Stuff like Larry Sanger's userpage should always be linked as "external" instead of internal wikilinks. Mirrors (or print versions) will not copy userspace, so the link will be dead on mirrors. Translations should be acknowledged in the history, not on the page itself. —Кузьма^討論 08:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC at Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing

Just to let people know, there is a proposal about WP:DE, specifically regarding "disruptive cite-tagging". Your comments would be most welcome here. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 09:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Censorship as a permit-all

A really enjoyable photo currently greets visitors to Vomiting. Despite several people explaining at great deal that it simply provides no encyclopedic value to place it there, a single editor feels it is "censorship" to remove it. I have a pretty good idea what the end result will be, and wanted to get the opinion of more editors. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I did my part, for what it's worth (which is basically nothing). *shrug*
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 03:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. It just needs to be more apparent to this editor that censorship isn't an end all be all excuse for adding any content. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't see what the fuss is about. I'd have thought a picture of some vomit or vomiting was a reasonable picture to use on an article on vomiting. And I think the consistency and colour are interesting aspects. Really I feel this is getting back to covering up the legs of tables in case they offend delicate sensibilities. Perhaps it is time to put in a facility for people to set markers for their particular abhorrences so they don't have to be offended by anything they might see hear or read on Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There are illustrations and images that aid understanding or represent something iconic or specific (as in an individual person or product) and then there are illustrations and images that are purely gratuitous. People arriving at an article should find something to aid their understanding of the subject, not to satisfy a prurient interest; I imagine there must be someplace else on the internet they could go for that.

As was suggested somewhere, if a diagram illustrating peristalsis were presented, that would be helpful in understanding. An artwork representing a vomiting ritual in history is the sort of thing that may give someone perspective on ideas about health through the ages or arguably harmful social rituals. Graphic photos of vomit differentiating what it looks like after eating various things, for example, is not the purpose of illustrations in an encyclopedia. While Wikipedia is not censored, neither is it MTV's Jackass, indulging in vomiting here and blowing snot there just because it appeals to some demographic.

I can't tell you how often I arrive at the article of a notable person wondering what they look like, and there is no photo there because of some bizarre fear that performers would object to being identified by widely distributed publicity shots, album covers, etc. being used in an article conforming to BLP standards. (As if they'd prefer being represented by the candid man-on-the-street shots in unflattering light from bad angles that are ironically preferred here.) I've been to general articles that, far from offending delicate sensibilities, look like they would scare the shit out of somebody (an expression an article needn't illustrate, but no doubt some idiot would be willing to photograph themselves in the process of). If there is some desire to present gross-out pictures, let's not kid ourselves why we're doing it, and put it in a more specialized article, like satellite articles, perhaps of lowest common denominator. Abrazame (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please confirm if File:Vomit.jpg is the image you're referring to. –Whitehorse1 19:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats the one. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I was writing about the concept in general (as the concept we're asked to discuss by the thread title is general) and had not actually seen the image when I wrote the above. I have now seen the image and still can't see how a shot of vomit on a sidewalk serves the article. What does this image inform the reader about vomit? Please confirm that you asked me to look at the vomit photo because you feel it's relevant to the concept we're discussing, and not for the gross-out angle to which I was objecting in the first place, because I can't see the relevancy. I used to live in a major city, spent a lot of time out and about in the evening, and have seen a lot of vomit on the sidewalk. Abrazame (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I will not confirm I asked you to do either. Because, in fact, my request for clarification was directed to the originating poster. That's why it was indented with a single colon, placing it a single level below the parent comment in the thread. The originating poster sought the opinion of more editors. As it was not possible to ascertain what image is the foundation of this discussion from a brief look, I requested clarification from that person. I prefer to find out the facts of a matter before giving my opinion on the matter. –Whitehorse1 20:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for adding topical images to articles, and if there's anyone that supports WP:NOTCENSORED then I'm decidedly in that group. I just don't understand how this is a meaningful picture for the article. Sure, it's (supposedly) a picture of vomit on a sidewalk, but so what? It's inclusion just seems... Abrazame said puerile above, which seems apt.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 21:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The whole NOTCENSORED idea is not a get out of jail free card to place whichever image one wishes onto articles. If the image served any purpose (at the least having discussion surround it in the article), I'd not object to its removal. However, the censored argument aside, is there any reasonable argument for keeping it in the article? I see this as building consensus like any other image thats added to any article. The only case here, is that the image has a gross-out factor, and so an editor is using WP:NOTCENSORED as a trump card against the consensus of removal. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think either gross out or not censored should be used as reasons. The major consideration should be whether it is a useful illustration for the article. If people want to find a drawing instead of a picture I suppose it could be more useful if it gives the same information by the reasoning that less people with delicate sensibilities are put off but the major consideration is improving the information content of the encyclopaedia. Dmcq (talk) 10:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The presentation of the vomitus is a good diagnostic aid, whether it is yellow, red, bits of black, green or whatever and how watery it is and whether there is food in it. It depends how well the article is going to be, I guess a diagram of the various types could do the job. Dmcq (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally I find that a description could serve just as well. "The consumption of W causes X reaction with Y enzyme, and vomit expelled following its ingestion will appear more Z".

However, a gallery of yak hardly provides any insight, or information. Only permission for people to upload the photograph of their drunk friend puking in the grass. A diagram illustrating the various pressures and body/CNS maneuvers that take place preceding vomiting would be useful. A picture of it on the sidewalk would not. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"Diagnostic aid"? Wikipedia isn't in the habit of providing medical advice, especially for self-diagnosis. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the point here is not even whether we do or should present medical advice for self-diagnosis (something I thoroughly agree it would be potentially disastrous to attempt or claim to do, as error or vandalism could potentially result in illness, death, and/or legal action) but that there is no way to determine whether the diagnosis that would be claimed or implied by any photo would be citable. Even if doctors or hospitals actually made an official document noting the connection between an official medical diagnosis and the sort of symptom (type of vomit) the patient produced (and photographed)—and such specific and legible written documentation is not general practice—do I understand the implication of User:Dmcq's comment to be that we would reference to such a personal medical record document of the photographer? One doesn't work backward from "thus-and-such sort of vomit is indicative of X" to searching for or creating photographs of vomit that has this appearance and presume to post it as an indicator of such.

Incidentally, a week goes by and Special:Contributions/Whitehorse1 doesn't indicate why he requested on New Year's Eve that someone look at a particular shot of vomit, or indicate why the answer makes a difference to his contribution to this discussion. Ideally, this discussion isn't for individuals to privately determine something or other within themselves, but to contribute to the understandings of other editors here in the interest of refining or altering a policy point in general or resolving a misuse or abuse in particular. Abrazame (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Abrazame, this is the second false allegation you've decided to throw in here. Just like last time, I have made no request you or anybody else look at anything. And, just like last time, contrary to your claim I have indicated why an answer to my question would help me contribute an opinion to the discussion.

The contributions page you decided to link shows I haven't edited *at all* since New Year's Eve/Day. There really is no need for me to justify myself, but since you've brought it up ... reduced participation around Christmas and New Year is perfectly ordinary. I contribute to Wikipedia what I can, when I can. We are all volunteers here, and there is no shame in spending more time with friends and family.

There's no need for me to explain why I asked the question above, not least because you apparently ignored the explanation the first time. Again though since you've brought it up: As I said above: "...my request for clarification was directed to the originating poster ... a single level below the parent comment in the thread ... As it was not possible to ascertain what image is the foundation of this discussion from a brief look, I requested clarification...". The originating poster referred to a specific image without explicitly identifying it. They stated different people had commented that it lacked encyclopedic value, though this view was not unananimous, and "wanted to get the opinion of more editors". Unsurprisingly, before commenting on an image's encyclopedic value myself, I wanted to find out what was depicted in that image.

The originating poster didn't describe or identify the image, so I looked at the article. The only picture visible was a 14th century illustration; the page history suggested that wasn't the image concerned. It was unclear if the file named in my earlier comment was the image the OP meant either. That insertion of that image was being reverted at the time, but the talkpage seemed to have discussions about other, multiple, images: "[t]he image available, especially the first, is a gratuitous depiction of graphic vomiting". The discussion went on to show 'the picture' had been nominated for deletion. This left it unclear whether the recently-reverted addition was the image concerned, given a) at least two images were being discussed there, b) the discussion there didn't describe both images, only one which didn't match the one being removed, and c) the relevant image may've been deleted by then, perhaps replaced by a different image at the same filename. So, to understand what was being discussed here I asked the OP, which you can see in the comment thread above; they answered the question. –Whitehorse1 23:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record, that wasn't a "second false allegation", my post of 20:21, 31 December 2009 was a question and the only subsequent post I had made, of 00:58, 7 January 2010, was because I didn't clearly understand your response. Your "No, I will not confirm I asked you to do either" was hardly helpful in that regard. And, it's not often that someone asks such a pregnant question and then disappears for ten days. I'm heartened to hear you enjoyed your holidays, as did I. I take your point about the indenting and admit I mistook you to be asking that of participants here in general. No hard feelings, lumpy chunks, or bile. Abrazame (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

←Thanks Floydian, for clarifying the image concerned. Hmm. Whether it has a place in the article seems arguable. By contrast, another image discussed on the talkpage depicting someone on a toilet vomiting copiously is clearly inappropriate. This image, of vomitus, shows viscosity/consistency, possible hue, potential content, potential volume, etc. It depicts something people are generally familiar with, but then so does the "closed human mouth" image in Mouth. A difference is that's unlikely to be seen as "icky" or unpleasant. The suggestions in the article's edit summaries of using drawings of vomitus instead seem weak. Either we should depict it (once), or not. The only use for diagrams I can think of would be those of the digestive system, or maybe a line diagram of the path of it should the article cover such physics aspects. The C14th illus. adds little in my view. I don't think the article rises or falls on its inclusion of the image. It's plausible a middle school or high school student might wonder why vomit always seems to include carrot, even when they haven't eaten any. An explanation of digestive enzymes, stomach acids and the like along with an image of vomitus could help serve that educational role. It's of some relevance that the article's Start-class, too. It will be easier to evaluate images as editors further develop the article's content. –Whitehorse1 23:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe a single realistic (photograph) image of vomit should be included in this article to aid the visual learners. I think the article as it currently stands is lacking. After all, vomit also redirects to vomiting, so some users will have searched to learn about vomit itself. I'm not asking for a gallery or for a diagnosis or dissection. File:Vomit.jpg seems good to me. --99of9 (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

One could possibly be added to the Vomit#Content section... maybe. I'm all for images myself (heck, more video content for Wikipedia would be awesome!), but the imagery should be meaningful. It's not so much that there's an "ick factor" here, since honestly the particular image here isn't that "icky", it's just the gratuitous nature of it's addition in this instance. In terms of the wider policy question, I think that it's fairly settled that WP:NOTCENSORED is not a permit to add whatever puerile thing any middle school kid who comes along would like to add. So, the question remaining is, does the image add anything to the understanding of the article? I could see a case for it, but in the end I'm simply unconvinced. I find the image simply distracting, rather then adding anything to the content. (You know, this discussion brings the phrase: "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it!" to mind, for some reason... I'm not sure how I'd feel, as a libertarian, about being compared to Stewart, but there are certainly worse comparisons available!)
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 16:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Article accuracy prevention

Some articles are impossible to improve as if they have a single sponsor with a vested interest. Although proof of the following information is simple for anyone to obtain and verify a party with a vested interest pretends to dispute it and they or their representatives constantly delete it in a manner that does not violate the three reversion rule. Here is another example of information that needs to be added to an article but which is likewise constantly subject to deletion:

Microsoft claims to have a way to verify whether or not a copy of Windows and other software it sells or leases is genuine immediately or at any point in time and therefore worthy of updates and the like, including its trace of ownership from the point of release at manufacture.

Yet Microsoft refuses to provide this advantage to a prospective buyer prior to his or her purchase of the software or to provide a list of authorized distributors or resellers, ownership change or to state that an individual is not entitled to sell his or her copy of the software either before or after it is opened, used or verified .

Of its own doing then Microsoft knowingly allows counterfeit copies of its software to be marketed and I cannot find this fact included in the Microsoft article, raising the question of whether the Wikipedia article has ever been valid and if it is now?

71.100.5.207 (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolute 19:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolute put it somewhat abruptly, but I was going to say the exact same thing. The "Microsoft refuses" part of that is something that is certainly questionable (not that I don't believe it, but it needs to be backed up), but the "allows counterfeit copies" just sounds like original research. In terms of Wikipedia as a whole, we strive for verifiability, not truthfulness. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia after all, so we shouldn't advocate for any point of view (even the "right" POV!)
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 19:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Going right to the source for the citation Microsoft] provides proof that authenticity verification can not be accomplished prior to purchase and physical possession of its software and the Wikipedia flaw of which we speak is the requirement of Microsoft stating the fact its website demonstrates and upholds by absence of any means of authenticity verification made available to users prior to purchase and possession. And to think we use to complain that through subscription to half-truth because it was published we permitted the NAZI's to advance. I regret to say that lesson has not yet been learned. --71.100.14.125 (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Godwin's law so soon. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Verifying license for images from rotten source pages?

The FFD for File:Ronald alexander wikipedia.jpg has made me wonder: is there a way to ensure that a file is available under a certain license at the time of upload if it's taken from a website that grants such a license? At the present time (as far as I know), an image can properly be taken from a webpage that had a statement releasing the image under a free license, but if the webpage goes down, we've lost our evidence for the free license. How could this be done: with OTRS? Let's say that I find such a webpage; I'd rather not bother the operator with a request for OTRS when the image is already shown as freely licensed. If there's already a system in existence to demonstrate permanently what licenses are issued for images like this, please point me to it. If not, I'd like to see something created that's similar to the Flickrreview process on Commons. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless someone somehow passes a law that all media posted on the internet should somehow be accompanied with metadata which includes license information, I don't see how what you want could be accomplished, outside of figuring out what large sites institute a licensing system such as Flickr. In terms of Wikipedia/Commons and WMF sites in general, I think that we're pretty much stuck with relying on OTRS or any other form of communication with site operators. If the large sites get enough requests regarding media licensing, I'd think that would prompt them to come up with similar solutions as Flickr themselves, but most of them aren't likely to do anything that is outside of their interests.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 22:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Why couldn't we institute something like the Flickrreview process at Commons? It wouldn't require anything of any site operators other than ourselves. Nyttend (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

humm... maybe I'm misunderstanding your point slightly, or misunderstanding commons slightly. My understanding is that Commons is exclusively for open sourced media. If the image/media file requires a fair use exception, then it shouldn't be on Commons. So, they have Flickrreview and FlickrLickr (which is a damn cool name, incidentally. kudos to whoever came up with it! ) As it says on the Flickrreview page, since people can change their license on Flickr, the tool is used to help ensure that they don't retain media which has changed to a non-free license. But, for our purposes, anything on Commons is CC-by-SA, so as long as it's on Commons we don't need to worry about the license or fair use here.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 06:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not at all what I'm talking about; sorry for confusing you. I'm only talking about free images. Some people upload free images here (yes, I know they should be on Commons) from websites that mark them as being available under free licenses; I'd like to see a system whereby admins or other trusted users can mark these images as having been truly available under such a license, so that if a website goes down or changes the licensing, we don't need to delete the images as having no evidence of being available under such a free license. Nyttend (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. But wait, aren't we supposed to transwiki anything with a free license to Commons, anyway?
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 19:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Commons requires that anything hosted there is free in the US as well as the source country, whereas Wikipedia just requires that all images be free in the US. This limits the amount of material that can be hosted there, but a lot of stuff on Wikipedia (probably in the thousands) can be moved over, but not every free file can be there. In theory, everything that *can* be hosted on Commons should just be uploaded there, but that doesn't exactly happen. Killiondude (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If a trusted user writes on the image description page that the image was available under a specific license on a certain date, then this will generally be believed later even if the site goes away. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Often I check to see if the site is at archive.org and if it's not I manually archive it at webcite so that it will always be available for review. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors

To address several concerns that have been raised from time to time concerning the participation of younger people on Wikipedia, I have posted an essay (and potentially guideline at some point) captioned Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content review has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Non-free content review (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Commons/enwiki policy interaction

See User talk:OrangeDog#File:Scotland-Staffa-Fingals-Cave-1900.jpg.

A knotty problem has come up. Commons' image policy does not match our own, leading to problems when Commons images used on enwiki articles are edited within Commons' policy but not ours. What should the proper course of action be? Force Commons users to follow the policies of all wikis on which the images are used? Set up a task force to check every modification of a Commons image used here and upload an old version locally if necessary? Unify all projects' image policy? Stop using Commons? I can't see a sensible solution. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Commons' policy does link to ours (via a circuitous route), but the issue of what to do about it still remains. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 17:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If there's a disagreement about modifications made to an image (in this case, coloring), people usually upload another file that has the changes. So one is the original upload, and the other is the derivative. On Commons, at least. Killiondude (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The appropriate thing to do with radical edits such as color correction on historic photochroms is to upload the original for recordkeeping purposes, then upload the edited version under a separate filename. Please link between the two and describe the edits. The file hosting page for the featured picture below has detailed descriptions of the edits performed.

• Hotel Del Coronado, circa 1900
• 
  Unrestored
• 
  Restored

Photochrom prints are a difficult example to use for discussion because few people understand what they really were. When media editors correct for fading and yellowing a photochrom's colors "look fake". The impression is correct: photochrom colors really are fake. A photochrom is basically the nineteenth century's version of colorization. It's a hybrid between black and white photography and lithography. They used sixteen color plates at most, which doesn't yield much subtlety. And sometimes the plates didn't line up perfectly or the ink ran. The example above is by William Henry Jackson who was the most important photographer to work in the photochrom medium. Photochroms stopped being produced commercially around the time when technology improved enough to produce color films.

If we're going to have a policy discussion on this issue, I really suggest using a different medium as example that requires less explanation. Durova³⁹⁰ 18:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

All projects use the images on Commons, not just this wikipedia, and each one may develop their own policies or consensus. If there's some disagreement on the version to use of a certain image (such as restored vs. original), simply upload it as a new file and mention the original. Even if it's the same "thing" (such as a reproduction of a portrait), it wouldn't be deleted as duplicated if the images are different enough. Commons respects this.

Have in mind that Commons is a project of a different nature than this one (an encyclopedia vs. a database), and some policies here would hardly make any sense there. Most policies are about copyright issues, and about giving projects freedom to decide on their own rather than to impose them which image to use. MBelgrano (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Can someone take time to explain (for me at least) what our policy says that is so different than Commons; and WHY that difference is important? Even though I have nothing to contribute to this discussion I do like to learn new things and keep up on the goings on of Wikipedia, and maybe the answer to my question will be useful for someone else who can contribute an insight.Camelbinky (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Some people here want us to use non-retouched scans of photographs. However, all material on commons is free content, and just like Wikipedia articles anything that is posted to commons can be mercilessly edited. So people sometimes retouch photographs that have been uploaded there. The exact same thing is true for these photographs if they are uploaded to enwiki: anyone can overwrite them with a retouched version at any time.

There is no real problem, though, because commons will accept a courtesy copy of the original, non-retouched scan alongside the retouched one, under a different name. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didnt know that about Commons. I just go there and find images for articles I'm working on and occassionaly upload a new image there that Im going to use here anyways; I never knew they were getting "edited". Thank you for that insight. I dont know if I have any opinion either way though, other than that Commons, as a separate endeavor, should be allowed to make their own "rules" without us trying to interfere.Camelbinky (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You surely know about the Neutral point of view that articles in wikipedia must have, no support or rejection from us, opinions described rather than manifested, etc. It's a core principle, one of the most important ones, so it serves as a good example. See here, neutral point of view applies at small sections but not to images themselves. This portrait of José de San Martín, for example, clearly exalts him, while this caricature of Darwin as an ape clearly insults him. However, we don't do anything at all to "fix" the images and turn them into "neutral" despictions of such people: they are biased images, but we accept them as they are.

There are countless other examples. The whole Manual of Style and related policies and guidelines have little to no saying in commons: having just images, galleries, categories and project pages, where would you apply them? Can overlinking or trivia sections ever become a problem there?

I guess that the only common thing between projects that would justify having common policies would be the topics related to accounts and/or user interaction. Don't make personal attacks or don't bite the newbies, for example, apply there the same as here. And of course, images themselves. Wikipedia can have local rules regarding to an exception doctrine for non-free images, but images labeled as free should be able to pass all related Common policies: if an image is uploaded here and tagged with a free licence, but fails to comply with policies such as Derivative works or De Minimis, then it should be deleted. MBelgrano (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Note: edit conflict

Maybe it's a good thing to recap the discussion on User talk:OrangeDog#File:Scotland-Staffa-Fingals-Cave-1900.jpg. One of the pictures that is used to illustrate the article about Photochrom pictures is File:Scotland-Staffa-Fingals-Cave-1900.jpg. The yellowing caused by aging has been corrected. OrangeDog objects to that. He feels that it does not accuratly display the characteristics of a Photochrom image, and he claims that it should not have been de-yellowed, because the picture is not an image of the subject (Fingals-Cave) but an image of a photochrom-image. My suggestion to upload an unprocessed image, with a clear title and description that it should not be restored by anyone, was not enough, and neither was my suggestion to use File:Oberammergau 1900.jpg which is unprocessed and survived the time rather well, and therefore more accuratly than the aged pictures shows the qualities of the photochrom technique. He could also have browsed the category Photochrom pictures from the Library of Congress, because there is an abundant supply of unprocessed photochrom pictures.

A 3d opinion was requested and it resulted in TransporterMan's advise based on the English Wikipedia:OR#Original_images page that the modification of the hue en luminesence of a photochrom picture violates the original research policy, and therefore could be considered a distortion of the facts or position being illustrated.

This discussion is about these two facts. Although there are plenty of possibities to illustrate the article, OrangeDog sticks to his objections to the state of one of the nine pictures used on the Photochrom page (although all of them have been modified to some extend). His opinion that the photochrom images on commons are not images of subjects but images of photochrom images is in my view narrow, they are both. And it is not meaningful to return a 1000+ pictures on Commons to there original state, just to illustrate one article. Furthermore, Transporterman claims that the English OR page applies to Commons, but Commons does not have an OR page. Besides that, there are incompatibilities between the English OR page and the other foreign language OR pages. A quick survey showed that they do not have an image clause on which TransportMan relied to make his statement.

I do not agree that photochrom pictures are solely images of photochrom images. I do not agree that the restoration of images, whether it is the modification of luminesence and hue or removing of dust and scratches, is a distortion of the facts or position being illustrated. I do believe that commons is there for all, and should be able to service the foreign language wikipedia's that do not have the Image clause incorperated in their OR-page. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see where the color adjustment (or other restorative corrections, like cropping or rotating the image) of vintage photochromes amounts to an en.wiki policy violation. Clearly the provision in WP:OR#Original_images requires a manipulative intent, to distort the facts displayed in the original. While I'm not always in agreement with Jan's restorations on aesthetic grounds, I don't see anything where he can be accused of trying to alter the facts of the image. In fact, there are a number of examples of photochromes on the LOC webpage which have been scanned more than once, and which show that simple differences in scanner settings create a bigger variation in color settings than the corrections by Jan, Durova, or me. Nevertheless, I recommend keeping a record of intermediate versions in the upload history, so that editors can retrieve an unrestored version if they need one for their purposes. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

My objection is on principle. That any image used to illustrate the properties (here colour) of something should not have those properties changed based on the editor's personal preference or original research. The original should have been left as it was, and a new version uploaded. That would have avoided the difficult-to-detect distortion of facts that occurred on the Photochrom article. The question is whether the editor should be responsible for the consequences of their actions (as on enwiki), or the person who stumbles across the problem. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing worse than using a photochrome to illustrate the color of any object, since all photochromes were colorized from memory in the lab, based on black & white photographs, and inaccuracies abound (cf. the flags in File:1897_Stockholm_Exposition_06231v.jpg). You're trying to impose a standard of "originality" that simply doesn't exist. We depend on our editors to upload their original images to illustrate contemporary objects and accept their decisions on camera settings and perspective as long as this is done in good faith. Nowhere is this considered "original research". The number of restored photochromes that have been granted Featured Picture status both here and on Commons also demostrates that careful restoration is an accepted practice. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The photochroms at Photochrom are not being used to illustrate the colour of an object, they are being used to illustrate the colours of a photochrom. Images have been changed so that their meaning has changed in the context of the article that uses them.

The modifications are not based on the user's original image and settings, but their self-admitted own research into what they think the object used to look like. How does one know whether this or this is more faithful to the colours originally chosen by the printer?

Take another example. Suppose that I improve an image of a person by removing red-eye artefacts. Certainly I have improved the image, as well as the article about the person. However, if the image was used at red-eye effect to illustrate red-eye, then I have completely changed the meaning of the image. If I had checked the image usage beforehand I could have uploaded my changes in a separate file, to avoid distorting the facts in other articles. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 15:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

But how can you tell whether File:Lichtenstein castle photochrom (LOC ppmsca.01193).jpg or File:Lichtenstein castle photochrom (LOC cph.3g04765).jpg accurately reflects the colors of the print? Oddly enough they are both original scans from the LOC website. If you have a concern that the images on Photochrom should be unedited, I recommend that you be bold and pick examples from the vast archive of unrestored uploads for the article. But none of this is a policy issue. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

But people have already done that. The images were added to Photochrom before they were edited. Why should someone have to look for new images because others have changed the previous ones without considering the context in which they are used. The issue is applicable beyond this particular case.

Incidentally, File:Lichtenstein_castle_photochrom_(LOC_cph.3g04765).jpg has a colour reference chart, allowing the colours of the print to be exactly determined. A colour-correction using these reference colours would give a perfect representation of the print. The parameters used should be added to the description/summary so that they can be verified. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 17:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually that color reference chart is junk. The only thing it tells you is the degree of shift that existed at the time when that archival photograph was taken. Durova³⁹¹ 01:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The underlying issue is that both Wikipedia and Commons are wikis – meaning that free content is subject to merciless editing. There isn't any way in the software to mark a page or file as unsuitable for changing, short of protecting it, which we don't do because of our wiki nature. Thus anyone can upload a new version of a picture at any time. Someone from commons has said above that they will accept a courtesy copy of the original file alongside the edited version, with a different name. That seems like an easy solution.

This is not really about commons policy, because the exact same problem of overwritten images can happen on enwiki. Our wiki system is not really intended for document preservation. This is why it's good practice to watchlist the images on articles that you edit. Commons will email you if anything on your watchlist changes, so you don't have to check your commons watchlist by hand. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If an image in an article on photochrome is supposed to portray the natural aging of photochrome photos then to use one that has been "doctored" or "restored" does not fit what the purpose of the image is conveying and would be of no encyclopedic value for the article. If the image's purpose in the article was to portray how a photochrome would look after being restored digitally to bring back the color from aging then that would be ok. But a restored image isnt showing anything encyclopedic about photochrome if the prose is about how they age and naturally look without enhancements. If your just doing a photochrome about a particular article subject enhancing or restoring it doesnt affect its encyclopedic value, in fact it can increase the encyclopedic value of the photo in many cases. Seems kinda obvious logic to me... This isnt about OR, this is about what conveys encyclopedic content and what doesnt. That's my two cents and it seems so obvious to me that I feel like I must be missing something from the other side's point of view.Camelbinky (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that there are many users performing these "restorations" and leaving no record of what sources these restorations are based on, nor what the exact transformations are that they have applied, and with seemingly little regard to the current use of the image. A double standard exists whereby edits to text content must be absolutely verifiable, but edits to image content can be anything you want as long as it looks nice. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 10:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

About the current use thing, the same problem happens with text. For example, even if article A says, "Additional information on this topic can be found in article B", someone else could edit article B so that it no longer covers the topic in question. I have seen this happen. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't written in formal policy but probably should be; people have been asking me to draft a policy and I've just been too busy to do it. But the best practice is this: if you want to make a major edit to an image, upload it under a new filename with detailed notes about the edit and link between the two different versions at their file hosting pages. The original version of a historic image is important in its own right; that's one of the ways images are inherently different from text. Durova³⁹¹ 01:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't that contradict the idea that the free content on Wikipedia is open to editing by any editor at any time? I think wikisource would be a better place to host unchanged historic images. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right about the first assumption, but I don't think Wikisource is the place to store the originals, because every page is still editable by everyone. In the case of the Library of Congress the Library is the one and only storage where to get the originals. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Free content is indeed open for editing: that's why you can modify images on commons and upload a new version of them. If they were protected, making of derivative works would not be allowed. You can't, for example, upload a comic strip featuring spider-Man even if you "draw it yourself". The requirement for do so as a new file is simply for convenience, so each project can decide on its own which one to use. MBelgrano (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Media editing is not a direct analogy of text editing. It's one thing to change the article about the Mona Lisa; another matter to try to improve on her smile. Durova³⁹⁴ 03:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That's true. Changing her smile would even be a falsification of art, if the manipulation would be presented as a representation of the original. But let's not diverge. The original question was whether removing the yellow caused by aging is misrepresenting the characteriscs of a photochrom print. Aging is not a specific characteric of a photochrom, it applies to practically all paper, whatever it is used for. A different print, a different amount of yellowing. Compare for instance this print at the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscripts Library with this print at the Library of Congress. Same b/w original, entirely different colors. So which one to use to honestly show the characteriscs of a photochrom print? No one knows. Are we allowed to remove the yellow caused by aging? I think yes. In fact, looking at the consistency of colors over the entire Beinecke photochromcollection, makes me suspect that Beinecke applied color correction as well, so if they feel that they can do that, why not us? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The colours of a photochrom do not depend on the b/w original so that is irrelevant. Presumably Beinecke is a recognised expert on the subject, whereas you (and the rest of us) are not. You do not know to what extent (if any) the yellow tone is caused by ageing, or is a reflection of the intended original colours. Amount of yellowing is not the same across all papers and all pigments. Pointing out differences between images yourself is OR, and not acceptable to WP:V.

Can we leave that particular issue now until the wider question posed here originally is resolved? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion starts to get silly when you are accusing me of original research because of what I say on this particular page. Is that your way of silencing an unwelcome argument? I am just showing that appointing either one of these pictures as the picture that shows the characteristics of a photochrom picture, is not possible. It would only be original research if I appoint one of them as such on the Photochrom page. But to cut things short, I made a commons:Category:Photochrom pictures in their original state which contains the images that were used on the Photochrom page in their unprocessed state, and I replaced the images on that page. So the problem this discussion started with is now solved! I added some other originals to the category, so anyone can judge for themselves whether the wide variety of discoloration is a property of the photochrom process or a property of aging, without judging of course, which one comes closest to a photochrom image when it was printed 110 years ago. We would not want to make original research, would we. As for the subject you want to talk about, I think the best place to discuss it is commons, not en.wikipedia. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A simple approach would be to document the use of the image for the purpose on the commons page. Then if you say it exhibits yellowing and is used to illustrate yellowing, then others may think before changing it. You could also tag to please not replace with a restored image. Though there would be valid replacements, such as a more accurate scan at higher resolution or reduced error rate or distortion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

V.S.Lukyanov

Is a redirect from en Wikipedia article space to Commons Categories correct? Woogee (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No. It looks as if a Vladimir Lukyanov article was deleted ten days ago ... I suspect this redirect is the next attempt to get some recognition for Mr. Lukyanov. The redirect should be deleted. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. There were four of them, I've listed all of them for deletion. Woogee (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC on promoting WP:CREEP

There is an RfC open on whether to promote WP:CREEP from an essay to a guideline or policy. This matter was discussed at length some time ago (see the talk page's archive) and while there was significant support for promotion, issues with the page's content prevented it from happening. Most of these issues have now been addressed, the page is overall more coherent than before, and "instruction creep" is now given a workable definition, rather than just saying that it's too much instruction. PSWG1920 (talk) 07:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

But if WP:CREEP is raised to policy, then the amount of policy will be increased, which will violate the spriit of...(Head explodes) --Cybercobra (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Being entirely jocular here :-)

FYI, policy proposal regarding unsourced BLPs

• Proposal to prohibit the removal of Proposed deletion tags from unsourced Biographies of living persons and prod all of them in groups over the next 2.5 months.

Please add your input at the proposal page. -- Banjeboi 09:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Drive-by commenting.

I'd like to suggest a guideline, if I may, which I feel might make things run a little smoother. I've noticed lately that a lot of editors, logged in or anonymous, have developed a nasty habit of what I call 'Drive-by commenting', which, so far as I can see, is not in keeping with the project's ethos, and also possibly in violation of other policies such as WP:SOFIXIT and WP:BOLD. It comes in a variety of forms, none of which are particularly helpful:

1. 'Hit and Run' - This is where an editor suggests or demands that some change is made to an article, and then disappears. This is a problem because it means that editors who attempt to make the requested modifications are unable to ask for further details and receive no feedback on the edits they have made. This can be particularly annoying if the editor appears to have some experience with the topic at hand, is upset at it not being mentioned in the article, but then leave editors with no experience to attempt to make the additions, when they could benefit from their expertise or at least suggestions for sources to refer to. For an example of this, see Talk:International Space Station/Archive 8#The ISS Communications Systems.
2. 'Endless Listing' - This is where a reviewer, for instance at WP:PR, WP:GAN or WP:FAC spends a huge amount of time listing a number of edits that should be made to the article, but makes no effort to make those edits themselves. Often, the lists are extensive and presumably took a long time to create, and detail solutions the reviewer thinks should be implemented. The time spent listing these faults could be much better spent correcting those faults, instead of doing the work twice, and would save time and stress for all concerned. For an example of this, see Wikipedia:Peer review/International Space Station/archive2.
3. 'No Help Here' - The third version of this, and to my mind the most distressing, is again one that is rife at review pages, with WP:FAC in particular suffering greatly from this. In this case, a reviewer demands that something major is done which the reviewer and the editor are unable to do, often due to time and lack of experience respectively, but then does not offer any advice as to how it could be carried out or where to look for help. This is a particular issue for copyedits at the moment given the useless nature of the formal copyedit request process at present, and often leads to failed nominations, and a rise in general wikistress, particularly as it is almost impossible for a lead editor to copyedit their own text. For a heated example of this, see the second oppose at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/International Space Station/archive4.

As you can see from the examples, I've had many a run-in with comments of this nature, and would like to suggest a guideline that goes something like this:

WP:DRIVEBY

1. If you make a request on an article talk page, stay and help out. Editors will benefit from your assistance, whether through your personal expertise or feedback on their edits, which will help the articles to improve.
2. When reviewing articles, if you see a problem that is easily fixed, please fix it. Placing issues in lengthy lists leads to extra work for everybody, and can slow down needed article improvements.
3. When reviewing articles, if you see a need for a major edit, for instance a copyedit, either offer to assist or suggest a solution to the editors of the page. Don't just demand the improvement and then watch as involved editors who may not be able to carry out your request rush around in a blizzard of panic as their nomination fails before their eyes. It leads to increased stress for everyone, and seldom leads to article improvements.

I'd also suggest that comments that are not followed up in this manner can be safely ignored by editors, unless of course the work required is minimal and clear, or a major error is pointed out.

Anyway, I'd be interested to hear back from others about this, whether to hear other editors' experiences or suggestions and comments on my proposal. Let me hear what you think! Thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

So if you think an article needs a copyedit and you can't do it yourself for whatever reason, you should just ... do nothing? I really don't see how that's an improvement over the current situation. As you noted, we really have no formal system, so any suggestion would just be "ask someone." And simply ignoring comments about improvement just because the editor didn't stick around to discuss doesn't really improve the project. If you agree with the comments and you feel like fixing it, fix it. Otherwise don't. People shouldn't ignore useful suggestions just because the person making the suggestion didn't watchlist the talk page. If you have a question, and the person hasn't replied on the talk page, ask on their user talk page. Mr.Z-man 20:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The idea being is that it's not improving the article and is being done without any talk or reason given. If the changes or questions raised are legitimate and discussed, then they should be addressed regardless of the track record of someone giving them. #2 of the list is rather inexcusable and if you're feeling bold you might just want to call them out or leave specific comments a few select places. #3, ridiculous disruption like that might be a WP:WQA if you have a few co-editors to file with to demonstrate your concern with even a short statement. There's ANI, but unless the action is recent and has evidence of immediate continuation any sanctions considered punitive sanctions instead of preventative. Could get some kind of "official" warning though. Gather some diffs of the worst of the worst, especially edits specifically seeming to sabotage a FAC. Have warnings and comments, polite requests and the like been left for the user(s) along the way? Have any 'constructive' edits of theirs been reverted as well? Naturally, this gets important quickly. Take your pick I suppose, WQA, AIV or ANI on a lenghy run of edits... just make sure to only post to one of them and if not appropriate they should get the proper direction. If this were a normal article I'd say try to dig up the more casual disruption process, but I'd semi-IAR on matters such as a FAC that should have had a fair evaluation some time ago.♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Telling people not to do it is one thing, as it can be annoying, but telling people to ignore potentially useful comments just because of the behavior of the commenter is the type of rule that's just asking to be ignored. Though from the comments here, suggesting people be brought to ANI and potentially sanctioned for this behavior, I'm starting to question whether any part of this is a good idea. Personally, I would much rather have drive-by comments than tell people that if they can't invest as much time as other people can, that their contributions aren't welcome, even if there's nothing wrong with the actual substance of their comments. Mr.Z-man 03:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(separate below)

As for the proposal, might I suggest a "bank robbery" clause? Slightly more organized crime. Persons who come in and make 5-25++ edits very quickly that are all technically minor edits or just 1 word changes in grammar or pluralization. It's impossible to keep up with and so long as the end result is disruptive and decreases the quality or factual nature of the article I'll revert them all in bulk. AIV is a clear outlet from there, and every before hitting 3RR the pattern of an edit war should be clear. Frankly, I'm surprised something like the ISS would get this kind of attention form random nameless persons not necessarily productive. Jeez. The proposal has some merit. Worry about your passing a FAC if you'd have no true fair chance first and you could consider writing up an essay to start with this. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this proposal. To request help, coordinate work with other users or request a more experienced editor to make a complex task for you there are other venues, such as the talk page itself, related wikiprojects, the village pump, the help desk, etc. (each one according to the nature of the problem). Peer review is not one of such venues: by placing an article there you are not asking "Can you fix this article for me?" but "What do I have to do to improve this article?". Like giving a hungry man a fishing pole, instead of just a fish. The idea is to get advise, and you should be grateful of such extensive advise. Something similar goes for FAC: an article nominated there should be "ready", so the review is about checking whenever it is really ready or not. If a reviewer find a lack of coverage and requests a section on X topic to be added, it's up to you to write it, fix the prose and spelling, reference it, give internal links and so on; you can't answer with "do it yourself or shut up" MBelgrano (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I got as far as the bit where you suggested that it was possible to violate the "Be Bold" policy and groaned. Ridiculous proposal, completely unworkable and little (if any) utility. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 09:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

MBelgrano, that's not the point I'm making. I get on very well with the reviewer who provided the review I gave as example 2, was very grateful, the article improved a lot as a result and I thought the right thing to do was award him a barnstar, which I did. My point is that doing reviews this way effectively trebles the workload; the reviewer lists the problems, then lists the solutions, then another editor implements the solutions. Surely its better if the reviewer implements their own suggestions? As for utility, reducing stress & workload is the main purpose. Colds7ream (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is indeed a major problem. Unfortunately many of the people who could best contribute to the articles are stricken with self-doubt, and do very little editing aside from wikignoming and reverting. I've been struck at how often administrators have these qualities - and I'll admit I get sucked into it as well. The best approach is just to tell someone upfront that they need to take a hold of themselves and do actual editing. II | (t - c) 04:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• I was with you up until you suggested ignoring comments because of their "drive-by" nature. A comment/suggestion should be evaluated based upon its own merits and not the context within which it is made; if a drive-by editor makes a valid suggestion with regards to an article, it would be both nonsensical and counterproductive to ignore it. The guidance you offer up to that point is sound and would make for a fine essay, but it just does not seem like policy/guideline material to me. Shereth 14:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that listing suggested changes during a review is at all a bad thing. Yes, it was annoying to me too at first, but if the reviewer did it all themselves then there is a very good chance that the person wanting a review to go well will not learn how to write a better article from the advice. By forcing the invested person to do the edits there is a much better chance that the reviewer's comments did the best good by improving the editor's ability to write (thus lessening the need for the reviewer to keep fixing the same issues on that editor's articles). As the Christian saying goes, give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man how to fish and feed him for a lifetime.

That said, I employ a hybrid approach: Fixing things in the article as I review until I notice that there are things that are being messed up way too often and are taking too much of my time to fix. I then go to the review page and list examples of the type of thing that should be fixed and how to fix it. If I see good efforts to enact those suggestions AND try to find and fix similar issues, I'll then come back and complete the copyedit and explain what I fixed. As I did for the Shuttle-Mir FAR. But this approach is intensive and limits the number of reviews I can do. Others may simply want to spread advice to more articles. I don't fault them for that given the low number of reviewers we have compared to the articles needing review. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 14:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's my drive-by comment and then I'll go on somewhere else- yes, these problems are annoying in nature, but having an actual policy to control human behavior is wrong. Yes, editors should do their own editing and adding to an article instead of just listing the problems/corrections/new things to be added; but alot of times if I know someone has invested alot of time and energy into working on an article and its "their baby", I'll just drop by and give them heads up on a good source I think they might like or point out that I know something about the topic that isnt mentioned and they might want to look up some sources to verify that its true or if I just have an urban legend (which sometimes happens on the towns/cities I work on). As with everything else on Wikipedia human nature makes us act a certain way, and human nature is neutral, sometimes it can be abused and be "evil" and sometimes its useful and "good". Dont control human nature at all.Camelbinky (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

None of these issues are problematic. An unproductive comment can be ignored. --TS 18:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that example of an unproductive comment. Ironic.Camelbinky (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought Tony Sidaway was both productive and sensible. I think driveby comments have the potential to be very important and productive, as is the case with WP:Third Opinion. I don't like the idea that we can categorise editors in terms of article involvement, as it suggests that established editors can ownership rights over articles, which is not the case. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 09:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

To dismiss as TS did that "None of these issues are problematic. An unproductive comment can be ignored" is part of the problem, and one that has been brought up many times regarding short and unnecessarily dismissive comments here at the Village pump and elsewhere, we've even had proposals to try and discourage such comments before. TS's comment isnt quite the same as a drive by comment but it still is not productive. Obviously the fact that someone has brought up this concern means it is a problem for someone, to dismiss it as "none of these issues are problematic" is not being helpful. You can agree with TS all you want, but it isnt productive to dismiss someone's problem as being not a problem. How about TS and the rest of you instead of being dismissive actually find some way to help the person see the good that can come out of drive by commenting or point out beneficial ways we CAN prevent some of the abuses. There are in fact bad aspects of drive by commenting, and you are ignoring them on the principal that there is "no problem" and they can be "ignored". Well I think Tony's was one that should be ignored. Dont care if you gang up on me because I'm a less popular opinion or voice. Those that dismiss complaints around here shouldnt comment, comments should be left to those who want to help.Camelbinky (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

How about TS and the rest of you... Yes, you're right and everyone else is wrong. I didn't see a problem with TS' comment, and several others here have said the same thing. I honestly think you're getting worked up about a minor problem, that's easily avoidable by ignoring unhelpful comments. Killiondude (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the reality is that a short, sharp comment that gets to the heart of the matter can be pivotal to a discussion and help break deadlock. I will admit to Camelbinky that, more often that not, driveby comments are little more than low level trolling, but at the end of the day, whether or not we are blessed with insight, no guideline should be written that could discourage editor participation. Like a broken clock that is only right twice a day, even a troll can get it right once in a while. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the whole point of the OP isn't that he wants to prevent potentially salient comments, it's that he wants to encourage participation from knowledgeable types whose highly specialized request—especially considering how much detail some of his diffs show these types willing to go into—would be much easier for the potential drive-byer to just cite and add themselves than it is for the frazzled editor himself.

Forgive how far I'm about to push the metaphor introduced above, but some posters are fishermen, some posters are cooks, and some posters are diners. If a diner thinks he's dealing with cooks he notes his preference for how he thinks the fish should be prepared. Some cooks are insulted by such a suggestion and some cooks are happy to oblige. Some diners are pains in the ass. And sometimes, if the fishermen didn't catch the fish the diner wants to eat, there's nothing the cook is going to be able to do about that. If we're posting at this particular page, chances are we're not just one-trick ponies (seahorses?), but some posters are — or that's all they're willing to be at a certain article or at a certain time. If we're operating in cook mode with the fish we caught, and realize someone's unlikely to come back and eat the fish the way they asked for it to be done, it's up to us to determine whether their suggestion makes the fish dinner we've already actually prepared seem wanting by comparison.

Having said all that, we should not structure the explanations/templates of our policy systems to appear as if we're inviting snarky restaurant critics to a cafe if what we really are is a trawler hiring a day crew. In other words, some editors, like the OP I presume, take on a lot of work and could use a hand, not just advice. Perhaps the posters of his experience are being confused by the FAC concept to think that what is being requested is, as another editor points out, someone to critique the painting with a fresh eye but not to roll up their sleeves and step in and pick up a paintbrush. They may put a lot of work into compiling a detailed list because they misunderstand how much more they're welcome to do. Or they may do so because they're pedantic types whose focus is on refining fishermen when what we're really refining here is the collaborative aspect of providing fish dinners. And the only way some poor fools could ever catch a fish is if they shoot it in a barrel.

Bottom line, to pick up on another editor's comment, we won't get far trying to change posters' human nature, but what we might do a better job at is representing to the sort of highly informed poster the OP is commenting on that, if they have the time, knowledge and/or willingness to provide refs, compose sections, etc., they are welcomed by the nominating editor to do so in article space rather than from the peanut gallery. It's a grey area, being an open-to-all project on the one hand and respecting the finely-honed work at the point of a nomination on the other. Perhaps the answer is a differentiated nomination, on the one hand something of a "make a suggestion and back off" and on the other, basically a "make a suggestion of what you'd like to add, await a response and then dive in." Just don't be surprised if that fishing expert you're complaining about is out to sea and isn't going to be able to log in and read your comment to him for the next couple of weeks. I've been on both ends of that line.

To the OP, I'm absolutely stultified by Wronkiew's list. Yet scanning down through your response I see the two of you ultimately had a dialog. Was this an example of giving you your space, or one of, for lack of a better word, his preferring to presume to teach you to fish?

I think the OP's WP:Driveby points (the first two in particular) are fairly reasonable ones to make, but I don't know how many of the drive-byers would have come across them in the first place; if it's presumed they are not returning to click their links in the second place, I guess the point is to cite the policy as an excuse for not researching and executing their suggestion? (And so what seems to be called for is some template on the page when they arrive to make the comment in the first place.) As to the third point, AGF and all, but I've come across plenty of diners who'd only get a rise out of hearing their know-it-all "suggestions" have thrown the kitchen staff into a "blizzard of panic".

As to rushing and losing the nomination, perhaps the real issue there is that such reviews should have pause buttons for when some fundamentally important point is raised, so that a reasonable time period can transpire so it can be determined if this is a drive-by or someone willing and able to do the thing they know best, and then the nominator can take the time he or she needs (no doubt at the culmination of a great deal of work and with other polishing to do) to execute the suggestion themselves. I'm not that familiar with the review process but if there isn't such a thing, perhaps that's the real fix? You know, short of tracking down the drive-byer to force him to make the edit himself, at the point of a harpoon.

But fish isn't really my thing so I won't be returning to see how this plays out. (JK) Abrazame (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I am so happy that Abrazame commented, it was exactly the type of well thought out insightful and helpful comment that makes people who bring their problems here realize that we are here to help them, not criticize them or ridicule them. For the record I never advocated a new policy or anything of the sort, as pointed out by Abrazame (he referred to me as a generic editor, but the comment was indeed mine) I stated that we shouldnt have policy that attempts to control human nature. So I'd appreciate those that attack me realize that I'm not in favor of any such thing that is being attributed to me. I am however standing by the fact that NO ONE should be here to try and squash a discussion with a snipe remark that there is "no problem"; if someone brought up a problem then it exists. If you dont want to help fix the problem then any comment is probably not helpful and unneeded. Why do you think we've had others continually try and put forth new proposals and policies to end those types of remarks? Its funny how those who are so interested in attacking me when I say that Wikipedia is only an encyclopedia and NOT a community at all are often the ones most vocal against me when I make comments about helping those that come here instead of trying to drown them out with "there is no problem" and other comments to try and stiffle discussion... funny.Camelbinky (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You could just write an essay instead of trying to prove us all wrong, or whatever it is that you're actually doing now, you know...
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Second time someone's said that, dont know if it was you both times, but seriously- I never said any of you was wrong! You got a problem with me you want to share? Im saying it is my opinion that it is not needed for people to be rude and tell others that their problem or issue that they've brought to us is "not a problem" as TS did, instead of coming up with ways to help or show that "yea, it might be a problem but its something we have to live with for the greater good". That's all, and for that I get attacked. There is nothing to "prove wrong" I agree that there isnt anything that can be done, but Im letting people know what I think about people who try to stiffle conversation by telling those who come here "we dont have a problem, you do, we shouldnt help you or help you understand". Get it right about what I'm saying if you have a problem with what I say. This is a place where people come for help and point out things that bother them with Wikipedia. Lets be inclusive instead of trying to shut them up. Jeez.Camelbinky (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey everybody, haven't been here for a few days, and I see that a big discussion's blown in! Good times! :-) I'd like to thank Abrazame for their comment - you've expressed my orginal point far more eloquently than I. The idea of a pause button for nominations is a really good one - the policy at FAC seems to be to shove everything through as fast as possible, and little breathing room would be great. As for Wronkiew's list, as I said before, there's no doubt that the article improved as result of it, and I probably learned a few things, but there was still a lot of material on it that I'd have been happy to be fixed directly. I'd also like to retract my 'ignore comments' clause suggestion, if I may. Blame it on an emotionally charged state. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion of unreferenced BLPs

Because one of the main criticisms of all suggested systems for the deletion of unsourced BLPs was that people are misusing the system to achieve their goals, I have created a proposal for a completely new (although obviously similar) system: Wikipedia:Deletion of unreferenced BLPs. ProD stays like it is, and all discussion, refinements, opposition, ... can be centered at the new location. No confusion between regular Prod and the new system will be possible anymore, I hope. Again, this is a proposal, not a new policy. I'll post notifications of it in a few central locations, feel free to add it to all relevant pages I may have forgotten. Fram (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You could have waited till the centralized discussion linked to directly above this was completed, or at least showed some sort of consensus to do something...
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 09:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that as pretty much "no consensus, going nowhere". And for various reasons a reboot of the discussion may be helpful. Rd232 ^talk 10:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and my proposal tried to solve one of the problems that made the previous proposal controversial (it will never get the "unsourced BLPs are no problem" people on board, but many of the more procedural opposes may be swayed perhaps). Fram (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah the old "not getting the result we want so keep starting new discussions until there's one that enough of the opposers didn't find or finally got tired of repeating the same argument everywhere". OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want it more widely advertised, be my guest. Apart from that, I am actually trying to listen to the reasons a lot of the opposers gave for opposing, and one that often came back was that people tried to misuse the prod process for something it was not designed (or approved) for. So actually, those people would need to find a different argument this time if they still oppose it. And there is a very good solution for those people fundamentally opposing this: work on the backlog, make the problem go away. Fram (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got about 10 seconds for a reply, so sorry about being abrupt. Fix the problem at gunpoint? does that really sound reasonable to you? Also, I posted elsewhere, I've actually worked on the problem personally. What have you done? (particularly aimed at Lar, who's been throwing the opposite around as a weapon).
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 15:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm now counting 6 separate discussions linked to from VPP alone. Hopefully I'll get round to reading and commenting on them all by the end of the week. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 18:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living_people
2. Wikipedia talk:PROD#Alternative proposal: Proposed BLP Incubation
3. Wikipedia talk:Deletion of unreferenced BLPs
4. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rdm2376's deletions and other ANI threads
5. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#BLP deletions
6. Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#Change WP:PROD to prevent removal of tag on unsourced BLPs, then prod 'em all

Requests for comment regarding biographies of living people

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people --MZMcBride (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Mass BLP deletions

A group of administrators have started an out of process mass deletion of articles about living people that lack sources. When asked to stop by widespread opposition, they have stated that they do not care about consensus and expressed their dislike for the Wikipedia community. Five members of the arbitration committee are supporting a motion saying "The administrators who carried out these actions are commended for their efforts..." Anyone who follows Wikipedia policy would have reason to look at this, whether your area of interest is deletion policy, BLP, administrator conduct, the role of the community, consensus or governance. There is of course plenty of "drama" and side fights around, but this important enough that even those who normally ignore wiki-figths are needed.

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rdm2376's deletions
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#BLP_deletions and #Motions
• The administrators:

• Rdm2376 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

--Apoc2400 (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"but this important enough that even those who normally ignore wiki-figths are needed." You see, this is my problem with this entire thing. From the get go this has been a case of "let's sharpen the knives, enough is enough, I declare war !!!" Reminds me of the Somali villagers I saw Ross Kemp's In search of pirates, where one village goes to burn down the rivaling village. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a question of perspective? A different way to interpret the quoted text might be "in this sensitive and important issue we face, input from those who normally avoid more sensitive discussions is particularly welcome, both for the calm and measured approach they might take along with the fresh insight they may bring, something we can all recognize can often be difficult for those more case-hardened or long-involved in the discussions despite their best endeavors." –Whitehorse1 17:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for mass deleting unsourced BLPs

The process for deleting unsourced biographies of living persons ought to go something like this:

1. Speedy delete any attack pages per CAT:CSD#G10.
2. Propose deletion of (prod) all unsourced BLPs. A human should check each one to make sure that there are actually no sources, that the sources are not merely formatted in a non-standard way.
3. The rate of prodding should be reasonable. Editors who want to save the articles by finding sources should be given fair opportunity. Discussion can establish what a reasonable rate of prodding is.

If this process were followed, the BLP mess could be cleaned up withing a realistic timeframe without creating undue disruption. Many of these articles have existed for years. It may take a few weeks or months to address them all. Please proceed collaboratively, without extremism or rancor, to fix the problem. Jehochman ^Brrr 13:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Too late for that, let's just all give in to the hysteria! Rd232 ^talk 14:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I agree, obviously, and have said similar things till I'm blue in the face. Rd232 ^talk 14:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Prodding one per hour should clear up the backlog in about a year. This is a big job, but not beyond what humans can cope with. It would start with the oldest tags in Category:Unreferenced BLPs, of course. That however will only addresse the completely unreferenced, not the insufficiently or improperly referenced BLPs which are far more common.

For newly created BLPs, a hard line should apply. If it isn't referenced, it should be immediately wp:userfied to its creator by a bot. No process at all. Get them started on the right foot. LeadSongDog come howl 20:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support the comments by Jehochman and LeadSongDog. Bearian (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Move unsourced BLPs to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator to give editors a chance to provide sources; apply {{noindex}} to all these pages; move them back when they have been sourced. Ucucha 14:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

see also WT:PROD#Alternative proposal: Proposed BLP Incubation, and Wikipedia:Deletion of unreferenced BLPs. Rd232 ^talk 14:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

article in the incubator are noindexed automatically. Rd232 ^talk 14:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support either version. Editors have put in effort creating these articles, the ones that are not attack pages deserve to have a chance to be sourced. As many have demonstrated, sourcing them is not impossible, and in many cases gives excellent articles. --GRuban (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Another Alternative, close the stable door

I'm not convinced that old low traffic BLPs that are tagged as unsourced are really our biggest BLP problem, or that starting with our oldest supposedly unsourced BLPs is the best approach. A lot of the "unreferenced BLPs" are really under referenced ones, and I suspect the sneakier vandals have the sense to at least partially source their cyberbullying. Also, in my experience when you search userspace for badwords you find more personal attacks, cyberbullying and {{G10}}s per hour than looking at Category:All unreferenced BLPs, and the worst bits of mainspace vandalism I've ever encountered have not been in BLPs. So despite the current fashion for deleting old unsourced BLPs, I'm not convinced that this is the best way to improve the pedia.

We also need to remember that Wikipedia is a very complex system, and one should always be cautious about making multiple simultaneous changes to complex systems as the interactions between different changes can be unpredictable. Earlier this month User:DASHBot started gently chiding the authors of unsourced BLPs. I think we should wait a couple of weeks to see what effect that has on Category:All unreferenced BLPs, or if people want to give DASHBot a hand, look for retired/inactive/blocked users who DASHBot has spoken to and help them fix or delete their unsourced contributions. Alternatively or as a next step, can someone write a Bot to inform wikiprojects of unsourced BLPs in their remit in the same way that DASHBot has been informing authors? Flagged Revisions is also supposedly on the way, so I think we have quite rapid change taking place on the old BLP front even without admins deleting articles without attempting to fix them or inform the authors.

To my mind treating our oldest BLPs more harshly than our newest is like rounding up escaped rabbits and putting them back in the run without first moving the run away from their escape tunnel. Rather I would suggest that for new BLPs we introduce "delete new unsourced BLP" as a speedy criteria; provided that we very clearly inform article creators that from a particular date this is the new rule, and that articles created after that date with information about living people must be reliably sourced. I think this would stop the problem growing and then there is just a mammoth maintenance task to improve or delete the crud . ϢereSpielChequers 15:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Quite agree. But ArbCom is apparently in the process of deciding that the views of people like us don't count for anything, so I'm not sure if there's any point continuing to discuss it.--Kotniski (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, now moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people#View By WereSpielChequers ϢereSpielChequers 17:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

People are banned from wikipedia for far less disruption. I find this approval by Arbcom of disruptive behaviour and contempt for consensual editing extremely disturbing. Dmcq (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion of unreferenced BLPs has been marked as a policy

Wikipedia:Deletion of unreferenced BLPs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What!? It's only a day old! OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just an error when creating it, I had forgotten to remove the cat:deletion policy from the proposal (copied from ProD, which is policy). It is clearly marked as a proposal, and won't become policy before the RfC on BLP deletions has concluded (if ever). Fram (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia's Strategy Project

Hi all,

You may be aware that the Wikimedia Foundation has engaged in a strategic planning process to plot out a five year plan for the Foundation, which also sketching out broad strokes for the greater Wikimedia movement. We've been doing the beginning part of that work on the strategy wiki, at http://strategy.wikimedia.org.

The first two sets of draft outcomes for this have recently been posted: recommendations from task forces whose members are drawn from the community, and a draft letter from Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Sue Gardner to the Board of Trustees sketching out what we believe should be the major priorities and "un-priorities" for the Foundation. You can read the recommendations from the task forces here, or read Sue's letter here.

It's important to note that the priorities that Sue details are priorities for the Foundation - that is, it's what the FOUNDATION will do; it does not attempt to speak for other parts of the movement (such as chapters or other groups of Wikimedians acting individually).

We would very much appreciate your input on both the recommendation and Sue's letter with the Foundation priorities. Please feel free to leave your comments on the talk pages.

We're also beginning the process of translating those things into other languages to extend them for wider feedback. If you can help with that, please check out our translation coordination page.

Thanks so much for taking the time to read and consider the priorities discussed!

Philippe Beaudette, Facilitator, Strategy Project (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Article creation

I came across the CSD for [redacted - see below], and my obvious question is why was an email address able to be created as an article in the first place? Additionally, the user who created this page only appeared on my radar because he blanked a page I watch, but to my mind, allowing this sort of nonsense to be created wastes everybody's time. I thought we had some editcount minimums in place to prevent this sort of thing, but apparently not, so I was wondering if there could be or should be a better way to police the AFC process and yet keep it open to new content. Clearly being a registered user via a free email service is not a deterrent to either vandalism, hoaxes, or stupidity on WP, and I wonder if we need to start looking at a number of policy changes in different areas. I don't necessarily have all the answers on how or where to do this, so I thought it would be more prudent to bring it up here generally than on any particular proposal topic. MSJapan (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Why shouldn't an email address be a valid article title? We've already got articles on phone numbers (867-5309) and social security numbers (078-05-1120). --Carnildo (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've edited the OP to remove a personal e-mail address. The article was deleted under CSD#A7. –Whitehorse1 02:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Abuse response/Guidelines has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Abuse response/Guidelines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Giving rights to my alternate account?

I maintain a declared alternate account, User:Nyttend backup, for use at times that I'm using any computer other than my own, in order to reduce the risk of my password being compromised. Tonight, I'm on a friend's computer, but I'm having to use my main account because the IP has been autoblocked due to the activities of the indef-blocked User:Screwup09. In case I encounter this situation again, would it be appropriate for me to give my alternate account the Ipblock-exempt right? I feel rather odd giving myself any user rights without input from others. Nyttend (talk) 06:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

And if I'm allowed to do this, how again do I change user rights? I can't remember how to find the screen where I can change user rights. Nyttend (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't see anything wrong with that. Special:UserRights--Jac16888^Talk 06:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done, as you already have it on your primary account. –SpacemanSpiff

Thanks; I'm not encountering any problems with editing. Nyttend backup (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Is subst inclusion of templates strictly legal?

I would like to discuss a minor copyright issue - including templates using subst. In this way, authors of the template are not credited - there's no simple path of links to the template history. The CC license requires one, so is it actually legal to use subst? Lampak (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Templates typically include a hidden cmt noting the template name. –xeno^talk 14:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I think most subst-able templates include a hidden comment declaring their provenance. If they don't then they should for more than just legal reasons. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 14:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Most userboxes and the like, on the other hand, don't. So technically one shouldn't subst a userbox without noting the source in the edit summary. –xeno^talk 15:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Advice please

In attempting to engage with the Microsoft Macro Assembler article and its primary contributors, I made this edit, which resulted in this discussion, and this edit, which resulted in this and this. How should I proceed? I would at least like attacks against my motives on the article talk page to be retracted. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 15:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like a Wikiquette problem and that last bit about too many edits sounds like WP:OWN. Have you tried a complaint on their user talk page to see if the language can be toned down? Dmcq (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Having had a quick loo at what you did to it I'm afraid I have to agree with the other editors about the deleterious effect of your work. I have used perhaps twenty different assemblers and I do find the information you removed interesting and not howto. So I would say there is also a content dispute there which has gone nasty. Dmcq (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, I attempted to discuss the content and sourcing issues but was met with extreme hostility. I then decided to make a bold edit to illustrate my position, expecting to be reverted. My issue here is with the attitude and behaviour of the editors, not with the final outcome of the content. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 15:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not WP:BRD, that's WP:POINTy. And my sympathy for people attacked because they were making a point with bold deletes has been exhausted recently by a group of admins deleting unreferenced biographies. However I believe a Request for comment may be what you are looking for about your desired changes. Dmcq (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for the advice... OrangeDog (τ • ε) 16:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, a complaint about 'changing too much' in an edit? Really? Maybe that's why some people are extremely annoying and make 20 edits in an hour to some pages, despite what WP guidelines suggest... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Unreferenced biographies of living people

I've proposed a new policy to break the impasse.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

By "break the impasse", it looks very much like what's really meant is "attempt to generate posts from others in the hope they might prove useful to sway in your favor the Arbcom proceedings you currently face for your recent conduct." –Whitehorse1 18:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't currently face any proceedings, so no idea what you mean.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

See the post from about 48 hrs ago (few sections above) mentioning you. You're right, it does look as though Arbcom have moved forward with the motion mentioning you since that was posted. –Whitehorse1 19:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Whitehorse, please point to this supposed Arbcom proceeding Scott faces. Woogee (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It should now be referred to in the past tense, which is why I agreed Scott is correct when he rightly pointed out he wasn't facing a proceeding currently. The first reply referred to this proceeding. –Whitehorse1 23:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggest changing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC "Article traffic" policy

I am currently having a requested move discussion at Talk:Biocentrism. Just for some background, and as an example of why I see the need for a policy change at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC -- essentially there are two senses of the word biocentrism:

• One of them, which is currently not the primary article (currently biocentrism (ethics)) has been used for several decades, and is far more commonly used (6700 out of 6800 times in scholarly papers according Google Scholar, 99100 out of 142000 on web results, and 813 out of 818 on Google Books). Also, by looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/Biocentrism one can see that the vast majority of Wikipedia articles which link to biocentrism are doing so thinking that it will point to the sense covered in biocentrism (ethics).
• The other sense of the word is from a recent cosmological/philosophical/spiritual book by Robert Lanza that was written a few years ago. Now, unlike the scholarly papers where it is 67 times less common, on the web results Lanza's book does make up about a fifth of the results, including many of the top results (mostly booksellers such as its Amazon page, book reviews, and a handful of news stories on it, etc). Even with the extensive marketing, recent news/reviews, etc. that has been done for Lanza's book, and the fact that most of the pages regarding his book have very little information content (compared to scholarly papers, books, etc) -- the Lanza book still only makes up a fifth of the results. And weighting these recent results as much as the scholarly papers, news, and books that go back decades for the biocentrism (ethics) sense is a clear case of WP:Recentism and a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. But, additionally, as users on Talk:Biocentrism have pointed out, the Wikipedia article traffic statistics show that biocentrism receives far more traffic than biocentrism (ethics).

This very last part is where my problem lies with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I have stressed repeatedly over on Talk:Biocentrism that these traffic statistics are misleading and do not imply that the cosmological sense is the more popular use of the term. Basically, it is totally obvious that whichever sense is at biocentrism rather than biocentrism (foobar) is going to get far more traffic for several reasons:

1. Whichever article is at biocentrism is the first google result when people search for the word "biocentrism". This is a very common word that has been used in the field of environmental ethics/philosophy for decades (in the ethical/philosophical sense), and right now every time someone looks it up, they are pointed (incorrectly) to biocentrism, which is in fact about Lanza's book instead of what they were looking for.
2. There are a large number of articles on Wikipedia which link to biocentrism. The very large majority of them are intending to link to the biocentrism (ethics) sense, but have merely never heard of Lanza's book. Every time someone clicks on a link from one of the numerous articles which link to biocentrism, they get (erroneously) led to biocentrism.

These two factors will obviously cause whichever page is linked to biocentrism to get much more traffic, so I don't think it makes much sense to say "See -- biocentrism is getting way more article traffic than biocentrism (ethics), therefore it's obviously the most popular sense of the word." ... however, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC current lists article traffic as one of the criteria, along with web/book/scholar results and "what links here", for determining the primacy of one use of a word over another.

Now, I do see article traffic being important in one case -- namely, the case where there are two articles "Foo" and "Foo (bar)", and where "Foo (bar)" is getting far more traffic than "Foo". Given the two ways which "Foo" will have a "traffic advantage" that I mentioned in the specific example above, the fact that even with those factors taken into account, "Foo" still has less traffic than "Foo (bar)" is an indicator that perhaps "Foo (bar)" should be made the primary article (assuming that the other two criteria on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC also point to this). However, this case will likely be somewhat rare due to the heavy traffic weighting given to the primary article.

Note the difference here though -- in the second "Foo" example, the primary article is receiving less traffic than a "secondary" article "Foo (bar)", whereas in the case of biocentrism, the primary article is receiving more traffic than a "secondary" article biocentrism (ethics). The former is evidence in favor of an article move, the later is almost a tautology. That is, the former implies that something very well might be wrong, while the latter doesn't really tell us much at all.

I'm not sure how I'd like to mention this in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC -- I'm currently trying to figure out a concise way of saying this. But I think that it should be made clear that this is an issue, that people keep in mind if they are using article traffic as supporting/opposing evidence for an article move/disambiguation discussion.

Do any of you have suggestions for how to word such a change, and where to include it, etc.?

Do any of you disagree, and think that nothing should be changed? Why?

Sorry for the long post! -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Incivility blocks

A proposal for a new policy on blocking for incivility has been made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incivility blocks. DuncanHill (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sock Puppet Policy

Okay, I've noticed that other users have been blocked due to being a suspected sock puppet. I think that users should have to be a confirmed sock puppet in order to be blocked, because a user may be a suspected sock puppet but not even a sock puppet. Same if a user's username seems similar to another username that belongs to the someone who is blocked/does vandalism, because that user could've just made that user name and be similar to another one's as a coincidence. If you can, please change this policy. It just seems unfair to block someone because someone is suspected to be a sock puppet. --Hadger 02:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I just happened to think of this, because I just thought that someone may not be a sock puppet of another person but be a suspected one and because of that be blocked indefinitely. --Hadger 02:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I once thought similarly, but there are too many short term abusive socks. I do think that the sock blocking template should be nicer, easier to understand, and slightly apologetic for the occassional false positive. I think that anyone who declares that they are not a sock upon finding themselves accused and blocked should be presumed to be innocent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes the account tagging is confusing or over done. And the wording is confusing if you don't understand the reason for the block. But the idea behind the block is sound. Running checks to confirm a "particular" master sock for obvious disruptive accounts just to confirm which person is socking is not needed in many situations. Often accounts are blocked for socking because they repeat the same disruptive contributions of another account that was blocked. So the block is for the disruption and is given the suspected sock tag since no check was done or the technical evidence was not available to confirm a sock account. But I agree with your idea that people should not be block purely for suspicion that they are a sock. There needs to be firm evidence of some type links the accounts and/or disruption. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just don't think that I think someone can just say "I suspect this person is a sock puppet!" and get that person that they are accusing blocked just because they don't like that person. Besides, I'm sure that wouldn't happen. It's just that usually someone is blocked for being accused, and even if that user has a bit of good evidence that user is a sock puppeteer, that user still wouldn't necessarily be a sock puppeteer. --Hadger 23:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for agreeing. Also, I just said the above comment because, well, I know you don't think that, but I just posted that so you so you know that that's not why I came here to post this message. --Hadger 23:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Completely disagree. For one, how do you "prove" that someone is a sockpuppet? What criteria would be satisfactory? Second, it's often quite obvious that someone is either a sock, or is just mimicking a banned editor's motive (which is effectively the same as a meatpuppet). In either case, WP:DUCK will suffice. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding reference to a Wikipedia Talk page message to a Mainspace article

I would like to reference a talk page entry by a known individual who is otherwise notable and whose statements pass the normal criteria for inclusion in a mainspace article. Technically, this is not difficult as a simple diff link would suffice. Are there other policies that would exclude this that I'm unaware of? My inclination is to treat the remark as, say, a blog post by a media personality might be treated, i.e. as notable on the grounds that the individual has a media profile beyond his blog. Dduff442 (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:CIRCULAR is a section under the core verification policy that is pretty particular about never referencing within the Encyclopedia. In fact, we're pretty persistent about how we or any "Wiki" in general can never be considered a reliable source as we are never externally reviewed and our work never complete. You're on the right path to specifically weigh who is saying it as a criteria of it being a reliable source, but we can only accept it at face value. Because a living person has been considered notable within Wikipedia guidelines or even if they have been used as a reliable source here, this does not in any way whatsoever mean anything they say is a usable quotation and be assumed as fact... "statements pass... criteria for inclusion" is just a minor slip in reversing a single word in policy so I can see your point of view. Notability is what determines inclusion, but statements are vetted for inclusion when we can verify them from a reliable source.

Even if we look past that all and we could confirm identity, etc., we're not a place for original research and statements and clearly our talk pages aren't certified by scholarly third-party groups. If you feel the reference important and completely reasonable, the best I think I can offer you is that the statement needs to be published/listed as a reliable source. You could ask if anything similar to what you're hoping to use has been published anywhere. Pretty much all of this centers around matters of verifiability, and no matter how much good faith we toss onto the situation there's just no way I think you could get away with this. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Could you clarify what you mean by If you feel the reference important and completely reasonable, the best I think I can offer you is that the statement needs to be published/listed as a reliable source?

The material in question has been covered before but by someone else. Basically, Bjørn Lomborg was accused of misrepresenting sources by Gary Yohe. A dispute arose in the pages of The Guardian and the two eventually issued a joint statement which, in essence, adhered to Yohe's point of view.

I added a note to the bio page of Richard Tol, a third party involved in writing the paper with Yohe, to the effect that had not disputed Lomborg's characterisation of his position. Tol himself then removed this statement, saying it was "unreferenced (and untrue)". Now either Tol (who is active in the media) protested Lomborg's use of his data or not and I can find no trace of him ever objecting to Lomborg in any way. To support this fact requires me to reference a non-occurence, however, which is never easy.

At this point, a talk page discussion arose in the course of which Tol left me the following message:

Absence of protest does not signify agreement (i.e. his agreement with Lomborg, though this was not claimed in the original edit Tol deleted). No journalist has ever asked me whether Lomborg correctly cites me. He rarely does, but he does it so often that I could spend all my time writing letters to the editor.

You have no evidence for my opinion on CC08, (i.e. the conference in question) so you cannot say whether I'm for or against or indifferent -- other than me stating here that I fully support Yohe in this matter.

I take it that "I fully support Yohe in this matter", is uncontroversial as a self-published BLP source that does not reference a third party? The other statements of interest are the sentences "No journalist has ever asked me whether Lomborg correctly cites me. He rarely does, but he does it so often that I could spend all my time writing letters to the editor".

Tol's identity is not in question as he not only wrote his own Wiki page (and numerous pages relating to colleagues etc.), he is also personally acquainted with at least one individual on Wiki, William Connolley, whose identity is beyond dispute.Dduff442 (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Statements made on talk pages of Wikipedia cannot be used as sources for the reasons outlined by Datheisen. First, there is no mechanism in place to assure with 100% confidence, that the user Rtol is in fact Richard Tol or that every edit made by that user is made by the person. While it might very well be so, the essentially anonymous nature of Wikipedia accounts prevents them from ever being used as sources. Secondly, there is no editorial oversight as would be expected with reliable sources. Even if it were possible to conclusively link the person and the user account, using statements by the account would amount to a primary source, which has significant implications for avoiding original research. To put it bluntly, neither wikipedia, nor any of the associated discussion pages, are a reliable source for anything other than the edit history of a particular page.

However, the basic problem is that you did add an unreferenced assertion to the article. Whether removed by the user Rtol or by any other editor, such an edit is supported by the requirement to provide references from reliable published sources. That you are unable to find any published sources documenting whether Tol registered any objection does not mean you can make the assertion that Tol did not object. older ≠ wiser 17:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Dduff, you need to take a step back from this situation and remember that, however fascinating the ins and outs of this issue may be to you, we are here to summarise coverage in reliably third-party sources. You seem to be far too close to the situation and losing sight of the big picture.

Research scholarly sources (if available) and news sources, and summarise what they are saying. That's all that needs doing. The subject's comments on Wikipedia talk are as immaterial to his BLP as his overheard comments to the check-out girl at the supermarket. --JN466 21:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

New religious movements workgroup Manual of Style

This is to let editors know that the New Religious Movements workgroup within WikiProject Religion now has a Manual of Style for articles on New Religious Movements (cults). The manual is located at WP:NRMMOS.

Editors who have concerns about any cult/NRM article, would like advice on sourcing, would like one of us to look something up in one of the standard encyclopedias in that field, or would simply like a third opinion to help with a dispute, are cordially invited to contact the work group at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion/New_religious_movements_work_group. Thank you. --JN466 22:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Merging a template into a page

I'd like to merge Template:Demography/Moguer into Moguer, the only place it is used. Presumably, we don't want to leave a redirect from a template to an article. Also, presumably, we need to still credit the authors who contributed to this template page (which is a reworking of es:Plantilla:Demografía/Moguer, so their contributions are minor]]. I believe I should merge the template into the article, copy its history to the talk page of Moguer, and delete the template. Anyone disagree? - Jmabel | Talk

Seeing no response, that's what I'll do. If anyone thinks I'm wrong, we can always undelete the page. - Jmabel | Talk 04:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What you did is similar to WP:Merge and delete#Paste history to talk subpage and thus seems fine. It might be best to move it up to the header (section 0) and use a collapse box. Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed guideline - Wikipedia:Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

A number of editors have been working on a draft guideline for primary, secondary and tertiary sources for about a month. This has just been moved to the WP name space and upgraded to a proposal.

Currently, there is a section on the subject of primary, secondary and tertiary sources in the policy WP:NOR. Part of the proposal is that the section in WP:NOR will only talk about the original research aspects of using primary, secondary and tertiary sources.

A discussion is underway at WT:PSTSPROP.

Yaris678 (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Do people watch deleted articles to see if they are re-created?

I was reminded yesterday that I had meant to do a search to see if one article in danger of deletion could be improved. I was too late, but I re-created the article and no one has objected. Just wondering: do people watch to see if this is done, just in case the new article isn't any better than the one deleted?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got a deleted category on my watchlist, just in case anyone tries it on again, and I used to have a deleted hoax article on my watchlist just in case. Can't speak for anyone else though. DuncanHill (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If I'm participating in an AfD I watchlist the article and it remains on my watchlist if it is deleted, so yes. J04n(talk page) 22:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I regularly check my deletion logs to see if any articles I have deleted have been recreated. Of course, even if one has been recreated, it does not necessarily follow that it will have to be deleted again. CIreland (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It depends. If I suspect it will be recreated, from history or heavy fan/anon attempts to keep it or a sock creation, yes, I'll keep it watchlisted a long time. If its a fairly routine one then I'll usually remove it after a few days/weeks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an option to watch the page when you delete it. This is checked by default (for me, at least), and very useful, since the page is often recreated within minutes. decltype (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that you have the extra tools... – ukexpat (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No third-party tools are required, are you referring to the admin tools? As a tagger you can opt to watch all pages that you modify with the same effect. decltype (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NC

It has been proposed that WP:Naming conventions be moved and renamed to something like: WP:Article titles. The community is invited to comment at WT:Naming conventions#RFC on proposed rename. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change to technical term formatting

I have made a proposal for formatting of computer science-related articles at Wikipedia talk:Technical terms and definitions. Based on a recent peer review, it seems there is no formal guideline for this, and I think this will help solidify what I think is a logical and standard formatting guideline for computer science-related articles. Please check it out at Wikipedia talk:Technical terms and definitions and offer your comments. Thanks! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Good Article Reviews

Just wondering, is it normal when reviewing a good article not to point that out on the talk page? I logged in recently to find that Go (board game) had been de-listed. Of course I checked the talk page to see why, but there was no record of any discussion or notice placed there. Nor indeed had any notice been given to Wiki project China, Wiki project Japan, Wiki project Korea or Wiki project Go! Strange I thought. I am aware that some people have as a hobby de-listing and deleting, but this strikes me as a tad sinister. I wouldn't open a secret review of a Featured article, then de-list it before anyone had a chance to notice.--ZincBelief (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This question is better asked at WP:GA. For information on how GARs work, see WP:GAR. That said, it was delisted as part of the sweeps, per Talk:Go (game)/GA1, and there is nothing sinister about it. It is part of the process, and notification of any projects is not necessarily required. And, in fact, it was clearly announced on the article talk page[7] per appropriate practice and with a clear edit summary, and only one person bothered to respond or attempt to correct the issues. After the appropriate amount of time (1 week) it was delisted. Seems completely on-board, and properly done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

1 week is quite a short time, especially as it should be clear to the reviewer that his review had totally failed to attract the attention of any editor who had spent a significant amount of time on the page. Too often GA reviews operate like this.Actually I have no respect for the GA Sweeps project as they think it's ok to tell people who query their policy to Fuck Off (sorry for the foul language, but that's what literally happened). As a result of that I do not intend to ask them. When I have seen articles reviewed before it was always the case that a New Section was created in the talk page so that anyone reading it would notice. Good practice was to inform related projects and key editors. Hiding it in the colour overloaded mess at the top of the talk pages isn't quite as good or indeed appropriate, and an edit summary is hardly a good way of bringing about attention - it vanishes from visibility after the next edit. As a result I personally failed to notice any request to improve the page. It therefore fell to 1 person's opinion to de-list the page. Such is GA world these days. For me personally this is just more evidence of quite how pathetic wikipedia has become.--ZincBelief (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That is your view, and of course its understandable if you are taking it personally, however community consensus of GA in general (not just sweeps) was to move to using the same style system as is used for FAs, with the reviews linked at the top, and that being the primarily notice, versus the old practice of having them done directly on the talk page. The only difference between the way the two projects deal with GARs is that with FA, yes, individual notifications to relevant projects and the primary are required. And, honestly, I have never seen anyone in Sweeps tell anyone to kiss off so long as any criticism/question was made in a civil fashion. While you seem to be pretty bitter about GA sweeps, I do hope you will note that since the time that review was done, Sweeps did, in fact, change its process to require editor and project notification to avoid such issues as what seems to have occurred here. And please remember to assume good faith about your fellow editors. I myself have performed many GARs for sweeps (and outside of sweeps), and I have in deed seen many articles where even with all the notifications left, no one responded to the GAR at all. Usually in such cases, I figure no one feels capable of fixing the issues, or they just don't care. One week was seen by the community as an appropriate time for some response. Had more people expressed interest in fixing the article, I'm sure the GAR would have been extended. I myself have let some run as long as 2 months when there was active editor activity and discussion working to correct problems. Meanwhile, I went ahead and fixed the GAN you started for the article, as it was missing its topic. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I watch the Go (game) page, but also failed to notice the review because it was only a template change at the top of the page, and not announced properly on the talk page. It is not a matter of people "not being bothered" to respond to the review, but a matter of people not noticing that there was a review in the first place. I certainly would have done something to address the issues raised if I had known about the invisible subpage where the review was taking place on, as I am sure would have other regular editors of the article. BabelStone (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but if it was on your watchlist page, why did you notice it? Any change made to an article shows up in your watch list. The diff makes it pretty clear that a GAR was started. The template name is clear, and the edit summary was clear. If you both feel David Fuchs, the reviewer, did not properly notify people, its something to take up with him. But coming here to complain about it months later, seems really counterproductive, as it has nothing to do with policy. You both say you watch the page, yet neither of you noticed its being delisted for three months? Clearly at least one editor involved with the article noticed the GAR going on as he responded pretty quickly. And in doing a quick check, PC78 was not the only one who noticed it. The most active editor on the article, HermanHiddema, also noticed, though right after it was delisted.[8]. Did either of you actually talk about it with David first? There are procedures for dealing with disputed GARs, namely starting a community GAR to ask that it be reversed, or doing as was done and renominating it for GA. Speaking as an experienced GA reviewer, however, I suspect it will be failed because quite honestly the article does not meet the good article criteria anymore. It has far too much unsourced content and uses several unreliable sources, it does not meet basic [[WP:MOS] guidelines, the citation style is not consistent, it has inappropriate "notes", and its been tagged for some issues since April of 09. I think it would be far more productive if you both concentrated on bringing the article back to GA standards, rather than complaining in the wrong forum about how a particular GAR was carried out, especially when neither of you have taken the first step in dispute resolution, which is talk with the editor. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Or the GA "powers that be" take notice that there are actually quite a lot of us "mere editors" who would like a bit more effort at notification on these things and that maybe taking some time to go a bit above and beyond in doing some courteous notifications would be beneficial. A minor template change on a talk page is more likely to go unnoticed than for an actual who new thread being established which would be a bigger change. I know if its a small change on a talk page made by an established user I am less likely to go to a watchlisted page. This isnt about what MUST be done by the GAR people, its about what SHOULD be done by a normal human being in considering what makes notification easier for other people.Camelbinky (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, the sweeps process does now suggest that the main editors should be notified on their talk pages, along with appropriate projects. This is also the process for GARs in general. I'm not sure what else you are asking for... -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I am reasonably satisfied that GA Sweeps has accepted its process was rubbish and changed it. It is not comforting to know that they decided on a useless process, nor it is comforting to have people defend that useless process, nor is it comforting to know that the GA Sweeps project decided to revamp the whole area through a need to justify its existence. Wikipedia should not be breeding ground for rules for their own sake. It would be a damn site better if people concentrated on thorough research (as opposed to verifiable 'facts') and proceeded to write them up with some literary flair.--ZincBelief (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The criteria for both FA and GA have been upgraded between 2066 to 2007, and a lot of older FAs and GAs no longer meets the required standard - especially for WP:V. I've have one experience of responding to a reassessment of a GA, there was a lot to do but I started promptly and made recent progress, and finished a little over 2 weeks later. Discussions with other GA reviewers show that they will allow longer if good progress is made in the first week. --Philcha (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, little progress will be made if the review is hidden from the regular editors and project members. I also noticed a disparity between GA criteria and GA sweep criteria the last time I looked, and further noted that many GA reviewers are seemingly unaware of the GA criteria. That was a while ago, and as I said earlier, I lost interest due to the GA Sweeps obnoxious attitude. --ZincBelief (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2010 (reUTC)

I see that the the GAR template was added to the top of Talk:Go (game). Standard procedure is that the reviewer should also transclude the review into Talk:Go (game), but apparently was not done. However, BabelStone noticed that the GAR template was added, and PC78 made a minor improvement. Nothing was done about the main issue, lack of sources.

It's also odd that the GAR was failed in Sep 2009 and the current complaint was raised at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) in Jan 2010. The time would have been better spent on improved the article and then nominating the article at WP:GAN. --01:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

BabelStone stated that he did notice GAR template was added, you have not read what he has just written properly. It is a bit of a joke to say there is a lack of sources. Whoever wrote that obviously didn't read the actual sources referenced, because they back up all that needs referenced. For example the game recording section, that's such a trivial subject that it is an obvious area of subject specific common knowledge which does not need any references. Open a Go magazine and you are presented with the information. I have done some work to improve the article, and I did this work prior to raising this 'complaint' (it was actually a question) here. After completing the work I nominated the article. If you think that's odd you might like to explain why.--ZincBelief (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Are school scandals generally reported in school articles?

I heard on the news of several recent scandals at James Madison High School (New York) that began on Dec 9. There have been a string of 4 separate allegations involving 4 different teachers since then, but the school's article didn't mention them. This seems like a pretty prominent event, so I've added it to the article; but I'm wondering now if the omission was the result of some policy I'm unaware of? Equazcion ^(talk) 04:16, 29 Jan 2010 (UTC)

I think the question of whether to include fall squarely on whether the coverage is secondary, that is, whether the coverage says something about the scandal, or whether the information is a mere reporting (chronicling) of the facts. Opinion-free news reporting is not what we want to be sourcing directly. Did the scandals inspire commentary? If you call the source a "report", probably not. If you call the source a "story", probably yes. In the case in question, I think the four sources you give are clearly "reports" only. If the newspaper went on to report on the results of the poll, then there would be secondary coverage. The relevant policy is WP:PSTS --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're making a distinction I've never heard of, and don't follow at all. Could you clarify that? If this is about the relative low-browness of the Daily News, the story has been picked up in many other sources that could be used in its place. Otherwise, I don't see the difference between a report and a story; newspapers report stories, and even if you could have one without the other, this seems to be a story. How could this be considered a primary source? "Opinion-free news reporting is not what we want to be sourcing directly?" Since when??? Equazcion ^(talk) 10:30, 29 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I'm not really sure what the distinction between "reports" and "stories" means here either. I do understand that some stories contain commentary and all of that, I just don't see how it's particularly relevant. Anyway, I don't see any issue with adding properly sourced yet controversial/scandalous information to school articles. If I were particularly interested I might quibble about some minor things with your addition (exact placement of the cites, paragraph structure, need of using the Principal's age, minor technical things like that...) but certainly not with the content itself. Anyway, tangentially related to this is a discussion started yesterday at the Village pump (miscellaneous) about Charlotte High School (Punta Gorda, Florida).
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 11:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ohms. Feel free to correct any problems you see. It's not my best writing sample, but that's what's great about a wiki -- other people can improve on what you write :) Equazcion ^(talk) 11:03, 29 Jan 2010 (UTC)

True! The whole article could use a little touch up anyway. I'll give it at least 24 hours though, just to give this a little time to simmer.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 12:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason not to include these incidents. You may want to include other sources in addition to the Daily News since you are using the one paper exclusively for all four incidents. J04n(talk page) 12:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The distinction between reports and stories I make is that a report is a regurgitation of primary source facts, but a story includes commentary, or some other transformation of the facts, and is thus a secondary source.

The distinction is important because we, as an encyclopedia, strongly prefer all content to have been previously covered by other secondary sources, and to not build content directly from primary sources. If the secondary sources exist, we use them, but still use the primary sources as the primary sources tend to be more reliable in terms of the accuracy of the facts.

In this case, a "cause for concern" is that the references were just "reports" as I define above. They do not themselves indicate that anybody cares. Newspapers repeat all sorts of news. Newspaper reported facts do not, per se, demonstrate a prominent event. News these days is very cheap.

In support of including the material is the fact that the material was carried by mutliple media outlets. In this case, our story can be: "On dd mmmm yyyy, multiple media outlets reported ..." Also supporting the inclusion of the material is the fact that one of the outlets included a reader poll on the subject. This is a good indicator for the material being interesting. Even better for inclusion in the article would be a followup on the results of the online poll.

Where the content is related to "scandal" or non-constructive criticism, I think we should be more cautious to not lead in terms of commentary, and our mere inclusion of material is the commentary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're saying that you consider news to be a primary source? Additionally, I don't see why we should worry about the nature of content at all, by making distinctions about content being "scandalous" or not, as long as we avoid using the personal voice and inadvertently end up making it appear as though Wikipedia itself is making any assertions about anything. Classifying the character of content will inevitably lead to non-neutral writing, which we should avoid at all costs.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 01:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, news is usually a primary source, in that it is a true copy of a primary source. More specifically, "news told with a sense of immediacy and factualness without the insertion of the newsreader's commentary" is an excellent example of a primary source, speaking historiographically, as any encyclopedia writer/editor should. The extent to which it is unreliable does not make it a secondary source. The terminology here is inadequate. News is rarely "the primary source" by which scientist often mean the best, most reliable, singularly most relevant source, but it is a primary source in the way a copy of a copy of a transcript is the same source as the transcript itself. To understand what a primary source is, you need to first understand what makes a secondary source. You should also understand that "primary source" is not at all synonymous with "reliable source". Eyewitnesses to the same event frequently retell different basic facts.

We worry more about "scandalous" in so far that we are concerned that some editors may be less than neutral in their intentions, and out of kindly concern for those we may inadvertently hurt.

We also worry more about scandals because scandals have a greater capacity to spread with increasing drama with each retelling than do the typical objective, dispassionate, calmly considered analyses. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"primary source" is not at all synonymous with "reliable source" -- That's in our policy already, see WP:Primary sources, and no one here is claiming otherwise. Also in our policies, though, is that news articles are not primary sources but secondary sources. And, being a source where information has been filtered through the discretion of a publisher and their editors, secondary sources are considered more reliable. You can debate the validity of the policy or the terminology, but these are long-established practices on Wikipedia. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:56, 1 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I am pleased to find that "News articles are secondary sources" is not to be found in policy. It would not be true. The converse is not true either. It's complicated.

The assertion that a news story "has been filtered through the discretion of a publisher and their editors" is something that attests to notability of the subject. The mere retelling can be said to be an assertion of importance. This is true for the newspaper just as it is true for Wikipedia. The fact that the stories you added to the article were published multiply supports your additions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You're not likely to find a quote like that, though that doesn't mean it's not true. There's no list of sources, that I'm aware of, that specifies which source type they are (primary, secondary, etc). "Primary source" has a specific definition on Wikipedia that doesn't fit news articles. Wikipedia:Rs#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources: "Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event..." A primary source is an eyewitness or a movie script. A reporter publishing through a newspaper is not on that level. It's secondary. Also see Wikipedia:Rs#News_organizations -- they are considered a reliable source, and with no caveat that they are "primary", I might add. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:25, 1 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Have another looks at the sources. this one, for example. It is close to entirely a compilation of statements from people close to the event. It contains the closest thing to eyewitness accounts possible. Students who knew the teachers, speaking on the day of the news. People involved with the teachers, the schools, and the routines on a daily basis. This is clearly primary source material, by any definition, including the one you give here. Now ask, what in the article is the reporter saying? What of the opinions of Joe Jackson, Brendan Brosh, Christina Boyle,Daniel Rosen and Edgar Sandoval are you left with? Beyond "sources said", the reporters said nothing. They do not even contextualise. Maybe they did some chonological sorting of the quotes, or they selectively left out some available quotes? As the reporters said nothing about the event, the source is not secondary.

Also, there can not be a list of sources that specifies which source type they are. Source typing depends on the content and on how you are using it. Please see Secondary source and WP:SECONDARY.

The weakness of the section James_Madison_High_School_(New_York)#Allegations_of_inappropriate_conduct_by_educators is that it contains nothing said about the allegations beyond the allegations themselves. It contains no generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information. Without any of these things, it bumps into Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, particularly WP:NOT#NEWS. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

A primary source is one like an eyewitness account we use directly; a direct recorded or self-published statement, not one as reported from a news service. Look, I don't know what else to tell you. All I can say is that news reports (and/or "stories") are indeed considered secondary, reliable sources on Wikipedia. Period. You can debate the validity of that if you want (not with me anymore though), but this is currently how it works on Wikipedia. If you don't want to take my word for it, ask someone else who you do trust. If you believe me but you think it sucks, then try starting a proposal to change it at WP:VPR. Let me know how it goes. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:05, 1 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Missed your last paragraph there. WP:SYN isn't allowed. And, there's always more that could be added to an article. No article is ever complete. We put in whatever information we have from the reliable sources we have. If you have some relevant source for analysis of the events, adding them might help, but is not a requirement for inclusion of the bare facts. NOT#Indiscriminate and NOT#News pertain to article inclusion, not content inclusion. These incidents are just one facet of a notable school. Significant news about people are reported in their articles, as with companies, places, etc. Yes even without any "synthesis" or "analysis". Again, that's simply how it works here. I don't know what else to tell you, other than to ask someone you trust. And again, if you understand that this is how it works on Wikipedia but you disagree with it, you're welcome to propose a change. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:24, 1 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I am wary of reporting "allegations" because oftimes they end up being false. I would also note that there are real BLP issues involved for the people reported in such allegations, and that they therefore fall into the "contentious" category. If and when a charge is leveled, and only then, ought any such "news" make it into WP. Collect (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure where this belongs

Because of some recent issues (which reflect experiences I've had several times before on different articles) I have come to the belief that there needs to be a different set of editing rules with respect to dispute tags. The problem on my mind is when an editor or editors start reverting/removing dispute tags on sight - it effectively makes it impossible to raise sourcing, attribution, NPOV, or other content questions on the page without engaging in an edit war over the tags themselves (and yes, the issues can be raised in talk, but editors who are in the habit of removing disputes on sight are not generally big on talk page participation). While I obviously wouldn't want to make it impossible to remove bogus tags, I think that there ought to be something in policy that privileges dispute tags over normal content, so that they cannot be removed without at least some attempt at discussing and resolving the implicit content dispute.

This is such a vague idea, though, that I'm not sure where or how it would be implemented (if is a separate question, of course). I'm just throwing it out here to see what other people think. --Ludwigs2 22:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly I have a similar, albeit assymetrical experience with many such tags. A lot of the tags refer to a discussion on the talk page, that is often not there. So I would make it mandatory for the original tagger to open a talk page discussion. If no talk page discussion is opened in parallel with the tag, the tag should have no special privilege (as it could easily be POV pushing of the tagger). If there is a talk page discussion on the tag in that case removing it, as with content being actively discussed on a talk page, should only be done by consensus. But I don't see the difference with other content that is being discussed at talk.

My proposal here would be that taggers should start talk page discussions, and with that talk page discussion the tag is sufficiently protected against random removal. Arnoutf (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think ArnoutF has it covered. If there's no talk page discussion, you're completely justified removing the tag. If there *is* a talk page discussion, it is probably against consensus to remove the tag. This is the situation as it stands now, so I don't think we need to write any new policy. If you would like to document this existing practice somewhere, go right ahead! --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

lol - I'd be happy to document it, but (as the title of this thread suggests) I have no idea where. on wp:consensus? as a section of wp:edit warring? there doesn't seem to be any policy or guideline pages specific to template or dispute tag usage (at least, not that I know of...). I'm open to any suggestions about the best place to put it. I suppose I could write up something as an essay and propose it as a new guideline, but that would probably be overkill (unless there's more that needs to be said about template or dispute tag usage that I'm not aware of). --Ludwigs2 23:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Man, I've been arguing for months that "cleanup tags" ought to go on talk pages. Their really editorial issues anyway, but there is a significant number of editors who feel the need to air our dirty laundy in public, for some reason. Anyway, I also completely agree with Arnoutf, and even made a proposal earlier to seriously encourage some form of talk page entry being made about the addition of a tag, but that meet with significant resistance primarily because (based on what I could tell) "it takes too long" *rolls eyes*. To be more constructive here, My current idea in this area is that we ought to stick all of these sorts of cleanup material (tags, wikitext comments, notes about formatting, etc...) in the Wikipedia:Editnotice for the page. Page content should be strictly limited to exactly that: content. All editorial stuff really ought to be on the talk page or in an editnotice.

To be more on point here though, while I understand and even somewhat sympathize with the subject of the complaint, edit conflicts involving cleanup templates, I don't think that there's anything to be done while the system is as it currently is. I mean, as long as we're placing those tags so prominently on the pages they appear on, they will be a matter of contention between editors. Even if their moved to editnotices or to the talk page their still likely to create some conflict simply due to their nature. Articles generally only reach states where a cleanup tag is appropriate due to either willful disregard for, or ignorance of, our core content policies. That being the case, all cleanup tags are heavily critical of those who have made significant contributions to an article, especially since their placed so prominently. It really shouldn't be surprising that these tags sometimes create battles between editors.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 00:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I like the idea. But some things I dont agree with. I think there are certain tags that are useful for having on the article, dubious and citation needed tags let readers know that while this information is still being presented you should take it with a grain of salt because we havent backed it up ourselves. Now, some will say then that information shouldnt be here in the first place, and I would tell those editors in a civil manner to.. and.. with... (Joke before some anal admin decides to punish me for incivility, or take it to AN/I instead of blocking so I can defend myself) There are certain tags especially the big templates at the top of the page that could and should go to the talk page instead. I disagree that cleanup tags are the result of disregard or ignorance, at least not always, sure probably sometimes. I put citation needed on sentences I put in myself and know are right but to which I dont have a reference that meets our criteria right now, so I know this info is in here and can look up at my leisure. Other much better editors than I have done the same (in fact that's where I got the habit). Ignorance of our procedures (such as citations or formating or anything) is NEVER a reason for removal of contributions, tagging might not always be the best way to handle ignorance, taking time to help a newbie is better. But as Ohms points out, some editors out there want to tag or remove things and not do any actual work and leave the work to others and claim, "I'm cleaning things up by doing this, it isnt my burden, the burden is on those that add the stuff". FU to them, they need to start doing some effort and yes we need to load some burden on them to make them discuss or put the stuff on the talk page, to contact people, to be part of the solution instead of just point out problems on articles and running to the next article. Its a race with them and they need to be given some speed bumps, this is just one proposal which is a good start to erecting road blocks.Camelbinky (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Camelbinky. Some tags, like those dealing with warnings about the reliablility of content should be on the mainspace. Someone unfamiliar with the subject should know there is a question on the reliability, lack of information and/or neutrality of the subject. Furthermore, notability tags should also be placed on there because it is most likely to get attention and either find those sources or get the attention of an editor and, if it does not appear after some time to be approval, deleted/merged.

I also do disagree that some tags should be able to be removed without discussion. If there is an {{unreferenced}} tag and an article has no references or extensional links, it's clear the tag is warranted. You don't need to discuss that an article needs references when it has none. That's common sense.陣内_Jinnai 01:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

well, there's a couple of different issues here. pragmatically, most of these tags (particularly inline tags) need to be in mainspace - a citation or cleanup tag on the talk page would be very hard to link up with the place in the article that needs attention. I actually made a suggestion (somewhere, a long time ago) that there be a separate 'editor' flag which does nothing except show cleanup and and maintenance tags. that way all readers would see dispute tags, but only editors would see cleanup tags. the argument against it was that cleanup was an easy 'in' for new editors, who might see the tag and decide to pitch in. can't argue with that...

dispute tags are different: they're not just telling an editor that he's got some bad writing or needs to back up a claim, they're saying that the content of the article is (possibly) flawed, and that's going to set of all sorts of bells in editors who might already be worried about defending a particular point of view from attack. they do need to be visible to readers, and they do need to be discussed and resolved one way or another in order to make sure the page is accurate. Plus, if it were dispute tags were harder to remove, it would give an incentive for editors to discuss the issue, if only to get the tag removed

I'm tempted to suggest a rewriting of wp:BRD to be BRTD (Bold - Revert - Tag - Discuss) with wording that says he tag is integral to the process and shouldn't be removed. even better if it could be elevated to guideline status (which BRD should probably be anyway). I don't know if that would quite do it, though. --Ludwigs2 02:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Holy crap I never realized that BRD was just an essay not a guideline. That is sad (not just that I didnt know that, but also the fact that it is just an essay). I fully support any effort at elevating it. It is every Wikipedian's Jimbo-given right.Camelbinky (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Inline tags are completely distinct from Category:Cleanup templates.

Anyway, I think that BRD is perfectly fine as an essay. It describes an aceptable behavior pattern, but there's nothing about it with any kind of "this is what you must do" quality to it.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 14:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a requirement of a policy or guideline, in fact NO guideline or policy is something we MUST do, they are specifically simply our best methods and procedures and answers to common questions and problems that we have found work best at this moment. They are NOTHING more than that. BRD fits perfectly with that definition. Policies are not rules or laws!Camelbinky (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

BRD must remain an essay because it is only a methodology that may be followed. It does not document, nor does it set out to document, best practice. It's just one rather interesting (though rather demanding and often misunderstood) way for expert Wikipedians to resolve editing disputes. --TS 16:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice opinion. But an opinion of your own, that some may share. But an opinion only. BRD does not HAVE to remain anything. No law saying it MUST. By your own definition it fits a guideline "a methodology that may be followed" that is ALL a policy or guideline is! A policy and guideline is nothing more. That is for the community at large to decide. If consensus says its a guideline it's a guideline. It pisses me off when Wikipedians think there is some sort of "natural law" out there on par with gravity or electromagnetism that prevents or mandates things on Wikipedia. Consensus can change and do ANYTHING, we have no absolute mandates on what can/can not be a guideline. If enough people say BRD is the best practice and that's what should in general be done, then its the definition of a guideline. It is for individuals to decide their own opinions themselves on whether it is a good practice or not, and then for us as an aggregate to decide which opinions are strongest and how consensus is falling on the issue. And generally in MY OPINION yes BRD seems to be the best practice and one that Wikipedians hold dear and follow. Please refrain, for fear of confusing newbies and spreading the idea to them so they become more fanatical about enforcing the idea, from making it seem we have policies/guidelines that are strict laws or rules that MUST be followed and if it isnt a strict rule then its an essay that can be ignored. IAR applies to EVERYTHING.Camelbinky (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

well, I can see both sides of the issue. If no one can point to a place in policy where this kind of thing would fit naturally, then maybe what I should do is create a 'Good editing practices' page and propose it as a guideline. basically I'd start from BRD, but expand the page to a more general outline of productive, 'best practice' editing behaviors. would there be any support for that, you think? I'll whip up a start on it today so we can look at it and think about it - worse comes worst we can always delete it. --Ludwigs2 18:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh brother... Camelbinky, what I said above was simply a shortcut to make a point which we all generally take to be true. Obviously we don't have many firm rules which "must be followed", but there is a distinct difference in character between Policy, Guideline, and Essay documents. There's also a distinct character difference between some Essay's and others, for that matter. I'm sorry if I offended your political sensabilities, since my intent was to simply be succinct and to stay on point, but I see now that I actually made the problem worse. I wish that you would realize that you're pushing many discussions here far off course. I've been telling myself to avoid your posts on this board for quite some time now, and I think that this instance will actually push me to follow that rule. Anyway, @Ludwigs2, I'd go ahead and start it. Like you said, the worst that could happen is that we decide to delete it. I doubt that it could be more then an Essay itself, but if you start it off with that tone in mind it'll at least be more likely to become a guideline.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 18:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion and a show of bad faith. Nice how you can show distinct differences in character between policy, guideline, and essay when there are/have been discussions recently on just what the difference is and that its been put in the signpost and those discussions (to which I was a party to and you werent) could not come to a conclusion. But good to know, that as always, you know better and you have some insight we all dont have. Nice of you too insult me AGAIN in your post. Yea, maybe you should just not comment where I do. Ill be sure to make sure I post more often then.Camelbinky (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(studiously ignoring crosstalk...) well, here's a brainstorming draft. feel free to look, comment, edit, whatever. I decided to use that as an opportunity to draw together and sumarize a few other essays and guidelines, but I haven't linked through to them. I'm sure they'll be obvious when you run into them, though. here it is -> wp:Good editing practices --Ludwigs2 04:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

P.s. - just as an aside - why does the brain image on the {{brainstorming}} template look so much like a walnut? --Ludwigs2 04:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Because when you request that people brainstorm with you, you end up with a bunch of nuts commenting.Camelbinky (talk) 07:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

lol - I hate to admit it, but that joke took me a minute to process. well said! --Ludwigs2 08:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to userfy all petitions

See WP:VPR#Proposal: move petitions to user space.--Kotniski (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Featured whatever

I want to just suggest a proposal but i don't think in any way i should be the one to do it. A lot of pieces i've found have been featured for many years and Wikipedia is an ever changing site. I think that those pieces (articles, portals, pics, etc i.e, everything that is featured status) should at least every two years have a check on whether they are still up to standard on the criteria, even if it is quick. Simply south (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean something similar to the Good article sweeps, but for featured articles? I think its an excellent idea myself, but I suspect it would meet strong opposition from the FA delegates due to the potential flood of FAR items. They already limit a nominator to a single FAR active at a time. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much. Simply south (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as it goes, we're already onto this over at WP:FLC, and have been for some time... see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Task force. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

FAC has a somewhat similar thing already too: Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles. (Well, at least that page says what direction to aim in.) FTC doesn't need such a process, not for a good while anyway - rst20xx (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS

• Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#This page again. There is a proposal to move Wikipedia:Reliable sources to either Wikipedia:How to identify reliable sources or Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. This is to emphasize that it is a "how to" guideline, rather than the "whether to" policy, which is Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please say whether you support the proposal, and what your preference is for the title. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Would "Defining" work as well as "Identifying"? "IRS" is not a good acronym in the US. Collect (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I'd like a WP:REFUND. :-) --Cybercobra (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Crystal ball

I'm not sure if this is the right place, but I'll try. I've read the policy on wp:Crystal Ball. It seems to apply to articles. What about an article that talks about future events such as this one: Fabiano Caruana, the section on confirmed future events he is planning to play in. Should that be in an article or should it be removed? Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 17:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It is well enough covered in the advice at WP:CRYSTAL, towit "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". CRYSTAL does not bar us from talking about the future, but rather cautions against unsourced speculation about the future. I'm not in a position to know if the four chess tournaments are notable, but nothing on Caruana's page alarms me enough to think that it should be withdrawn. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's officially confirmed by the article's subject or the events' organizers that there is a contractual agreement to appear, I see no problem. This is no different than stating that two NBA teams are scheduled to play one another or an actor's film or a musician's album has a release date or that a tour has been scheduled. As I understand it, Crystal ball would be to presume that a chess player will appear at a tournament merely because he would be eligible to do so, or that he would not appear because it is unlikely he would be eligible, etc. As WP:CRYSTAL states, it's reasonable to talk about the 2010 U.S. Senate elections, but not the 2020 U.S. presidential elections. If some future event has been officially planned and has confirmed participants, no presumptions or prognostications are being made, and so there is no crystal balling happening.

Room for improvement with that section in the Caruana bio is that it should be chronological by date of event, not by date of confirmed scheduling; and ideally the section would be referenced. Abrazame (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe these chess tournaments will take place, but there is probably not a contract. I can see something about a candidate for the 2010 US Senate race or a team is going to play in the Superbowl. However, a couple of these chess tournaments are probably not notable enough to have their own article, and there is probably no contract to appear. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 17:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That's why I mentioned the references. How is it that we know that he is going to appear at those tournaments? That's really the crux here, not their future date or even their notability. If Caruana is notable for his prowess in chess tournaments and these are the chess tournaments he plays, it goes to showing that he is active in his field of notability. I don't find it at all harmful to note tournaments that don't have their own articles (perhaps that's an oversight and they soon will, or perhaps it goes to showing that someone is playing lower-profile venues), but referencing helps to make sure we don't just have someone making this stuff up.

No offense, because we're using casual terms here, but "believe these...will take place" and "probably not a contract", while probably inadvertent, is problematic in terms of arriving at a determination here. From a logical standpoint, either there is an official release somewhere that states he is confirmed to appear at these tournaments and the contributing editor read this and added the data, in which case it's a reference issue; or it's a fan making an educated guess these will be his next moves, in which case it's a Crystal ball issue; or it's a case of somebody totally making it up, in which case it's what I call for lack of a gentler term a vandalism issue.

Is it your informed opinion that the veracity of the section's claims is in doubt? (Because that's a shift from your initial objection here.) I see you are a member of WikiProject Chess, and that you have started to edit the page yourself; you might want to reference the section. Alternatively, you could search the recent history of the article and ask on the contributing editor's talk page where they got the data. That serves to honor the assumption of good faith while letting someone who is presumably in possession of citable sources to do what may be easier and quicker for them than anyone else, and it also reminds such an editor to reference their own such additions in the future. Last resort would be a ref tag, or removing the data and pasting it on the article's talk page to start a discussion there with interested editors. Abrazame (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm using casual terms here because it isn't an article. I worked on the page, but I didn't add the part about the future tournaments. I don't doubt that he will play in them but I don't know references for them. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 18:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Can the US government position on legal-political issues ever be WP:FRINGE?

Discussion currently taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#United_States_government_redux. THF (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Notable change on Notability of porn actors

Just to make it clear it was not done under the radars, I want to notify about the correction I have implemented on the notability guideline of pornographic performers, to make it inline with WP:BLP#1E, following discussion about the mater. --Damiens.rf 14:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear on why you replaced it with "<number kept for historic reasons>" rather than deleting it entirely. Abrazame (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Presumably so that discussions that referred to them by number still make sense. That's why the WP:CSD have unused numbers. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Abrazame (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Popular and recent usage, or scholarly and historical usage?

An issue has arrisen in HSL and HSV as to which form of the acronym to use based on current usage versus historical as well as scholarly useage. Would appreciate some input. SharkD  Talk  10:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

National variety of English

Warriors (novel series) is a book series written by 3 British authors and an American author. It is published by the British publisher HarperCollins. However, it also has a large fan base in the US. The article has been written in American English, so I would like to know which is more important: Wikipedia:National varieties of English, or WP:RETAIN, as there are several other articles related, and I would like all those articles to conform to the same kind of English. They are currently in American English for the most part. Brambleclawx 22:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

My offhand reaction is, there's no clear answer from national ties, so retain the existing variety in each article individually, and if that means that different articles on the series wind up using different varieties, just let it be that way. --Trovatore (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC) I'm inclined to say they should be converted to British English because they are a British work (the large American fan base does not negate its origins and likely large British fan base). A good similar example is Meerkat Manor, which started in Britain so the articles all use British English, despite it having a huge American following. The only exception is Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins, which was done by the American AP instead of the UK like the series. So if there are individual works in Warriors that were done purely in America, those specific articles could be retained in American, but otherwise, they really should use UK. This meets both guidelines, really, because RETAIN notes it does not apply if "there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic" which this would have. I disagree with Trovatore, however. Unless there is a strong reason not to, all of the articles need to be consistent. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I admit that there's a borderline national-ties case to be made here; it doesn't sound like it would be outrageous to change to British English on that basis.

As a general rule, however, WP has no notion of a connected series of articles. Every article stands on its own. Therefore there is no requirement for consistency across such articles. --Trovatore (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have essentially the same stance as Trovatore, in the end. I briefly thought essentially the same as Collectonian, but I just don't see the "strong national ties" claim through HarperCollins as particularly compelling. The argument for claiming strong national ties is strongly presented here, so I wouldn't blame anyone for taking the opposite position, but I happen to know that while HapperCollins is rooted in England, their decidedly an international publishing Corporation now, with a substantial publishing presence in the US, Canada, and... I'm fairly certain that their one of the biggest publishers in India still, aren't they? The point being, their no more "British" then saying that IBM is "American", any longer.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 23:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, in that case, it looks like I'll be keeping the American English; I appreciate all the comments, and valued all of them. If I feel it necessary, I could bring it up with Wikiproject Warriors. Brambleclawx 23:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Drop 'notable' in favour of a more organic approach

Deciding if something is notable seems to border on NPOV issues and people hate their articles being deleted. 'The sum of human knowledge' to me says everything, that makes me an inclusionist, but articles relating to some backyard software project or sportsman that scored a goal in one game seems unimportant - so I am a deletionist too! Maybe there's a middle ground so I have a little crazy proposal that might circumvent this issue... Drop 'notability' inclusion criteria, instead rely on 'verifiability', which is a much more focused area. The arguments of verifiability can remove unsourced articles by themselves. If there are minimal, but verifiable sources they stay!

I can hear steam blowing - bear with me ... The next step is to reinforce the standard for internal links, i.e. they should only point to 'notable' articles. This is where the 'notability' argument could be had - but in context of a particular articles subject. This would (in a perfect world) lead to the articles self organizing into importance/notabilty with the number of links pointing to them indicating this. Non-notable articles would have few links, so not many people would get there anyway - and there quality would be of low overall impact ( except probalby by biased/dumbass outside analysis - but we have that already!), the search order could even be slightly organized by number of links ( with attention being paid to prevent spamming and ending up like a search engine !). At some point if an article has a number of quality links to it - it becomes notable by inference...

A interim supplement to make sure of this, could be a 'notable' tag/flag/cat for each article. Normal searches would exclude articles without this tag, but one could have an option to 'search everything'. And of course adding a wikilink to an untagged article could throw up discussion for its inclusion.

Summary of benefits I think this would give us: it allows us to step back from deletionism, possible future aditors getting annoyed their hard work is deleted, deleting somthing that might be important to one POV - ( hence better NPOV), although this will cause more disussions in different areas these arguments should be less heated as they are more focused at relevance to subject in hand and verifiabilty rather than the work or existence being 'deleted'.

This won't solve all problems, but I suggest it as an idea to improve the situation, look forward to your thoughts ;) cheers ! --Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 02:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The most obvious problem with this would seem to be that related articles on something basically non-notable need to be interlinked. The second most obvious is that the administrative burden of patrolling non-notable BLPs would be brutal. It's tough enough keeping up on the notable ones.

But I sympathize with the idea being raised. I think a better solution (and probably one outside of Wikipedia and even outside of WMF is simply the creation of more specialized (or, conversely, less selective) wikis that would be glad to have these articles outside of our purview and responsibility. - Jmabel | Talk 02:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for you sympathies! The links between non-notable would be fine, and from non-notable to notable also, as long as links from notable articles are solid it should work. It could get complicated if a subject switches from non-notable to notable though... hmmm. I can't even fathom the extent to which the BLP work extends...good work to all involved! You remind me of another idea I once had - Graffipedia - which was basically 'the bits Wikipedia doesn't want' which had no rules and allowed anoyone to right whatever they wanted, linked to from various places in WP, this would've take away the graffiti artists and spammers and left them to their own creation.. wouldn't last long before it was taken down for legal reasons so it would have to based outside the law or self patrolled... Anyone care to start it! --Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 03:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Not everything verifable is discriminate, and WP is not a collection of indiscriminate info. Lowering the inclusion to just verifyability will lead to everyone who can prove they exist to have a page, etc. etc. It's not an issue about linking but just plain visibility in WP.

The larger issue is that WP:N is a good guideline to judge inclusion for 99% of the topics, moreso for contemporary ones, but it should not be considered the only means of determining inclusion. Too many people treat WP:N as the only means, and we don't really have other means written out well for balance with WP:N, only what comes from consensus and AFD discussions. Inclusion in WP needs to be guided by common sense, not hard-nose following of rules. --MASEM (t) 02:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Really, we need to clarify and stress the aims of wikipedia then - more of a PR job - then people wouldn't be surprised when their articles aren't included ? And I think 'Inclusion in WP needs to be guided by common sense, not hard-nose following of rules.' should be in the lead of WP:N - the curent line is the standard link to many other policies/guidelines! --Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 03:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A healthy dose of common-sense would be fantastic, but the problem is that people in general like to have rules to follow. It's simpler to "win" a debate by saying "look, 2 sources, keep!" rather than trying to persuade an audience based on good sense. Shereth 22:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability is common sense! If multiple reliable sources haven't written about a topic in depth, why are we trying to write an article about it? How can we really write a decent article in the absence of such sources? That's the rule of thumb which is the WP:GNG. If you replace WP:N with WP:V as the standard of article inclusion, it becomes impossible to keep out trivia. Wikipedia would descend into listing every single little fact and incident in their own article regardless of the amount or depth of coverage. Fences&Windows 21:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely if we place WP:GNG into WP:V, then it mostly covers notability in an NPOV way, my argument is that the articles that aren't really notable will not be linked to and wither naturally.. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 11:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The concept of notability is flawed and I routinely ignore it. Everything relevant can be argued from verifiability. People who refer to "[replacing] WP:N with WP:V as the standard of article inclusion" do not (yet) realise that verifiability is the standard for article inclusion. What keeps out trivia is Neutral point of view, particularly the Due Weight clause. Notability is a mess of ad hoc nonsense created by people who do not understand how Wikipedia's policies work. --TS 12:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 13:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems like are some strained aspects about notability as a unifying concept. For example, it is often used as a reason to keep individuals named in sources from even being mentioned in an article - and truly we can imagine some world-class flamewars if we had articles like list of registered sex offenders in North Carolina, even if there are solid online sources for it. Yet for non-human objects we don't want this restriction - we want the article on Big Ben to say how long the minute hand is, even though no one publishes an article specifically about it. There is some discussion of this in the notability guideline already, in its discussion of living persons known for one event, though I don't much like the wording. I think that in the long run the notability criterion needs to be steadily relaxed, but doing so abruptly would cause considerable fallout. Wnt (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability was created to prevent every little garage band who has a couple articles in local papers from having pages. Relaxing WP:N is a call for adding a ton of cruft to Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that it would be a good thing for those bands to have articles. The music industry famously rewards its middlemen while cheating its creative people because there is no steady, fair mechanism for musicians to be "found". If Wikipedia provided that, it would be revolutionary. That said, I recognize that right now we do not have the editor base to create well-watched databases of all the small bands in every town on Earth; we'd probably be left with a mishmash of vanity articles, vandalism and BLP violations mixed up in a raft of articles nobody would read. But in the future... Wnt (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There's already websites for garage bands to have their information. Like MySpace. Wikipedia is not MySpace. Nor is it Freshmeat, nor is it ... well actually it resembles the IMDB pretty well. But there's a lot of things it's not. Other sites can handle every little band in the world much better than we can. --Golbez (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this is a bit too early in Wikipedia's life, once we have covered all the 'notable' topics then maybe we can discuss again ( about 5 / 10 years ?) , but slapping people with a 'page deleted - not notable' should be done with more tact for now! Thanks for your thoughts :) Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 23:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)