Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 72

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This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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

Can too many references be a bad thing?

I think so. Too many citations introduce visual clutter in the middle of a sentence, interrupting the flow of a user reading the page.

For instance, look at this sentence, from Catcher_in_the_Rye#Controversy. There is an average of one citation per 6.125 words. (49 words, 8 citations)

The challenges generally begin with vulgar language, citing the novel's use of words like "fuck" and "goddam", with more general reasons including sexual references, blasphemy, undermining of family values and moral codes, Holden's being a poor role model, encouragement of rebellion, and promotion of drinking, smoking, lying, and promiscuity.

Look at the edit code for this section: This single sentence is 46 lines in edit mode. Who is going to try to change that sentence with all that unreadable stuff in there?

I know that as an encyclopedia you probably want as many references as you can get, but is it too much to ask that the article's content be arranged in such a way so that you can read a sentence without reading: "..Undermining of family values forty-seven and moral codes forty-eight holden's being a poor role model forty-nine, encouragement of rebellion fifty, and promotion of drinking, smoking, lying, and promiscuity fifty-one." I'm tolerant of end-of-sentence citations but breaking up the sentence arbitrarily just seems awkward.

I wrote an infobox that could be used in situations like this:

What do you think, would this make a reasonable policy? Phort99 (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

We do now have List defined References that can help this kind of thing, although it can be a pain to convert it to. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 10:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Too many references is a problem similar to overlinking. Too many links probably means to intellectual level of the writing is probably too low. This "gratuitous referencing" is a real world academic issue. See also User talk:SlimVirgin/templates "articles made difficult to edit because of in-text clutter from citation templates". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Heck - that is nothing! I can show articles which had 13 refs for a single word! And where it has been deleted due to ... lack of references <g>. SV -- is there a way of listing article with, say, over 200 "references"? Collect (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Code readability is a concern, but since it only involves the ease of editing, I don't think it's one that we need to concern readers with by placing a template on article pages. Perhaps a talk page template would be more apt. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:53, 29 Jan 2010 (UTC)

You know, the citations can go at the end of the paragraph... That and there's really no need for us to include every possible citation inline. If there are several citations supporting the same general issue then one possible solution would be to create a reference group and use one citation that lists all of the similar citations. Either that, or just pick one. There are plenty of other solutions as well, if we were willing to spend a nanosecond thinking about problem solving and being a bit creative.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 12:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, when you use the citation templates there's absolutely no need to break the parameters onto different lines, especially when the citation is in the middle of a paragraph. I regularly remove those line breaks whenever I come across them, and I highly encourage others to do the same.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 12:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

We can't have too many sources. They ensure that the reader knows from where every single fact in the article derived. As a reader you soon get used to references appearing, and them appearing right by the fact they reference avoids any confusion. The appearance of the code when editing is an entirely different matter, and one that is solved by list-defined references. This is template-cruft. Fences&Windows 20:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course you can have too many sources. A lot of articles do. It makes them look like postmodern Master's theses or something, whereas we're going for "encyclopedia article". On a more practical, less aesthetic note, too many citations makes it hard to find the important ones. (Too many sources is a separate question from too many citations, but too many sources can also be a problem — we want to point the reader to the useful sources, not to anyone who's ever mentioned the topic in passing.) --Trovatore (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much the number of references as much as the manner in which they are presented. Ideally, references should appear at the end of a paragraph; when circumstances dictate that a reference should appear near the fact that it references, placing it at the end of the sentence in question is a good solution. Reference tags appearing mid-sentence break up the flow of information, and in some examples the plethora of inline citations peppered throughout paragraphs and sentences has effectively rendered it incomprehensible to the average reader. In the case where numerous references appear together, grouping is a good soultion to the problem. Shereth 21:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have unfortunately seen many reviewers at GA/FA or peer review and elsewhere make the comment "Remember that every sentence needs to have a reference for it when you take it to FA". Which is fine in the abstract idea of every sentence is backed up by a source somewhere on that page, but unfortunately those editors are talking about a reference at the end of each and every sentence. I hope this discussion helps to put at rest such nonsense. Not every sentence should have a citation at the end of it. This is clutter and distracting, terrible authorship, and very unencyclopedic.Camelbinky (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A paragraph of information can easily contain dozens of different facts from many different sources. When such a paragraph is followed by a zillion footnotes all lumped together at the end, it can be a ridiculously rigorous task to try to figure out whether a given fact is actually supported by any source. (I had such an experience when I was trying to clean up the Nadya Suleman article a long time ago; I gave up, and left the article sitting in terrible shape, after spending about an hour just trying to verify that the information in one or two paragraphs was all sourced.) Propaniac (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So what's the solution when the sentence does rely on different sources? A bunch of refs after the period will make a misleading impression that each of them backs up the whole sentence. Splitting the sentence into atoms? No, keep the refs exactly where they belong to. NVO (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Combine the footnoted citations into one <ref> tag, placed at the end of the sentence, with annotations within the footnote explaining what portion of the article's sentence each cite supports. Or split the sentence into multiple sentences if feasible, each independently cited. Dropping footnotes in the middle of sentences (often seen after single words, not even at the end of clauses, and usually without explanation) should be discouraged at the least, as should multiple ref tags after the same sentence. If the sources all support the same fact (i.e., if it's a relatively simple sentence), then use a single footnote with a "see, e.g.," signal followed by the string of cites that support that sentence. postdlf (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Footnotes/refs should NEVER be combined into a single tag, ever. That is not a good practice at all. One ref tag per reference. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

...because? I'm of course presuming a separate "references" header apart from the footnotes section. postdlf (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Becuase its ugly, renders referencing nearly useless, makes reuse nearly impossible using the named convention, its lazy as hell, makes it ridiculously difficult to rework a sentence, and its against the general Wikipedia manual of style for citations (yes, there are some guidelines, it is not just a total free for all).. Its really no different from the claimed problem (which really isn't a problem in 99% of articles) of having too many references lumped at the end of a sentence. A citation is a citation. If a sentence is in need of 5 or 10 to source it, then it has five or ten; break it up if necessary, or find a better single reference that can cover more of the sentence, but do not just throw all the cites in one ref tag and call it done. And presuming that there would be a separate references/footnotes section presumes that only certain styles of referencing are used, which is of course incorrect. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking about a preference for "shortened footnotes", which are hardly contrary to the manual of style. I really don't understand how any of your criticisms apply to that system so maybe we're not understanding one another. Your approach seems to be more editor-centric than reader centric. The choice as I see it is between footnote clutter within the body of an article ("Frogs are sometimes red[15][17][23] and sometimes green.[10][17][23][24]") and a single, longer but explanative footnote ("Frogs are sometimes red and sometimes green."<ref>For documented descriptions of green frogs, see, e.g., Malhotra 2009, pp. 20-25; Powell 1962, pp. 301-05; Censky 1999, pp. 98, 105. Red frogs are documented in, e.g., Smith 2010, pp. 1-10; Malhotra 2009, pp. 30-35; and Barbour 1910, pp. 560 (giving first recorded description of red frogs).</ref>) paired with a separate section of all references the article cites to in the footnote. This method is more clear and readable, and more likely to provide useful information on sourcing. Now short form cites can be used with the ref name feature (if there is a repetition of the same page cite without annotation, for example), but it's worth it to individualize sentence citations rather than a ("lazy as hell") reliance on the ref name feature, to make footnotes explain further detail or explain sourcing, and to make article text more clean and readable. postdlf (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with what Postdlf is saying. Combining several references (and whatever other comments are needed to address how the sources have been used) into one footnote is normal practice in every type of academic writing I have ever encountered. --Hegvald (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Which is another good reason to do it. My phD wife about threw up when I showed[8][9] her how it's often[6][7][9][10] done here.[1][11][12][14] postdlf (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That sort of referencing would be terrific... for written papers where you're the author. For a phD thesis, or a college essay, I'd even say that you could demand that students do that (and, from what I've seen, many professors do). We're not writing phD theses or essays here, or even anything that anyone in particular can claim authorship of. That's the main reason that Collectonian is "more correct", within the narrow confines of Wikipedia, then you are. You're bringing up a good idea, it's just not appropriate for this particular environment.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 22:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You make absolutely no sense. Why would it be inappropriate here? If anything, making explicit in the footnote how a source has been used makes it easier for future contributors. And for readers. This^{[1][2][8][15][6]} makes no attempt to relate the sources to one another or to the content they are supposed to support, explain what comes from which source, if they present contrasting or complementary views and so on. (And it is ugly and causes Postdlf's wife to throw up.) --Hegvald (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I also don't understand the assertion that it's "inappropriate" for Wikipedia, or what it has to do with authorship. The number of contributors to a Wikipedia article is completely irrelevant to what footnote and referencing format it uses (as if academic papers don't often have multiple authors...we aren't inventing collaboration here). Many WP articles do in fact handle footnotes that way. postdlf (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

hehe. "(And it is ugly and causes Postdlf's wife to throw up.)" gave me a good chuckle, so thanks for that! I haven't had my coffee yet so forgive me if this is a tad rough around the edges, but I can address this. Both points make perfect sense: using individual references here on Wikipedia and combining them for an essay/paper. The main point is that documents here on Wikipedia, and more generally any page on a Wiki style system, ane intended to be living documents. A written piece, be it a student essay, doctorate thesis, newspaper story, journal piece, etc... may be edited and/or otherwise rewritten several times, and may even have two or three, possibly even a dozen authors, but their not really living documents. With a paper like that there's always a point of some finality to it, where it's handed in or submitted, and so it's finished and is really no longer living. That's why changing this: "here is some example sentence.^{[1][2][8][15][6]}" should be converted to ""here is some example sentence.^[1]" for that sort of paper, where it's turned in at some point. Doing that doesn't work well in this environment ("inappropriate" may be a bit too strong here, but it grabbed your attention didn't it?) because so many things constantly change so often. Of those hypothetical 6 references (that sort of thing usually happens in the current event articles), you can usually find 3 of them being used in at least one other location, and at least one or two of them either goes dark eventually or doesn't actually support what it is being used for. For Wikipedia, it's just better to always leave individual references on their own, because combining them is simply too difficult to deal with in this environment.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 14:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Postdlf: this approach is hardly scalable for large articles. What you suggest, in essence: "references alone don't suffice, you must explain what the original authors said and how you integrated it into the text...". Not that it's a bad idea, but the need to augment a short sencence with a whole paragraph of a reference is an unnecessary drain on resources. Note that the contents of these long references are subject to MOS rules and may need their own sources (you wrote that Barbour was the first one to ... - please back it up with RS or remove the contentious claim). It's not impossible, but there aren't that many editors who would willfully invest the bulk of their time in editing references. And, as already said, it discourages copyediting (simple splitting or merger of sentences becomes a multi-tiered exercise). NVO (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"I know that as an encyclopedia you probably want as many references as you can get,". This bald statement would encourage the overuse of referencing. There are two issues at stake:

1. the reduction in readability in display mode (for our readers)—the rapid succession of superscript numbers and square brackets where they are not all strictly necessary; and
2. the dreadful clutter of inline citations we've allowed to grow like a cancer.

The quotation from Catcher in the rye above is over the top. I'd advise bunching the humbers 1–6 at the end, after "promiscuity". It doesn't appear to be critical that the reader know "fuck" is the subject of one reference in particular, and "goddam" of another. This is a case of overkill-specificity.

I recently tried to convince WT:FAC that the FA criteria should specify a preference for list-defined citations. The result was my being booed off the stage. Tony (talk) 05:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Catcher in the rye above is over the top": That is a matter of personal preference. I have no problem with that one. Since tastes differ, providing a means to configure/switch footnote display would seem the best approach here. Why prescribe the one or the other if we can provide both?

"bunching the humbers": Another case of varied preferences. Paradoctor (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Examples

Please list examples of problematic citation usage, along with a few keywords describing the perceived problem(s). Paradoctor (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• [1] overall high density of citations and long superscript sequences affect readability
• WP:CITEKILL#Examples list of various examples
• [2] readability

Organizational note

It seems a similar discussion is occurring over at WP:VPM#Over-sourcing?. For those that want to effect a change, Wikipedia:Citation overkill is currently proposed as a policy, guideline, or process. -- œ^™ 23:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Would anyone object if I copied/moved these two sections (and, I think that there's one more) either into one section or preferably to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Wikipedia Citation Style? (you don't necessarily have to wait for me either. If there's agreement I wouldn't mind at all of someone just did the move)
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 22:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. Paradoctor (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed technical solution

In case User:Dragons flight or any other mw:Extension:Cite developer is watching, we could probably use a little technical help here. It might be nice if consecutive references were rendered slightly differently. The example given above is: "here is some example sentence.^{[1][2][8][15][6]}" If the Extension were able to render that as something like: "here is some example sentence.^{[1, 2, 8, 15, 6]}" I think that this problem wouldn't bug people quite as much. We could quibble about the connecting characters of course (commas, dashes, em-dashes, etc...), but I bet that most would appreciate the general change.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 14:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"too difficult to deal with in this environment": never underestimate the power of the force... Seriously, the numbers are of interest only in printed or otherwise permanently rendered derivates. In the usual context of reading in a browser window, there is no need to provide more than a visible target big enough to click or hover over. The rest is layout and code rendering that can be handled by the <ref> tag. Paradoctor (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but it seems to be a big deal to many... Are you saying that we could address this through Wikipedia's style sheets, though? That would be great!
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 16:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the main reasons offered for the current system of named references is that it allows readers perusing the article to see a number in a footnote and know, from a previous instance, what source is being used. So I don't think losing the numbers is a good way forward. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

At another discussion I recommended 2 of wikEd's options are:

• "Hide <ref>...</ref> in-text reference tags" - it represents each <ref>...</ref> tag as a small button which with one expands <ref>...</ref> a tag temporarily to seem what it is. The buttons are small and unobtrusive.
• "Hide templates", which does the same to any template, including cite templates.

Perhaps a variation this could be should work in the article itself to collapse and expand refs, using JS and CSS:

• With JS off and in printed versions, show all. In the "start of page" JS, JS, change the relevant CSS rules to collapse blocks of consecutive refs, with another JS which switched between expanded collapsed if clicked.
• The main difficult may be IE - last times I looked, IE did not support first-child, last-child or content-before (if I remember the attribute names). --Philcha (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Never heard about content-before, but firstChild and lastChild haven been supported since IE 5.5, 10 years ago. ;)

Display of the footnote superscripts can be switched by toggling display: for class .reference. If you want to try it, just add .reference {display:none !important} to your custom CSS.

My favorite idea for handling references is using a modification of ImageAnnotator to display and edit references. This would be a sizable project, though, and more than I'm currently willing to involve myself with. Paradoctor (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed MoS for Thailand-related articles

I'm hoping to solicit further comments on this proposed guideline. Input has previously been solicited from WikiProject Manual of Style and WikiProject Thailand, and an RfC listed, but it hasn't attracted enough discussion to determine consensus. Your comments are appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles)/Draft#Request for comment - implementation as guideline. Thank you. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 12:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP Semiprotction petition

Wikipedia:BLP semiprotection petition —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbharris (talk • contribs) 10:17, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Also, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Semiprotection_of_BLP_articles_for_Super_Bowl_players. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion was moved again. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion for page creation in defiance of ban

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G5 - some clarification and discussion about speedy deletion criterion G5 (pages created by banned users). Essentially three issues have been raised: (1) what exactly does G5 mean? (2) should a topic ban be treated differently from a general ban, apart of course from the fact that a topic ban applies only within its own topic, and (3) would it be better to apply the same criterion to blocks as well as bans? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving images from Wikipedia to the Wikimedia Commons

Wikipedia:Moving_images_to_the_Commons has a list of instructions to follow in moving an image to the Wikimedia Commons. So too does Commons:Moving_to_Commons. The two pages, however, have some inconsistencies. The Wikipedia page states, "The best practice is to use CommonsHelper to make the move (you will need a TUSC account). This tool automatically copies all necessary information and makes things much easier for administrators reviewing the move. This is easiest using the user script CommonsHelper Helper." (emphasis added) The Commons page, on the other hand, has a lengthy list of all the things that the script ignores. It appears that the script (in apparent contradiction to its stated results on the Wikipedia page) actually ignores virtually everything. Can we get some reconciliation between the two pages, either by getting a script that actually transfers information along with the image or by simply transcluding the Commons page on Wikipedia? (Preferably by getting a better tool.) Banaticus (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

How much revenue would advertising bring to Wikipedia?

Are there any credible estimates on how much yearly revenue Wikipedia would make if it allowed advertising? Has anyone considered what to do with the money? With Wikipedia being one of the top websites on earth, is it not rational to think that Wikipedia could make a great sum of money from advertising? My apologies if this query is posted in the wrong place as I could not find anywhere else to post this. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No way. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 05:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Over my dead body. Paradoctor (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

So I see advertising is one of those "perennial proposals," and thank you for pointing that out. However, is it not time to revisit the situation today as many contributors are leaving Wikipedia anyway, as loudly covered by the press. Has the exodus of editors from Wikipedia affected donations? Are there any estimates of how donations to Wikipedia will be affected in the future if this trend keeps up? Advertising might be one way to staunch the flow of capital from Wikipedia. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really, considering continuing debate over whether there actually is an exodus and even then what its extent is. The Wikimedia Foundation met its donation target for the year, so to my knowledge revenue isn't an issue either. I admit it might be fun to calculate just for the heck of it though. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As Cybercobra said, whether or not there is a massive loss of editors is not quite determined (it mainly depends on what your definition of "editor" is). But most donations come from readers, and the number of readers is still slowly increasing. Mr.Z-man 06:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are some stats I've been keeping for the video games project. There was a steep decline this past spring, and things haven't quite rebounded yet. SharkD  Talk  03:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Another thing i just thought of: Is the decision to allow or forever decline advertising made by us, the wikipedians, or is it a matter for the real-world owners of the site? If Mr. Wales and his company didn't want advertising, could we, the users, make them accept advertising through on-wiki discussion and consensus? Conversely, can the owners/managers of Wikipedia unilaterally accept advertising over community objection? PeterbrownDancin (talk) 06:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The decision is for the Wikimedia foundation board. We can't actually force the foundation do anything, nor can we stop them from doing anything. However, its extremely unlikely that they would ever force advertising without consulting the community, as they know the potential consequences of such a decision. Mr.Z-man 06:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oh fuck no. HalfShadow 21:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• In the interest of actual feedback, you'd have to look at both the maximum revenue from ads AND the money wikipedia would lose in donations and tax-exempt status. --King Öomie 22:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• No, no, no If Wikipedia allows advertising, I will quit. I expect I wouldn't be the only one to either. ThemFromSpace 04:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Just realized that Wikipedia content is already used for advertising, so we could say that this one has been rejected and implemented. ^_^ Paradoctor (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Should we mention Wikinews in the "Before creating an article" dialog?

I see a lot of well-written and well-referenced articles about current events put up for AFD. Often editors will find analysis pieces in the news that speak to enduring notability of the situation, and the article is saved. Other times, the article is lost, and even if the article is kept, a lot of time is expended that could have been used to improve existing articles.

It seems to me that there'd be many advantages in adding a message on the order of If this is about a breaking news event, consider creating your article on Wikinews instead to the screen that comes up when you create a new article. I don't know where that messgae template lives or who's in charge of it, but it seems like there'd be some real advantages in adding a message like that. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a very good idea. Paradoctor (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Could merit mention in the Article Wizard as well. The slight complication is the differing conventions/style between Wikipedia & Wikinews, as I discovered personally upon my first Wikinews (resists strong urge to CamelCase; although I don't want my nick CamelCased either) edits. On the other hand, the license compatibility is only one-way, so originating content on Wikinews is preferable from that perspective. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I suspect many new editors only know about Wikipedia and may not realize there is a better venue of doing news reporting. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This looks like more WP:CREEP to me.--Apoc2400 (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

How is this creating new policy? The suggestion is not enforceable, no new requirements are being proposed. --Cybercobra (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Instruction creep. The more instructions you add, the fewer people will read any of them. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't need any new instruction though. The proposal is a simple addition to the content of a page.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 16:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Which makes the page longer and less likely to be read. Exactly which page are we discussing anyway? --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent idea. (Incidentally, ya probably should've posted this on VP (proposals) instead of here in order to avoid the "this is WP:CREEP" stuff, which I think is off the mark for the reasons Cybercobra outlined above, but oh well...)
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 15:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the page that comes up when you edit a new article. It lives at MediaWiki:Newarticletext. I decided to leave a note at the talk page so the admins can decide how to put it in. I gave some consideration to instruction creep, but this is the most appropriate place to remind editors to try Wikinews. Of course, if you all want to combat WP:CREEP please help with WP:BLP and the various notability guidelines; their rampant mission creep is making my suggestion all the more needed for preserving content. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

First visit to the Village pump

I have recently accepted an invitation to become a wikipedian and I look forward to working with you all on some of the most pressing issues that we all face in this day and age. It will take me a while to figure out some of the applications on the Wikipedia platform. Please have patience as I learn this system. --〜〜〜〜 17:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Synergy44 (talk • contribs)

Might I suggest you not start out by creating seemingly random templates and talk pages, and read up on Wikipedia policy regarding the use of multiple accounts. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I would also note that our job is not to work on "the most pressing issues that we all face in this day and age"... our job is to write encyclopedia articles. But perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying. If so, my appologies. Blueboar (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Great to hear, i'll second that the muliple accounts thing would seem to be at cross-purposes with your goals. In the light of recent events in China, Iran, and in the United States, it does seem fair and poignant to consider Wikipedia's mission amongst "..the most pressing issues that we all face...".Cander0000 (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

District or district

There's a lot of pages about districts in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanamar. Sometines is "xxx district" and sometimes "xxxx District" (only less times there's a redirection). Im'm really surprised that there's no policiy about this. I suggest to adopt a policy in one or other sense, but as soon as possible. I believe that a boot can correct all articles wrong labelled. --83.52.18.163 (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What policy would you suggest? There's a fairly clear rule in English that Proper nouns should always be capitalized, where common nouns should not be. Therefore, if "District" is actually a part of the name then it should be capitalized. If, on the other hand, "district" is used as a common nouns to simply describe a region, then it shouldn't be capitalized. I think that there is something in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style somewhere, but it's such a common English rule that I've never needed to refer to it before. I know that in other languages there are different capitalization rules (German, for example, tends to capitalize all nouns, I think), but it's a fairly settled issue in English.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 18:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"tends to capitalize all nouns": Yes, German nouns are always capitalized. Ve are a Siruous Peeple, after All. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

My only addition to the above is even more of a simplification: If the name of the district loses its meaning when the word "district" is taken away, then it is part of the full name and should be capitlized. An example in America is the District of Columbia, where is someone were to just call it Columbia, no one would know what you truly meant. Angryapathy (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Article_titles and WP:NAME apply here. If you can drop "district" without losing the meaning, you probably should. Paradoctor (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Depends. In Ontario there are districts as well... Kenora District, Ontario for example... But there is also Kenora, Ontario. To avoid confusing regions with cities, all regions should keep their 'Region' or 'County' or 'District' or 'Township' ending, if the place is referred to that way. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said, "if". ;) Paradoctor (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No, no no.... I say that the articles appear sometimes as Xxxx district and sometimes as Xxxx District i.e in the 1000 districts of India that they must be write all same. I'm sure that there's a correct manner to do it. But if it is, is not used or is unknow for many english speaking people. You can't be sure never to find an article because it can be in one or other form. The policiy I claim must be to adopt the changing article name from the uncorrect form to the correct one.--83.52.18.163 (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

That's the thing though, they don't all need to be the same if their not being used in the same manner. If "District" is actually part of the name, then capitalize it. If "district" is simply being used as a description, then do not capitalize it. It can and should vary, depending on circumstance.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 15:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Basically if the district is part of the name like city is part of the proper name Jefferson City, Missouri (bad example as it is technically the City of Jefferson, Missouri) then it is capitalized; but if it is just a description like Watervliet (town), New York or Nassau (village), New York then no capitalization?Camelbinky (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"they must be write all same": Why? Also, there is {{R from other capitalisation}}. Paradoctor (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Template Creation For Non Registered

I know that article creation for anons is ban, but why is template creation so?174.3.98.236 (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

For exactly the same reason, I'd imagine. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 18:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:Naming conventions moved to WP:Article titles

Agreeable to consensus and proper discussion and proceedure, WP:Naming conventions has now been renamed/moved to WP:Article titles. While considering this change, we agreed to limit the discussion to changing the title of the policy page, and purposely did not discuss whether we should also change the myriad topic related guidelines derived from it... these are currently listed using the format: "WP:Naming conventions (topic X)". I now open discussion on that question. thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Living People task force launch party!

Hello, all.

The Living People task force begins work Monday with part one, board recommendations and proposal. This will run for two months, with the second half beginning in April on community focus.

This is a global project, and we highly encourage active global participation in discussion.

More information can be found here.

We hope to see you all there, and everyone have a good weekend.

Keegan (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark your calendar for the Dead People party on Oct. 31! Maurreen (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article titles has been marked as a policy

Wikipedia:Article titles (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, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Conformity requirements for w3c standards for colours (WP:COLORS)

It has been brought to my attention that WP:COLORS must be followed, however, it doesn't indicate how much so. The w3c standard allows pass, warning, and fail. I'm wondering if a warning is acceptable, or if a pass is needed. This is in regards to a template (see User:Floydian/Highway 401). Blue on white somehow registers a warning (even though I doubt anyone couldn't differentiate between blue and white). Is this acceptable, or must I pass both the brightness and contrast tests for a colour scheme to be acceptable? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI: there's a hatnote to the how to dealing with colors on the policy page, which is available at Wikipedia:Using colors. I'm not an expert on color blindness, or particularly knowledgeable about it, but I think that some blue-blind people may see blues as washed out, which means that white text on a blue background would look like white on a really light off white. That's usually what the warnings and whatnot are about, anyway. I never paid much attention to it, since I tend to avoid colors mostly just to avoid dealing with this kind of crap, but you should be able to figure it out with the tools on the how-to page linked to above.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 22:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've read both, but neither seem to indicate what is acceptable and what is not in clear terms. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a contrast issue with the section titles, which are colored a brownish yellow. Convert a screenshot to greyscale, and you'll see what I mean. Paradoctor (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the yellow text passes. White text does not. [3] is the tool I'm using. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess there isn't a defined standard? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirects with trailing commas

Some time ago a number of articles were created (accidentally I presume) with extra commas at the end of the title - for example "Desktop environment, and Grand Theatre de Bordeaux,. They were quickly moved to the correct title, but a redirect was left behind. There are probably several hundred. Recently User:Basilicofresco marked a large number of them for speedy delete under category R3 (recently created implausible redirect), even though strictly some of them were three or four years old. I deleted many of them on the grounds of "non-controversial housekeeping" and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, even if they weren't strictly recent.

However User:Nancy declined some and User:DESiegel objected to the deletions since they didn't fall within the strict definition of the category and Wikipedia:Process is important. So we are here to ask for more opinions on the matter.

It should be said that noone has come up with a reason why these articles might be useful, except the unlikely event that an external site is linking to it rather than the correct title. None of them have any edit history. None of them are linked to. If you put the exact title of the deleted article into Wikipedia search the correct title without the comma always comes up first. If someone can think of a reason for keeping them we're certainly eager to hear it.

Here are some suggestions that have been made:

• Change the definition of the R3 CSD to allow this
• Agree by consensus that articles like this can be deleted even if not strictly within the category
• Make a one-off AFD proposal that will allow deletion of all of them
• Just get on and do it.

Comments, and other suggestions, are welcome. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Just do it. IAR is there for a reason. Don't extend CSD, unless this sort of thing happens often. Don't claim that it's a speedy when it isn't. If someone has a reason why some of this redirects needs to be kept then set up a RFD process for it. Taemyr (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Those who say "process is important" but can give no good reason why following process will help in this obvious situation are actually ignoring longstanding policy. IAR is here for this. If there's a reasonable reason given, then halt and discuss. Deletion is always reversible anyway.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Just do it! One of the reasons I liked becoming an admin was so that I could cleanup up my stupid mistakes like that myself without having to generate a speedy request. When it is an obvious typo that is not likely to be searched for, then it is not needed. RfD would be overwhelmed if we required these to be discussed there. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've speeied these and closed the pointless RfD. So sue me.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that DJ Clayworth's initial deletion log entries cited R# in the standard way, they did not site "housekeeping" not IAR. DES ^(talk) 20:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It is my view that the Speedy deletion criteria are intentionally narrow, and should be observed strictly. It is also my view that IAR is not an appropriate justification for any page deletion ever. That said, it is hard to argue that these redirects have any positive value to Wikipedia. Perhaps we should broaden R3 to cover the case where the redirect is very unlikely to be the target of a link from an external site. But I strongly oppose the unilateral deletion of any page without consensus. The CSD represent pre-formed consensus for particular kinds of deletions, but only for the narrowly specified kinds. It might be argued that these deletions fall under the G6 housekeeping criterion. But they do not fall under R3 as now established, and IAR simply does not suffice.

I also object strongly to an attempt to clsoe this discussion within hours, and to the grossly improper close of the RfD (though having both an RfD and a discussion here might be seen as redundant). DES ^(talk) 20:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I double-checked for any exception then I asked for a speedy delete because, as you can see, there was no need for any "discussion" and date of creation was not relevant. Moreover I had to remove about 250 redirects and RFD is pretty time consuming. It was a perfect IAR case... anyway, in order to avoid any problem with DES, I opened the RDF discussion for the last 5 wrong redirects. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 20:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If they had been sitting for 2 years I don't see the harm with waiting another week. I wouldn't ask for a separate RfD on each of the 250, but a single joint RfD, with a link to your list, doesn't seem so very onerous. Date of creation is relevant because the loinger a redirect is in existance, the more likely it is that an external site will link to it -- that is however rather more likely for a miswording or even a spelling error than for extra punctuation, I must say. DES ^(talk) 20:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The whole purpose of IAR when properly used is not to discuss things that evidently don't need discussing, and to avoid using unneccessay process. DES may wish that we "played by rules and process", but that's not how Wikipedia works. That would be to ignore basic Wikiphilosopy and longstanding core policy (IAR). If DES doesn't like the way we do things round here, maybe he'd like to propose a change. But IAR is foundational, and this is an excellent use of it. I've no more energy to debate this pointlessness that doesn't improve wikipedia, and that too is the reason we have IAR. I speedy closed the RfD because it was also quite pointless.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The only observation that I would make is that if you feel that you need to cite IAR, then you're very likely misusing it. I think that these here happened to be fairly uncontroversial deletions personally, but DES still has a point in that they don't meet any current CSD criteria. It couldn't hurt to add a new point, or modify an existing one, to make deletion of redirects from obvious typos a speediable criteria. This could serve as a good "case study" for defining the need to add/change the criteria, at the very least.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 20:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

In general "obvious typos" aren't speediable, because they are often deliberately there to catch typos in search. I deleted these only because there seems to be no likelihood that they would be useful in search. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, OK, how about: "obvious, but unnecessary, typos", or something like that. Like I said below, I'm sure that you folks could work this out with the people over on WT:CSD. That you can't speedy delete some obvious typo redirects seems like a fairly obvious hole to me, since theoretically I could create redirect pages at eg.: Wikipedia:Ma1n page, N@SA, Cac0theline, and the like, and they wouldn't technically be speedy deletable either...
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 22:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I support the "just do it" school of IAR thought. Sometimes editors are clueful enough to know what to do without having to run the gauntlet of process to confirm their cluefulness. older ≠ wiser 20:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

When I wrote "time consuming" I meant my time spent to open a (huge) useless RFD procedure and readers time spent to evaluate it. I had no hurry in deletion itself. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 20:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of redirects from really obvious (but uncommon) typos should be a speediable criteria. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 21:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You might be right. But in that case it is worth taking the time to improve the process (which should be capable of improvement) by suggesting a change in the criteria. Then this need not come up again, and consume more time. DES ^(talk) 21:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. If there are going to be lots of these and often, then change the criteria, yes. But no set of criteria can cover every eventuality unless we keep growing, and growing, and growing, the documentation. Sometimes there will be exceptions and the unforseen. If that might need debating, then we debate it somewhere. If it is obvious to anyone with any sense (as here) then we simply stretch the point and do the sensible thing. We do whatever is going to work best.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) In response to User:Scott MacDonald, I am tempted to say that the set of things that don't need discussion is the empty set. But that isn't quite right. I would say, however, that the set of things that don't need discussion after a good faith objection is made is empty. Deletion, while easily undone by an admin, is none the less a large step. Non admins cant see the content to ask about it, and even admins can't easily find it without a precise indication. Therefore our policies such as WP:DEL generally emphasize that deletion occurs only by specific consensus. There are a number of narrow categories where the consensus has been established in advance. These are the speedy deletion criteria. It is my view that the combination of WP:CSD and WP:DEL says that there is a long-standing policy-based consensus against undiscussed deletions outside of the CSD. Whatever IAR is for, it is not for operating against established consensus, i think. (I should add that my name has for years been on the list at WT:IAR of editors opposed to IAR in principle, but it does have general agreement, whatever I think of it.) I might add that an involved editor ought not to close a deletion discussion, however "pointless" he may think it -- If you don't have time to waste, you need not discuss the matter at all. And current practice and policy as I understand it is now generally opposed to early closes for deletion discussions except in cases where the page involved fits one of the CSD, or where the nomination is withdrawn. This was neither. DES ^(talk) 21:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

From the comments above, it seems clear that there is a consensus to continue deleting these. Exactly what problem has been caused by these deletions? If there is no problem, then why worry? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This is silly. There is nothing to discuss here. No one has suggested that there's any reason not to delete these. You seem to imply discussion is good for its own sake. No. Discussion is good where there's a difference of opinion we need to settle. But the only difference of opinion here is whether discusson is neccessary for its own sake, which is entirely circular. You don't like IAR: I get it. You'd rather CSD were exhaustive and inviolable: I understand that too. But until you get an agreement that IAR is to be removed as a principle, then that's that. I closed the RfD, since it is a process for applying for a deletion. Since I deleted the redirects the process is moot. I believe if you don't like my deletions, the corect process is not to reopen the XfD but to go to WP:DRV. Good luck with that. (You'll inevitable find that process and consensus will suport me and not you if you do go to DRV). I'm sorry you don't like Wikipedia's loose attachment to process and proceedure, but there it is.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Scott, this is silly, let's not turn this into an ideological war. You're right in that it seems we all basically agree with the deletions, but the sword that you're attempting to wield by pointing to DRV cuts against you as well, in that the exact same arguments which you're using to maintain the deletions can also be used to argue that it's also inappropriate to take this to DRV. You can't have it both ways: either process is important, or it's not. I offered what I believe was an active path to compromise here earlier, which was to take this to CSD and hash out the details of any changes needed there. Creating slippery slope arguments out of that is just as pointless as continuing this argument here, in my opinion.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 22:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really suggesting he goes to DRV, I'm simply saying that I can delete this because, if it were to be pushed, consensus would support it, and if anyone did think otherwise, then there's a process for them to test that. It is, we agree, unneccessary, because commonsense tells us there's nothing to debate here. I don't see changes to the CSD as neccessary, although I've no objections to them. The flexibility we've traditionaly always allowed can cover stuff like this, and it actualy does.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, fair enough I guess. I'm certainly not here to try and tell you what to do or anything, regardless. I guess what bugs me most about this, which is probably the only reason that I replied here at all (since the issue itself is fairly inconsequential to me personally) is that there are a couple of you (not just yourself, Scott) who commented here who seem to be looking for a confrontation. Now, maybe that's true and maybe it's not, but even the appearance of such behavior, and from admins no less, is generally a bad thing, and hardly inspires confidence. When you come here to the central on-sight forum and say something to the effect of "hey, look at what I did! IAR, IAR!"... I mean, really...
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 00:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This type of common sense stuff goes on all the time with no fuss. The drama is only because some people made an issue of it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia:Process is important is not part of process itself.
2. The essay is about the importance of process for consensus finding and maintenance.
3. The subject at hand (deleting useless redirects) is entirely uncontroversial.

I daresay Scott nailed it. Paradoctor (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Paradoctor (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that we have huge numbers of frankly implausible redirects with things like leading, trailing, or surrounding punctuation or wikimarkup that don't get deleted because they don't qualify as "recently created" and mass RfD noms don't scale above about 50. Yes, 50 or so is a lot, but it's not enough to address some of these problems. If the issue is that people want an actual deletion criterion beyond IAR/housekeeping/nobody cares, then the solution is probably just to gin up a speedy criterion for the - call it "seriously, really really implausible typos that are implausible and probably redundant" or some such thing. They ought to be gone, though, if there's no reason to think that deleting them would make it any harder to find their targets. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with them being deleted, but OTOH, what's the harm in ignoring them?

If you still want to change CSD, the best course of action would be to drop "recently created" from R3. If a redirect is "implausible", it shouldn't matter when it was created. Does anybody know why that condition was imposed? Paradoctor (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Because they clutter up search, and more importantly they just look silly? This is the track that I was on earlier, that we should use this as a good excuse to make this one piece of CSD more usable. The general concern with CSD (in my opinion, at least) is that if the criterion are not fairly stringent then people will naturally begin putting their own spin on interpreting them, and then we end up seeing not-so-uncontroversial deletions, if you see what I mean. FWIW, I more or less agree with the idea of simply removing "recently created", but on the other hand I'm sure that there's some good reason that was added in the first place, of which I'm not really aware. This is generally the one area of CSD that I think most people wouldn't mind seeing it changed to be less stringent, is all.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 05:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Re the language in the existing R3: that language is there because an implausible typo that has been around for awhile might have come into use somewhere (such as being externally linked from a site we don't control), and so deleting old typos is not necessarily free of controversy. Bear in mind, also, that our search function used to suck hard, so arguments from Wikipedia search results didn't mean much at the time the criterion was adopted. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

To follow up to myself (and a bit of a reply to Paradoctor as well): I've gone ahead and proposed a new criterion for a limited class of useless redirects, without the "recently created" language. The specific proposal is at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Proposed_R4:_redundant_and_implausible_punctuation, and I invite anyone to comment on it there (not here, though, please keep the discussion in the most useful place). We'll see what happens. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Christ on a crutch! I firmly disagree wth Gavia immer's action. We shouldn't need to give a justification for uncontroversial housekeeping actions like this, & if I had to whack with a wet noodle anyone for this, it would not be Gavia immer, but those who have made it difficult to trust their fellow Wikipedians to properly apply common sense. -- llywrch (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually do think this sort of thing should fall under housekeeping - it's just that I don't think enough other people agree with that position. I proposed what I think I can get consensus on, that's all. Do feel free to comment, as I said. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article titles has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Article titles (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, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that this is because WP:Naming_conventions has been renamed to WP:Article_titles. See above section "WP:Naming conventions moved to WP:Article titles". --Cybercobra (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Um... The page says it is a policy (as it should ... since "WP:Naming conventions", the title before the move, was a policy.) Blueboar (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP RFC closed

Risker has closed the RFC on BLPs. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Volunteer?

A volunteer to do the January update for the 6 conduct policies would be appreciated. Either leave a note on my talk page or jump in at WP:Update/3, please. - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal : Upload timeout and other technical measure relating to image uploads

Often I've found that 'problem' images seem to come in runs, therefore...

Where there is a indication of a run of more than 4 images from a single uploader that have been deleted by WP:PUI process or have had to be tagged for license, source or permissions issue within the last 7 days, an automatic 'time-out' in respect of upload rights only (which would require technical changes inside mediawiki) would be applied to the uploader concerned.

The length of the inital 'time-out' should be decided by community process. Upon repeat problems, the time-out should be extended progressively, up to a maximum period of 6 months. As at present admins would retain the ability to apply 'blocking' as appropriate.

I would also like to suggest :

• An upload 'captcha' be implemented, which can be switched of for trusted users.
• That the funds be raised to allow enwiki and other Wikimedia projects to 'automatically' check tineye status when an image is

uploaded, and that said status could be updated when a check is made manually. The user would be prompted to re-confirm with thier login password if tineye found an identical match for the image.

• Capping uploads at 5MB unless the user is additionally prompted and reconfirms their login.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Technical suggestions, aka feature requests belong in bugzilla:. If you get enough community support you might consider appealing to the Foundation to provide/fund dedicated developer resources to implement a feature, but I don't see this being in the Flagged revisions type of problem just yet (too which such funding is limited). Besides, last time I checked with Tineye, they were still only covering a small section of the images on the internet, and putting all our image uploads (of up to 100MB a piece) trough their servers would probably require discussions with tineye before implementation (there might be more efficient ways than using their upload form, or they might not have the resources to handle our traffic). P.S. there is a tineye javascript gadget somewhere... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Images with 'blank' description pages are CSD within 48 hours.

Images on Wikipedia have to have sufficient information on them to enable their source and status to be checked..

Therefore, any image uploaded after March 1st 2010, which contains no information at all on it's File description page, can be deleted without notification to the uploader if the information is not added within a period not less than 2 days from the upload.

Images uploaded prior to this would have to be treated on a case by case basis.

As part of this, an appropriately worded template {{Needs infobox}} should be written to tag images that have information, but which is not yet in the form used by {{information}} so that they can be identified for cleanup.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

We already have WP:CSD#F4, WP:CSD#F6 and WP:CSD#F11. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Complementory yet different articles to those existing

I am new to Wikipedia. I am interested in offering articles that have similar material to existing articles. I note that, for example, the excellent article on 'Original Sin' may have a cohesive unity that would not benefit from being significantly edited. My pace and style of writing and the content would be from a Classical Attic Greek perspective. I would offer complementory information. I would feel guilty in editing and possibly destabilising the existing article. I would not duplicate more than 50 words, dispute with or compromise an existing article Is a second article justified or permissable? All comments would be greatly appreciated.

It might be appropriate to contact the person who wrote the origin?

Kind regards to everyone Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry C H (talk • contribs) 15:27, February 7, 2010

There's a policy of only 1 article per topic (except for articles on subtopics that go into greater detail), so I would advise against creating a separate, duplicate article unless you have a coherent subtopic as opposed to just wanting to offer another point of view. Also, note that no one owns particular articles, so there's no need to consult with the previous writers before editing an article. I would encourage you to add to the existing Original Sin article. If you have further questions, I would suggest asking at the New contributors' help page. Welcome to Wikipedia, and good luck. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually we can start with the definition (every or at least almost every reasonably good article starts with one). The current definition in the article "Original sin" is: "Original sin is, according to a doctrine proposed in Christian theology, humanity's state of sin resulting from the Fall of Man.". In other words, this articles describes a Christian concept. Now, if I understand it correctly, "Classical Attic Greek perspective" would probably be non-Christian by definition. Thus you would be writing about something different (even if similar). Maybe the reliable sources do not even use the words "original sin" to describe that concept? Thus I'd say there is nothing wrong with starting another article, as long, as you have enough reliable sources to avoid original research (or, in other words, to "demonstrate notability"). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Dank#Gayguy69

I blocked this username, and there's some discussion about whether this was the right thing to do. I'm particularly interested in feedback from females, since we're always looking to bump female editor participation up from its current dismal 15%, and I think it's possible that more women than men would be offended by the name. - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note that the discussion Dank spoke of is over here. NJA (t/c) 17:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, it's the link in the section title. Btw, I'm posting this here, at WT:CHU, WT:RFCN, and at WT:U; I'm trying to get a sense of whether women answer the question differently when they don't see themselves as a tiny minority in the discussion, so if you know female editors who you think might be interested in the question, please show them the link. Even if this particular name is okay, I'd like to get a sense of whether women find usernames offensive that can't be seen as anything other than a reference to a specific sex act. - Dank (push to talk) 17:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, this comment by me is relevant to Dank's reply above. I'm trying to keep things all in one place. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 17:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC notification

A Request for comment which may be of interest to the readers of the Village Pump: Template talk:Unreferenced#RFC: should this tag be allowed on stubs?. Fram (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright, unfree images, and flag cruft

I'm coming from discussion around the use or non-use of a copyrighted flag icon to represent the Ireland national rugby union team. As the island of Ireland does not have a universally recognized flag, the flag used on Wikipedia to represent Irish sporting teams is which ever flag is used by that team's governing body. In the case of rugby union is this one. That flag is copyright of the sport's governing body and so (consensus opinion is that) it cannot be used on Wikipedia as flag cruft. No image is used in its place owing to concerns over original research and images.

Now while I would disagree that this is not an example of "fair-use", I'm happy to accept consensus on the subject. (For example, I recently amended the Irish MOS to reflect this consensus and I !voted for the status quo during a discussion at WikiProject Rugby union.) What galls me, however, is the inconsistent and willy-nilly approach to this purported policy.

For example, the flag of the African Union is not allowed in flag cruft because it is copyright. The flag of NATO is similarly not allowed in flag cruft because it too is copyright. At the same time a plethora of non-free flags and emblems are used in flag cruft across the 'pedia either through the turning of a blind eye or in error.

The Canadian flag, for example, is copyright of the Canadian Crown (© 1965). The European flag is copyright of the Council of Europe (© 1955). Both of these are available under what would be considered quite liberal licenses: Canadians, for example, are free to use and display the national flag of Canada as they wish except for commercial purposes. The European flag may be used so long as it use does not conflict with the aims of the EC (effectively the EU) or the Council of Europe and so long as there is no likelihood of confusion between the user of the emblem and those institutions. However, neither of these licenses are free. Neither are compatible with CC-BY-SA or the GFDL. Yet both are used as flag cruft for Canadian and European sporting teams, etc..

(To make matter worse, both of these images are on the Commons and marked as being in the public domain. A brief discussion on the Canadian example ended in agreement that while it is in copyright our use was not "improper" and so OK - regardless of the absence of explicit agreement to release it under CC-BY-SA or GFDL. A request for deletion of European flag was shot down by two user !voting Keep on the basis that the image is just "some stars on a field of blue" and so ineligible for copyright!)

The Canadian and European flags are but two examples. There are a plethora of examples - effectively every flag in the world made public for the first time since 1923. Bear in mind Wikipedia:Copyrights and remember that all creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement, unless either they fall into the public domain (currently pre-1923) or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed. That includes flags.

So, the purpose of this post is to ask:

1. Do we allow unfree images to be used as flag cruft (probably under "fair use" criteria)?
2. If 'no' to (1), is there consensus to enforce this policy consistently (probably by removing unfree images from flag cruft templates)?
3. If 'yes' to (2), this will lead to many countries appearing without flags in flag cruft, is that acceptable (or will we use alternatives approaches or bare text for all)?

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say that first, we should not use non-free images as flag cruft. Next, we'd need to establish that the disputed images are in fact copyrighted. As you brought up, the Europe flag appears to not qualify for copyright, as it consists of basic shapes. The discussion of the flag of Canada you linked to is disturbing, and is not how we generally roll in those regards. The copyright tag is a bit odd and generic, saying This file is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship. I guess someone would have to establish that the maple leaf is common property. Surely it is ubiquitous, but it's more than a simple geometric shape (i.e. a star), and perhaps more analysis is needed. Basically, if we are using images on the Commons as flag cruft, we aren't really doing anything wrong. It just appears you have found a couple files that may or may not belong on the Commons, and that is the main issue at stake. It does not appear we are using images that are tagged as non-free in this regard. So the dispute seems to be one of WP:PUI, or the Commons equivalent. First step would be getting consensus on the copyright status of these images before we go removing them from articles. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) With respect to flag templates (see WP:WikiProject Flag Template), I have always used WP:Non-free content criteria to decide whether individual images are available for use as flag icons or not. It must be freely usable to be transcluded by template at icon size; no fair-use is allowed for that purpose. If a flag is accepted on Commons, that is good enough for here. There are a lot of flags that do not pass the threshold of originality for copyright protection (any simple set of colour bands, for example), and I would also consider the EU flag to fall into that category (simple geometric shapes, stars arranged in a circle). The Canadian flag is tagged with Template:PD-ineligible, so the community there accepts that argument for that image. I'm not 100% sure of that; the shape of the maple leaf is not a simple geometric shape. So to answer your questions, I say the answer to #1 is "no" and therefore, the answer to #2 is "yes, and I already do that". There are no non-free flags used in the flag template system, and I delete on sight new attempts to add them. (e.g. after the NATO flag was deleted on Commons in February 2008, I deleted Template:Country data NATO here and also subsequent attempts to recreate it.) But I'm not sure what else should be done on this wiki. I don't think we should (for example) decide that the Canadian flag is non-free when Commons says that it isn't. Those discussions need to take place there, not here. But the instant that a flag image is deleted from Commons, I will be the first to take action here, to remove it from the flag template system. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. Not to be off topic, but I think you are my doppelgänger, or something. ha! -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Staying off topic, when I posted on your talk last week, Andrew_c, I thought I was posting to Andrwsc. It wasn't until I went back to Andrwsc's page to check for a reply that I noticed you were not the same person. You're wiki-resembelce is uncanny! :-) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Which all brings up a good question - ignoring the issues whether threshold of originality is passed or not, why are we insistent that we use flag icons to denote nationality when the "average" reader will not recognize the nationality of a flag, when compared to at least the recognition of a 2- or 3-letter acronym? While we want to be visual, every other aspect of our policy and guidelines are aimed at avoiding the use of graphical symbols for datum identification? --MASEM (t) 23:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

And they make for poor icons at the resolution we show them at as well. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Some interesting stuff here [4] . Such as I suspect that the "fair use" provisions of copyright law, at least in the United States, cover use of copyrighted flags by scholars such as FOTW, and similar uses, already, so there shouldn't be a problem [5] An 11 year-old “Doodle 4 Google” winner has seen her artwork changed by the search giant after the Aboriginal flag it features was the subject of a copyright claim by its creator. Gnevin (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The fair use of FOTW is similar to our consensus view of fair use: they use copyrighted images but they do so to illustrate an image they are discussing.

I note the Aboriginal flag consists of simple geometric shapes only. We mark it as copyrighted. It would seem Google's lawyers do too. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm no expert but does [6] wording show some issues there are no restriction on the display of the National Flag by members of general public, private organisations, educational institutions, etc., except to the extent provided in the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 and the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 and any other law enacted on the subject. ? the Flag shall not be used for commercial purposes in violation of the Emblem and

Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950; [7] Gnevin (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this goes beyond just copyright issues... I think we need a community consensus on the whole idea of flag cruft. Why is it important or encylopedic to put little flag icons in lists of rugby or football players. Is the nationality of the various players really important to an article on a team? Blueboar (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm saying. It's not copyright, it's probably a bad use of images per accessibility. --MASEM (t) 23:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Well, that's where the inspiration for WP:Manual of Style (icons) came from, but in my opinion, that is an imperfect guideline that is widely ignored. I have no problem with using flags as a navigational aid in instances where reliable sources do the same thing. For example, sports results such as Olympic events, golf tournaments, and tennis tournaments use flags more often that not. But I see a trend for editors to slap flags on anything and everything possible, thinking it helps the article, but if often makes it worse. Check out this edit (scroll down to the Spain section, for example). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Apart from making that article take really long to load, I can't say the flag images are accomplishing a lot there. postdlf (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Reviving an archived talk page discussion

I found that a topic I had posted on months earlier had been archived, and the archive had the template {{talkarchive}}. However, the best way to revive the discussion, after I found something I should have seen months ago when the discussion was new, appeared to be to remove the entire topic from the archive and post it back on the talk page. I also split the archive because it was excessively long, and it probably needs splitting again.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Split proposal for all decade articles

It has been suggested by Kransky that all decade articles be split into two sets of articles:

• One set of articles would contain an in depth narrative of several selected themes and events of a particular decade and explain their wider significance. (2000s (decade) for example)
• The second set of articles would contain mostly lists of prominent events, prominent events in culture, notable people assassinated, etc - mostly what we have in most decade articles at the moment. (List of events that took place in the 2000s for example)

Please express your opinion here on the proposed splits. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD/PROD mod: Welcoming incomplete articles with the incubator and suggestions for the authors

New articles are often immediately deleted, usually per WP:Notability. This can be frustrating for new authors, and I've known a few people who were upset and never returned. A better approach would be to welcome the new (and presently unsuitable) articles by moving them to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator, and placing a warmly worded template on the author's page explaining why, with easy to understand details about what the author can do to make the article suitable and verify that it is notable. If the article is not improved within one month, it should be PRODed in the incubator and then deleted after seven days. My proposal is to incubate the majority of articles by new authors that would normally be tagged AfD/PROD, especially for overzealous speedy deletion A7 (notability). I think speedy incubation would be much better. -kslays (talk • contribs) 00:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• See some discussion on PROD Talk. -kslays (talk • contribs) 00:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This might also be used for the BLP brouhaha, especially if any mass-moved articles are given extra time. Maurreen (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather not involve BLP in this, that's a separate issue. -kslays (talk • contribs) 01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

:This system would be too slow. I think the current system works fine, since it usually involves two sets of eyes, the first "tagging" editor then the administrator who actually deletes the page. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC) removing WP:SOCK comments - Wikidemon (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if this is a silly question, but why would slow be bad? I am proposing this precisely in order to slow down the deletion process, and to not bite newcomers. Sometimes new editors come back a day or week later to check on the article they created only to find it gone with no way to get it back, which can be very disheartening. I understand slow would be bad if the articles could be found via search engines, but the incubator should keep that from happening. I think the current situation does NOT work fine, because often a new editor's first encounter with the community is a red tag slapped on and battle to keep their article alive, instead of a collaboration or lesson about which articles are appropriate. -kslays (talk • contribs) 01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Kslays that you're overestimating the number of a7 deleted articles which could possibly be notable. The majority of the ones I come across will never have articles, i.e. "my biography", or "my awesome band, we planning a mixtape", "my new company, founded 14th Feb 2010". There is no reason articles like that should be kept for a longer period of time, regardless of who it puts off--Jac16888^Talk 01:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If these people are "put off," as you say, perhaps they should not be so sensitive. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not run a new-age daycare camp! PeterbrownDancin (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC) removing WP:SOCK comments - Wikidemon (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

New articles are often redirected, usually without any reason give. This I imagine is equally frustrating to the newbie. SunCreator (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

New page patrollers (well, me anyway) will normally do a check for sources before tagging for CSD (unless it's obviously about one of the editor's classmates) or PROD, and when leaving a PROD I will always recommend that the article creator cite some source to show the subject is notable.Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of pages by newbies that were deleted and later restored after more sources were added. A few examples are CyanogenMod, War of Legends, Wokai, Samuel Abraham Marx, Kickfire, and Laboratory Of Neuro Imaging (which I believe was deleted as LONI), and those are just ones where either the author persevered or someone else came along later and re-wrote it from scratch. I don't think it's a matter of sensitivity or childishness for new editors, rather, it's inexperience and confusion combined with the curt and cold treatment of experienced editors tagging for deletion without an accessible, clear explanation of what reliable verifiable sourcing means. Besides A7, I think A1 is troublesome for new editors who want to make a stab at something but don't get around to putting in more than a sentence or two right away. If my proposal isn't going to be considered, perhaps we could just modify the delete and user warning templates to include an option for incubation? -kslays (talk • contribs) 03:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

A new wiki project

This is a new group I co-founded of editors willing to use extreme measures to fight for the survival of BLPs, the Wikipedia:Article Special Commandos. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

When you say "extreme measures", do you mean that you will be editing the blps to include references? Because I can't see how anything else would be in the interests of Wikipedia--Jac16888^Talk 02:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As long as the article neither does harm nor contains untrue, malicious material, it should be allowed to live even without your precious "sources." Wikipedia is the source, the author the medium. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a joke right? You can't be serious. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the whole point is that all content is based on sources. How can you know that content is true or not without checking it in a source. I hope for your sake this is a prank--Jac16888^Talk 02:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

From its "page": "The Article Special Commandos are a committed and growing strike force on Wikipedia that believe that articles, especially unreferenced Biographies of Living People, should not be deleted. We are willing to use any means necessary, as long as it is legal and ethical." and this[8] I'd say no. But as the same person also has sent several unreferenced BLPs to AfD himself, and proposed that non-admins who are auto confirmed be allowed to delete unreferenced BLPs[9][10], and his general lack of editing history...I'd question exactly what the OPs intentions are at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This is no joke. We are on the precipice of a mass 60,000 article deletion. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

60,000(??) unsourced articles that can be rewritten properly, once someone feels like taking a few minutes to back them up with reliable sources. It's not like once an article is deleted, nobody can ever create a proper article on the person again. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

there is no need for any special action or procedure, just a little work. If 200 people tried properly to source 2 articles a day , even 30,000 (the actual number--many in the original category actually did have sources) would just be about two months work. There have been at least 200 people discussing this since the beginning of January , making a variety of reasonable and unreasonable proposals. Had they actually done some work instead of talking, we would have solved most of the problem already. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the BLP deletionists will be shaking in their boots when they hear of this new initiative. Nothing to see here people, move along, move along...

DGG, some people have been sourcing the unsourced BLPs. Despite appearances otherwise, Wikipedia is not all talk. Fences&Windows 14:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Apparently the project has been MFD'ded. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  It hasn't been MFD'ed yet, but it's listed. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Special Commandos.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  It's kind of cold out and the Special Commandos page is gone now (MFD closed). Killiondude (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  Not that I actually disagree with the choice to do that, but I really wish that people wouldn't close deletion discussions like that. I can hear people saying "process wonkery" already, but... seriously, give people at least 24 hours to see the MFD. Not that I'm going to take this to DRV or anything, but I'm just saying...
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What is DRV? PeterbrownDancin (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolving the content fork conundrum

There has been quite a bit of discussion on the thread "Contradiction at WP:Content fork: content forks are not always bad" about what to do about the contradiction between the definition of content fork at WP:NPOV and the definition of content fork at WP:CFORK. In fact that thread was a revival of a previous thread from months ago that died. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any forthcoming consensus about what "content fork" is supposed to mean. We do, however, have two concepts available that are well-defined and mutually agreed upon: POV (point of view) forks and articles on the same subject. This last concept is already mentioned by WP:CFORK and has been proposed as a new term at least a couple of times under names like "content duplication" or "topic fork." Trying to build on this, I propose the following solution for the "content fork" problem.

1. List same-topic articles as a problem to avoid
2. Drop the term "content fork" and instead rely on "point of view fork" and "same-topic articles"

Implementing this proposal would take three steps:

1. Make a page called "same-topic articles." Content fork is already defined as "multiple separate articles all treating the same subject," so this would not be a new concept, just a language clarification. Relevant material from WP:Content_forking would be moved to the new page.
2. Move WP:Content_forking to WP:POV_fork, replace any usage of content fork in the remaining material with POV fork, leave a redirect
3. Add same-topic articles as a reason for deletion to WP:DEL#REASON, change reason content fork to POV fork
4. Am I forgetting anything?

I think this proposal is good since it builds on past ones by Andrew Gradman, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ, and others. However, it needs to be voted on to see if there is consensus for it. Thanks.
—Khin2718 19:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction at WP:Content fork: content forks are not always bad.

The third sentence of WP:Content fork implies that content forks are always bad ("content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia").

For this to be true, we'd have to be defining "content fork" to not include the overlap between article spinouts (e.g. history of coffee) and summary-style-sections (e.g. Coffee#History). But that's not how we're defining it: the first sentence of WP:Content fork defines the term to mean, quite simply, redundancy between articles ("A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject"; and coffee and history of coffee both "treat" the history of coffee). This contradiction has apparently been noticed, because someone has attempted to answer it, but the attempt just equates content forks with POV forks. ("Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View") (emphasis added). (not really relevant.)

I propose to rewrite the lead at WP:Content fork as follows, to reflect that the term "content fork" is used to refer to two different things -- one which is acceptable, one which isn't.

A content fork occurs when there is more than one article containing a treatment of a given topic. This redundancy is problematic because it forces related discussions onto multiple talk pages, hinders coordination and consensus-building, and leads to inconsistencies between articles. Nevertheless, content forking is made inevitable to some degree by the natural overlap between encyclopedia topics, and is often encouraged in order to avoid overly lengthy articles (see Wikipedia:Summary style).

Unacceptable content forks are of two kinds.

• A point of view (POV) fork refers to an article whose existence has no justification except to promote violations of Wikipedia's neutral point of view guidelines. POV forks are assumed to be content forks, because they are generally redundant to (and may even be created to intentionally circumvent) a pre-existing but neutral discussion of that POV. They tend to cluster among articles whose title identifies a POV (e.g., "Criticism of [topic X]"), although these articles are not always POV forks.

• The second kind is confusingly referred to simply as a "content fork". These occur when there more than one article that is entirely dedicated to a given topic. These redundant articles often arise accidentally. When they are identified, all substantive content should be merged into one of these articles; the others should be replaced with redirects to that article.

This is a revival (and improvement) of a proposal I made in August at the WP:Content fork talk page which ran out of steam.
Thoughts? Would anyone support introducing a new term -- "topic fork" or "article fork" -- to refer to bad content forks that are not POV forks? Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 21:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The convention that "content forks" are undesirable is too entrenched to be changed now; trying to do so will only lead to people talking past each other, as one uses the old meaning and the other the new.

As for the merits: the otherwise acceptable practice of having a "summary article" and "subarticles" should use that established terminology. Subarticles are only content forks when they rewrite the main article; even when both are written from a neutral point of view, this is undesirable, since it means the subarticle is off topic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think "content forks" should refer to forking out sub-articles (acceptable), and the unintentional creation of two differently titled articles covering the same topic should be simply referred to as "duplication" or "content duplication". - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Making the distinction between a legitimate spinout and a content fork has been a failing of the WP:CFORK document for as long as I've been aware of it. This has been an issue for a long time, so I would support any effort to improve the situation.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 10:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the issue. Couldn't it just say "Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking", and be done with it, no qualifier required? Summary style is pretty clear, and should involve summary, not duplication. Rd232 ^talk 11:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that is not always the case. If a sub-topic is not notable in itself, then it is likely that the coverage contained in the two articles is likely to be more or less the same. For example, the articles Terminator (character) and Terminator (character concept) are both about the same thing. You could swap the content of the two articles around, as neither topic is notable in itself.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

But those two article don't follow WP:SUMMARY. They're just two different articles on (very) closely related topics. Rd232 ^talk 12:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

They do indeed follow WP:SUMMARY, but they are content forks from the Terminator films. In this case, there is nothing to distinguish the coverage of the film from these two articles. They are definately content forks. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

What is a content fork?

• "fork" should mean "any redundancy (however small) between articles"; "POV fork" & "Content fork" should be pejorative and not overlap
• Rd232, here's the problem that would still remain: People are using the phrase "content fork" to refer to two different things. So imagine this: someone wants to get an article deleted; he gets it labeled a "content fork" under the first (neutral) definition [let's call it "neutral CF"]; then he equivocates by silently shifting to the negative definition [let's call it "pejorative CF"]; defenders of the article do the opposite; and now deleters and defenders are talking past each other ("it is a content fork! no it isn't! but you just said it is! well yes, but content forking is not grounds for deletion! yes it is! ...). This problem will persist so long as "neutral CF" and "pejorative CF" are being referred to by the same name. (Septentrionalis PMAnderson, I thus view your concerns as being part of the status quo, and are precisely what I'm trying to solve...)
• The only solution is to rename one of them. I think the "neutral CF" will be the most amenable to renaming: People devote more thought and work to pejorative CF's; people don't even think of neutral CF's as content forks (evidenced by the widespread intuition that summary style/spinout combinations do not represent content forks). Thus, I rescind my proposal, from the end of my original post, that the pejorative CF should be renamed "topic fork" or "article fork".
• Instead, I propose we assign the name fork to the "neutral CF", retaining the name content fork only for the "pejorative CF". This entails the following:

(1) the lead at WP:Content fork should be changed to indicate that there is no overlap between the definitions of POV fork and content fork. A POV fork occurs when an article is created to argue for a POV. These articles have been treated as a kind of fork, only because they tend to be redundant to (and are often created to intentionally circumvent) a neutral discussion of that POV at an existing article. Nevertheless, its main sin is not redundancy (the essence of a "fork"), but a violation of WP:NPOV.

(2) We could, if you want, create separate articles for "content fork" and "POV fork", with a disambiguation page at "fork".

• Thoughts? Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 20:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

speaking idealistically, the only valid kind of content fork occurs in a semi-hierarchical structure, when a section of a given topic is large enough that it needs a separate article of its own. whenever two article cover the same material but do not have that kind of parent/child relationship, you're looking at a POV fork of some kind. unfrtunately there's no structure on wikipedia for dealing with multi-article coordination (unless someone sets up a project for that purpose, but projects don't have the force of policy). --Ludwigs2 20:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• There is a structure on wikipedia for dealing with multi-article coordination: notability. As a basic rule of thumb, any sub-article that does not contain signficant coverage from reliable secondary sources is a content fork from the overarching topic. For example, if the article Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) provides evidence that its subject matter is notable, while the article Battlestar Galactica (ship) does not, then the article about the ship is a content fork. The reason is that its overarching topic (the TV series about the ship) is the subject of significant coverage that addresses its subject matter directly and in detail. Contrast that with the coverage of the ship, which all about the TV series. Unless reliable secondary sources can be found that mark out the ship as a suitable topic for a standalone article, then it would be better to elimate the content fork and redirect the article about the ship to that of the TV series. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's going off on a tangent, talking about notability. The "forking" issue is essentially about duplication, and the type of case you're talking about needn't have any more or less duplication than a usual summary-style split. Rd232 ^talk 12:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe Andrew Gradman's new proposal approximates current practice. whoops, misread it. Trying to distinguish "fork" from "content fork" is just going to confuse people. "content forking" is considered impermissible, and a POV fork is just a content fork with a specific intent. Whereas summary-style splitting of topics isn't considered "forking" (though on occasion, badly or maliciously done, it can end up being that, by failing to split/summarise appropriately). Rd232 ^talk 12:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability is key to understanding which topics are content forks. Without coverage from reliable secondary sources, there is no reason to have a seperate standalone article. Content forks are basically articles which have some sources, but the coverage does not address the topic directly or in detail. Simply put, a content fork is an article without notability, whose subject matter is covered directly and in detail in another article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

An appropriate content fork is not creating a new topic, but instead talking of one part of the subset of that topic. Notability needs to have already been demonstrated for the main topic before the content fork can be created. --MASEM (t) 19:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with using Notability here is that it doesn't really tell us anything about the structures I talked about above. to use your example: say editor X is editing Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) and editor Y is editing Battlestar Galactica (ship). Editor X thinks his article is the main one, and adds a bit about the ship; Editor Y also thinks his article is the main one, and adds a bit about the series; the two bits they each add contradict each other. Now, if we knew that the 'series' article was the main one, we could delete the section in the 'ship' article about the series; if we knew that the 'ship' article was the main one, we could delete the section in the 'series' article about the ship. But since there is no overarching structure which says this or that is the main article, the the two articles are going to continue to contradict each other (noxious content forks) either because the two editors don't know what's written in the other article, or because the two editors don't like what's in the other article, and aren't forced to work the overlapping bits into a single page. a lot of topics on wikipedia have this problem, often because different editors started writing good faith articles on different but related topics that grew into overlapping regions.

and yes, I recognize that I'm suggesting Wikipedia make some policies or guidelines about overarching metastructures to information, and that that is a major headache even to consider. I'm just saying... --Ludwigs2 19:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with Ludwigs2 here. Notability doesn't necessarily tell us anything about this kind of relationship. The very first notability criterion, for example, is that a topic have significant and direct coverage. WP:N is about whether a topic merits its own article, and clearly two different articles about the same notable topic can each individually cite significant and direct coverage and hence merit existence alone, but they're still redundant.

Notability does however provide a clue that a topic might be redundant, especially if it is an example of WP:OC, since a non-notable topic might possibly fit into the framework of some broader, overlapping article. Khin2718 (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

←The basic principle of the guideline, i.e. multiple articles on a single distinct topic is undesirable, is sound. For editors, it dilutes collaborative article building; for readers, either the duplicates provide no further information, wasting their time or, they only find one article, it's of inferior quality to its four-pronged siblings, thus we do them a disservice. I too think conflating content forks with notability is a mistake. –Whitehorse1 18:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

But Wikipedia includes articles of different types that share the same scope and which are entirely dedicated to the same topics, which makes them "content forks" according to the "The second kind" definition provided above. Wikipedia has prose articles and list articles. Topic lists (such as "List of opera topics" and Outline of geography are Wikipedia articles, and they share the same scope as the corresponding prose articles (Opera and Geography). But, topic lists serve different purposes than conventional (prose) articles: lists deal more specifically with the presentation of subjects' structures, and their format allows for faster readability, skim-ability, and navigation (they are somewhat menu-like). The cfork guideline apparently assumed "article" meant "prose article". Having two prose articles on the same subject or two glossaries on exactly the same subject is bad. But having an article and a glossary (and an index, and an outline) isn't bad (if the scope of the subject is broad enough to support these article types).

Therefore, the "second kind" definition should accomodate the other types of articles, perhaps like this:

• The second kind is confusingly referred to simply as a "content fork". These occur when there are more than one article of the same type that are entirely dedicated to a given topic. These redundant articles often arise accidentally. When they are identified, all substantive content should be merged into one of these articles; the others should be replaced with redirects to that article. Articles of different types (a standard prose article, a portal, a timeline, a glossary, an index, etc.) that cover the same subject are not considered to be harmful content forks, and they should not be merged together just because they cover the same subject.

The Transhumanist 23:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree and I don't think these forks should be accomodated at all. It is obvious to me, if not to The Transhumanist, that the list article List of basic geography topics is a content fork, since it is not a notable topic in its own right, due to absence of secondary sources to identify it as seperable, standalone article topic that is different from its overarching subject matter, Geography.
Without any secondary sources, it is purely a matter of personal opinion as to what this articles is about, by which I mean you could rename this article using any combination or permutation of words, just as long as it contains the word "geography" it its title. A more accurate tile would be "List of arbitarily selected topics loosely assoicated with geography" which would reflect that list subject matter is not defined or its title is not authenticated by a reliable secondary source. This type of fork is harmful, for it is little more than listcruft, and as such is a magnet for original research.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability only applies to topics, not to articles. The topic of List of basic geography topics is Geography which is already shown to be notable. It is a "good" content fork of the type desired per the above conversation (eg falling out from summary style). It's contents are well discriminated - either they completely enumerate what needs to be in a given category (the continents or oceans of the world) or provide a clear inclusion aspect of what is include (natural and man-made geographical features). There is no problem with this type of "content" fork. --MASEM (t) 13:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Masem has impailed himself on the horns of a dilemma. If the topic of List of basic geography topics is the same as that as the article Geography, then the list is clearly a fork. There is not such thing as a "good fork": if the article topic is addressed directly and in detail in one article, there should not be another article or articles about the same topic with a slightly different name.
I think what Masem has failed to grasp is that List of basic geography topics is indeed a seperate standalone topic, except that it has no clear definition. What is a "basic" geography topic? Your guess is as good as mine, but I suspect it is a title that was plucked out of the air at the time. My view is that whether the article is called "List of geography topics", "List of basic geography topics" or "List of arbitarily selected topics loosely assoicated with geography", its subject matter is actually about the categorisation of certain topics related to geography, and is probably best dealt with as a category.
Content forks of this kind go against consensus, because they go against Wikipedia content policies:

1. The article's title is not recognizable in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions, i.e. the name has not been used in reliable sources, and so unlikely to be been recognized by the world at large;
2. The article's content is prohibited by the fact that it is a List of loosely associated topics;

I think it is fair to say that in this case, it's contents are not well discriminated at all. The fact that most of the list items are related to geography is undeniable, but then it is possible to argue that virtually everything is related to geography in some way. As long as the article topic lacks a definition or any kind, even a broadbrush one, then it is going to be a content fork from an overarching topic that has a definition and a recognizable title. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, Masem is correct.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 19:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, the entire issue of notability is a red herring: you can perfectly well have two content forks on a topic which is not notable (and conversely, notability wouldn't seem to be relevant for distinguishing reasonably-sourced POV forks). The question is whether two articles covering the same topic broadly construed can be differentiated (a) by substantive difference in focus as part of a clear relationship between the two, i.e. WP:SUMMARY; (b) by being essentially different in form, such as list vs article (and the example given, Outline of geography / List of basic geography topics, is indeed essentially a list. If either exception applies, it's not a "content fork". Rd232 ^talk 08:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the mistaken view that article which is "reasonably-sourced" is not a content fork makes no sense. If two articles share identical sources, but just have different article titles, that would be an example of a content fork pure and simple. The key to understanding which article is genuine and which is the fork will depend on which article title is addressed directly and in detail by those sources.
I think that Rd232 is also under the mistaken view that list articles are different from other types of article because they are in a different "form", but in substance lists are no different from any other type of article. In the case of List of basic geography topics, there are no sources that address the article's title directly or in detail. In this instance, the term "basic" in the title is little more than a fig leaf to cover the lack of significant coverage in it.
The only way two articles with similar or closely related subject matters can be be differentiated is whether or not the article title is the subject of significant coverage in accordance with WP:GNG. This is because, if an article title is not the subject of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, then that title is not recognised by the world at large in accordance with WP:NAME, and if an article's title is not widely recognised, that is one surefire indicator that it is a content fork.
Notability is not a red herring in this context, as a notable topic cannot be a content fork, as notable topics meet all of Wikipedia content policies which includes WP:NAME. For example Geography is a notable topic, as is the History of geography which is notable subject studied in its own right. However, "Basic Geography" is not a notable topic, nor is the List of basic geography topics notable, as it is not recognised as a seperate subject in its own right.
As a rule of thumb, if an article topic is not the subject of signficiant coverage from reliable secondary sources, then it is likely to be content fork from an over-arching topic that is notable. WP:CFORK, WP:NAME and WP:N are closely bound together, and you can't interpret them in isolation. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, I think you're missing the gist here. arguably, a perfectly written wikipedia article (should such a thing possibly exist) could not have a content fork - it would use an optimal selection of sources in a completely neutral, complete, and balanced way, so that any other 'perfect' article on the same topic would be equivalent. But I sincerely doubt we should be counting on people to write perfect articles. given the more realistic prospect that two articles on a given topic might say different things, then a question arises about the relationship between what the two articles say. If the two articles have a complementary, hierarchical relationship, where one article expands on a point that is only touched on in the other article, then you have a functional and useful content fork (maybe 'branch' would be a better term here, implying that it's connected to the whole but goes its own way for a bit). if the two articles have a oppositional, contradictory relationship (where each article is trying to one-up the other) then you have a POV fork, like two plants trying to choke each other out. The first is fine, the second isn't, but we cannot assume that the second never happens (on what amounts to philosophical grounds), because it obviously does happen.

I don't think you can reduce this to a matter of article titles, since titles are usually derivative from someone's perspective on article content. --Ludwigs2 10:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think what you are talking about in the first instance is the splitting notable sub-topics into seperate standalone articles in accordance with WP:SUMMARY, which is standard procedure and not in dispute. However content forks are not recognised sub-topics, they are just a rehash of an existing article topic under the title that is slightly different name. Content forks can be recognised by the fact that their title is not widely recognised by the world at large in accordance with WP:NAME. For instance, "Basic Geography" is not a recognised subject in the world at large. In fact, the list article List of basic geography topics does not contain a single citation whose subject matter is "Basic Geography", which a pretty conclusive indicator that it is a content fork. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The whole point of this entire conversation was to make the distinction between "separate standalone articles" an "content forks". You seem to be conflating that issue with your pet notability issue, which isn't really helping the central topic here... I do like that "separate standalone article" phrase though, although it would be nice if we could come up with something more succinct. One thing that I think is abundantly clear is that someone really needs to edit the WP:CFORK policy to say exactly what Gavin opened his post above with, that "splitting a sub-topic into a separate standalone article in accordance with WP:SUMMARY" is not a content fork. That would make things much clearer for everyone.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 16:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

list of basic geography topics means list of basic topics in geography, not list of topics in basic geography. I could say it means list of common topics in geography or list of common uses of geography, and I'm sure that I cold find different scholarly sources that use 'basic topics', 'common topics', and 'common uses' in reference to geography. does that mean we should have three separate list articles? --Ludwigs2 18:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The page is misnamed. The article has been greatly expanded, and no longer fits the scope of the original name. It was renamed to "Outline of geography", but someone named it back. It is not a basic list, nor a list of basic topics. It is a presentation of the subject geography, in topic outline format, and also part of Wikipedia's contents system. If you delete it, you will be punching a major hole in that subsystem (WP:OOK). --The Transhumanist (on unsecured machine, using anonymous IP for security reasons). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.141.61 (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Content forks when backed by reliable sources allow us to expand of specific diverging viewpoints of a topic and thus are a good thing. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've read that line several times now, but it still seems like an endorsement of POV forks. Was there a typo? LeadSongDog come howl 19:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

In answer to Ludwigs2, if List of basic geography topics is really about basic topics in geography, then why is there no citation in this list article to show this? I would suggest the reason is that this list article is a content fork, whose article topic is not recognised by the world at large. I doubt very much you could find significant coverage on the subject of basic topics in geography or common topics in geography that links in any meaningful way to its content. The reason is that the real subject matter of this list is the categorization of geography topics, which is already covered by Category:Geography. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Gavin: the problem here (and forewarning, what I'm about to say is on the esoteric/philosophical side) is that the names of things are only loosely connected to the things themselves. they are not good diagnostics. what we would hope is that the topic in question has only one page on wikipedia. unfortunately, different people might use different names to refer to the same topic, and different people might use similar names to refer to different topics; If we just rely on the name, the name can mislead us, and leave all sorts of openings for wikilawyering in content forks. I'm sure I can find a dozen freshman textbooks that talk about 'common topics in geography', and a dozen more that talk about 'basic topics in geography', because 'common' and 'basic' are loose synonyms. at some point we have to recognize that 'common' and 'basic' are being used to refer to the same 'thing', and it's that 'thing' that should have a single page on wikipedia, not two different pages as the names might suggest. see what I'm getting at? --Ludwigs2 08:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

In answer to Ludwigs2, I accept that a specific topic can only be loosely approximated by an article title, even in the case of a very specfic topic. Although article topics are not defined by their article titles alone, you would nonetheless expect that the article title to be the subject of significant coverage which can identify the article topic as having been recognised by the world at large. We know that geography is a very broad subject area, with many recognised variants, each with a specfic name (Category:Branches of geography would be a good place to look), but basic, complex, common or unique geography topics are not any of those. Its easy for an editor to make up variants such as these, because the names are so bland that they go unchallenged. If there is no signficant coverage from reliable secondary sources, then it is unlikely that it is a recognised article topic in its own right. Even if you can find a source which uses the term 'basic topics in geography', surely it must occur to you that the real subject matter is Geography, as that is the specific topic that is being addressed direct and in detail? Have you no common sense? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"List of basic geography topics" is misnamed from "Outline of geography", an unfortunate result of a move war of pages included in Portal:Contents/Outline of Knowledge. The words "List", "Glossary", "Timeline", "Outline", "Index", and "Table" are used as list type identifiers. When used that way, they are not part of the subject. Each one connotes a kind of list, the includability of which are established by the list guideline and stand-alone lists guideline, which predated the cfork guideline. For example, "List of animals" isn't about a document in the real world presenting a list of animals. It is a Wikipedia article about animals that is a list. The subject of the list is "animals" which is a recognized subject in the world-at-large. The same principle applies to "Outline of geography", which is a particular type of list, about the subject of geography, arranged as a topic outline, which shows topics that make up the subject. Outlines are much faster to read than prose articles, and they are arranged more logically than prose articles (which may present topics in almost random order within paragraphs). The outline on geography is a major component of the Outline of Knowledge, and has been for years (the set being called by other names in the past). The solution is to rename "List of basic geography topics" back to "Outline of geography". For the set of the outlines on Wikipedia, see Portal:Contents/Outline of Knowledge. For a description of Britannica's Outline of Knowledge, see Propaedia. --The Transhumanist (on unsecured machine, using anonymous IP for security reasons). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.141.61 (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I can understand why a "move war" came about, as the list is undefined, and without a definition, it could be called virtually anything, just a long as "geography" is in the title. I think that List of basic geography topics is itself a list of loosely associated topics in almost random order. WP:LISTS does not provide any basis for inclusion (only Wikipedia: Notability does that); on the contrary, WP:LISTS says that the subject matter of list should be defined by reliable sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As much as I often disagree with Gavin.collins (or, at least, the weight that he gives to notability as an issue), I have to support this statement. Of course, knowing Gavin.collins as I do, I should immediately state that the conclusion which he will inevitably extent the logic of his own statement to is not a view that I share, but I'm still right there with him on the point directly above. I'd say that the vast majority of these sorts of content disputes are started by slipshod, or usually just ill-conceived (or unthinking), forward planning on our collective parts. Sources, and confining an article to a specific topic, are all that is really required to avoid most content disputes (outside of the subjects you'd avoid in bars, you know... Politics, Religion, etc...)
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 22:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

For your information, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of basic geography topics has ended with the result that it is to be kept, but no sources were cited during the discussion to support the view that it is either a defined or recognised topic in its own right. It is nice to think that it is a "useful" list, but measures of subjective importance such as being useful are not a valid rationales for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy either, which in this case means that "this feels right" or "this feels wrong" is a perfectly valid rational. I really am sympathetic to your view on this issue, but there are better solutions available then deletion as well. The fact of the matter is that dealing with this sort of thing takes work, one way or another. I you put the work into it and renominated it later saying something like "I've been working on this article for a month, adding references to it and copy editing it, and the article just doesn't work because X, Y, Z" then there probably wouldn't be much of an argument about deleting it. I'm not suggesting that every prod/AFD requires that sort of process, but for articles which aren't immediately and obviously problematic in some fashion some attempt at addressing WP:BEFORE will at least be "politically" beneficial, if you see what I'm getting at.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 14:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

An excellent point about the "bureaucracy." Truthfully, I think that the WP:IGNOREALLRULES policy is very applicable here. Let's say for the sake of discussion that Gavin Collins was right by the "letter of the law." Even if there were no secondary sources identifying the title of the article (there are, and they have been pointed out), it's still a very useful page that adds to the value of Wikipedia as a resource. It's heavily visited. It's a topic that's in the news...a lot. It's relevant to the average American (and others) who wants to know if there really is a division in "scientific opinion on climate change." Finally, it is not covered in sufficient depth on other pages to provide an answer for many people who come here looking for an answer. "Scientific opinion on the shape of the earth" shares none of these dynamics. In light of this, most people would still be willing to not follow a strict interpretation of the letter of the law simply because the article makes Wikipedia better. Consider this from WP:BURO: "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures." Destroying useful knowledge cannot be the answer. Improving the article with the other editors is the best choice. Airborne84 (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Scientific opinion on climate change

Gavin Collins, why don't you just say what this is really about? It's not about geography, it's your disagreement with the Scientific Opinion on Climate Change article in that it is (as per your claim) an unacceptable content fork from Climate Change; thus, since the words "scientific opinion" in the title do not have a footnote after them, the article should be deleted - or condensed and combined into "Climate Change" with all other articles on Climate Change (regardless of the current size of that article). Thoughts anyone? Airborne84 (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to tell as the contributions are so negative and don't contribute anything constructive but I think it may be it has little to do with climate change and be just part of the fixation about a peculiar interpretation of forks and notability. Dmcq (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure why my suggestion that Scientific opinion on climate change is a content fork is being as labled as "negative". Where I come from, criticism is a healthy form of discourse. If Dmcq disagree with my views, why not say so and why? Leave the personal issues for our respective talk pages. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll leave that discussion to the other editors on this page and follow their guidance. This really is a better venue for you than some article talk page where people are only interested in the content of the article. I doubt you'll convince them either, but the people here are a much better audience for debating the wider issues and improving wikipedia overall. Dmcq (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Gavin Collins, I'm not disparaging your discussion here. I'm suggesting that you'll get a more relevant and useful response by just throwing the real issue out on the table, so to speak. If you had some agreement here, but not universal, you wouldn't be able to go back to Scientific opinion on climate change and say "look here." You would likely get more than a few editors there saying "they were talking about another article." If you get the answer you want about the article in question, it will be more useful for you. Airborne84 (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Very well, lets talk about the article Scientific opinion on climate change. The moment I saw the title, I wondered why it would be necessary to have seperate article about the scientfic opinion on this matter if these are already cited in such article Climate change and Climate change consensus? Afterall, articles are not usually segregated by source, e.g. "Media opinion on climate change" is not a notable topic in its own right.
The question arises, "is Scientific opinion on climate change a recognised topic in its own right?", and it seems to be debateable. There are some scientific papers which use the term, but when they do, it is usually done with the context of a wider discussion of what scientists think is the cause of climate change itself.
The key to understanding whether this article is a content fork is sourcing. None of the sources cited in the article actaull use the term "Scientific opinion on climate change", which is a bit odd. In fact, most of the sources cited in the article itself are not about scientific opinion per se, they are merely statement of what various scientific bodies believe to be the causes of climate change, topics which are discussed directly and in detail in other article such as Global warming. This is why I suspect this article is a content fork. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I tend to agree with some points that both of you are making here. The issue is that for this article in particular there are simply too many other side issues "muddying the waters" right now. As time passes that article should settle down, and we can more calmly and rationally consider issues such as the article title. Keep in mind that I'm not suggesting that we should quit talking about this, but we definitely should not look to instances such as the development of Scientific opinion on climate change for guidance on general principles here.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 15:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The general principle given by this example is covered by WP:NPOV#Article naming:

Alternative article names should not be used as means of settling POV disputes among Wikipedia contributors. Also disfavored are double or "segmented" article names, in the form of: Flat Earth/Round Earth; or Flat Earth (Round Earth). Even if a synthesis is made, like Shape of the Earth, or Earth (debated shapes), it may not be appropriate, especially if it is a novel usage coined specifically to resolve a POV fork.

The use of a "segmented" article name is clearly an issue here, as no meaningful distinction can be made between some of these variants. Perhaps we should added Scientific opinion on the Earth's Shape to the examples given above?. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I agree. The problem here is that the issue has been discussed several times on this particular article's talk page, and there are currently some overly polarized opinions affecting the ability for us to make reasoned decisions there. Trying to fork that discussion here isn't really helpful, and it will effectively have zero impact there, so this little side discussion is really a bit of a "red herring" right now. There's nothing to be overly concerned about though, since Wikipedia is a work in progress and we can always come back to address the issue after the heat dies off somewhat.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 17:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Back to basics

I think this proposal would add much confusion to what is only a slightly confusing name for the policy. A "content fork" is mean to mean a split of identical content to two different articles, without attempting to sort out a valid difference between the one and the other. And specifically, because editor POV is not supposed to affect the article, that is not a valid difference. The policy is self-evident from the nature of Wikipedia: without setting meaningful distinctions between what articles cover, there would be one "Article" split into three million parts all covering everything at random. It also extends naturally to improperly segregated "Criticism" sections automatically, because sections of an article likewise should be distinguished by valid differences; so the article should be separated in terms of the major real-world activities/ideas/processes it addresses, not the opinions different groups of editors have about each individual detail. The bottom line is that when content is organized into articles or sections, it should be divided according to some rational, encyclopedic set of subdivisions. Wnt (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the Wnt's term "meaningful distinction" is a very clear description of what is needed to seperate articles on closely related topics. Such a distinction can only be made by an examination of sources cited in an article: if the sources don't address the subject of the article directly and in detail, then WP:AVOIDSPLIT applies. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Eliminating contradictions

First I'd like to say that I think the current contradiction between WP:NPOV and WP:CFORK is very confusing. I had initially read WP:NPOV and internalized its difference between POV fork and content fork, and when I finally read the other policy I did a double take.

From reading this discussion it seems clear there is widespread disagreement about what "content fork" means. Some people think that there are good content forks and bad content forks. Other people think that content forks are always bad. Because I do not see much consensus here on the definition and the above contradiction is very confusing, I propose that we simply remove the term "content fork" from all pages until such time as a consensus about what it means can be found.

I agree with the basic structure of Andrew Gradman's first proposal, the very first proposal anybody made in this discussion, and think "POV fork" should clearly be retained as a concept. However I think "content fork" in both of the places he uses it should be replaced. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ's suggestion that we call articles covering the same topic by the simple name "duplication" seems to represent progress here. But instead of "duplication," I say an even better term would be "redundant," because it is rare that two articles are entirely duplicates of each other, and it is more common for two articles to simply have a high, but not necessarily total, degree of redundancy. Either "duplication" or "redundant" would be fairly acceptable to me, however. Most important is to have at least a recognizable term.

There is the other question of what to call a parent-child relationship. (Ludwig2 suggested "branch," which mimics my thinking pretty well.) But because parent-child relationships are not bad, and a positive part of WP:SUMMARY, I think there is no reason to delay and try to come up with any special term for them right now. Let's stick to the more important points of bad organization and get rid of the current contradictions. Khin2718 (talk) 04:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I take the opposite view. From the onset, I should say that WP:AVOIDSPLIT does not allow "branching" if the offshoot is not notable, which is why content forks have nothing to do with process of legitimate creating parent child articles. Using your analogy, content forks are more unwelcome bastard children that claim to be legitimate, but aren't (no disprect intended). For this reason, making distinctions between deliberate POV forks and unintentional content forks is spurious: both address the same topic but from slightly different viewpoints. The fact that a content fork can exist whether they are exact duplicates or slightly different from each other does not make any difference either if, in Wnt's words, there is no "meaningful distinction" between articles that cover the same article topic. If WP:UNDUE says that "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject....", then we should not allow content forks to achieve the same outcome by giving undue weight through the creation of multiple articles on the same topic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You're clearly right that WP:AVOIDSPLIT says that any new child articles need to meet the general notability criteria. In my statement above I was just implicitly assuming that this was the case. Evidently the only reason to have child articles at all is if the parent article becomes too long. Articles on different topics entirely are not, in my mind, child articles, but just other articles. —Khin2718 (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the analysis of the problem, but I disagree with the interim solution. It doesn't really gain us anything to hurry here, and therefore sort of "throw the baby out with the bathwater" if even just temporarily. Gavin goes further then most editors I think, but he does have a point when it comes to this issue. There must be a way to "square the circle" when it comes to this, if we're all willing to acknowledge each others' positions and work them all together, somehow.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 15:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there appears to be no forthcoming consensus about what a "content fork" is. So I don't view deprecating it as throwing the baby out with the bathwater, just as using clear terminology. —Khin2718 (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's my proposal in a nutshell:

1. List same-topic articles as a problem to avoid

2. Drop the term "content fork" and instead rely on "point of view fork" and same-topic articles —Khin2718 (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand where Khin2718 is coming from, and agree with him that the various terms are confusing. The problem I have with retaining the term "POV fork" is that it assumes that the creators acted in bad faith, and to accuse or imply that an editor has creating a POV fork is derogatory to say the least. Caught in such a situation, no editor is ever going to admit to creating a POV fork; its about as likely as admitting to clubbing baby seals. "POV fork" is a term that is loaded with a burden of blame and guilt, and we need to drop it to facilitate dispute resolution.
My view is that the term "content fork" is the right term for this problem (unless there is a knockout alternative). There is no meaningful difference between a deliberate or an unintentional content fork, they are both one and the same thing: the same article topic written from a different viewpoint. In any case, it does not matter whether the creators of a content fork acted deliberately or unintentionally, we should assume good faith in all cases. Better to call a spade a spade (unless it can be proven that it is a trowel), so lets use the term that is currently in use: a content fork. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I see. The thing is, if you really think that using "content fork" is less derogatory then saying that they've created a "POV fork", then you're only fooling yourself. There obviously are instances where specific word choices can make a huge difference, but this doesn't seem to be one of them. We're not softening anything by relying on "content fork" because the two phrases are simply too synonymous to those whom are receiving it.

I also still disagree that there is no difference between an unintentional content fork (A "Spinout"), and an intentional content fork (a "POV fork"). The motivation for one is simple maintenance and structure, whereas the motivation for the other lies in skirting or bypassing our neutral point of view policy. I definitely agree that we should assume good faith, but we're discussing documentation on dealing with an issue where there is general agreement that the "POV fork" has been created. The primary point here is to draw a clear distinction between that and the "spinout", which is usually a good thing, and even when it isn't a good thing should be handled completely differently.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 18:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference, for a POV fork to exist, there is there is presumption that an editor has acted in bad faith in a deliberate and premeditated fashion. This creates a burden of proof that can easily be refuted. If we assume all content forks are the same (same article, slightly differing viewpoint), then we don't have to assume, let alone prove, that the creator of the article acted in bad faith.
Spinouts have nothing to to do with content forks; they are simply sub-topics that are notable in their own right. Some sub-topics are not notable, in which case WP:AVOIDSPLIT applies. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what we ultimately decide about POV fork, my main concern is the resolution of the ambiguous and confusing term "content fork." I think terminology being well-defined is extremely important. You can use well-defined terminology like POV fork in inaccurate ways, but if your terms are not even well-defined then you cannot use them accurately unless you define them yourself. That is too much work for the average user. It seems possible to work around a terminology with various other problems, but when it is not well-defined that screams to me that action must be taken quickly (hence the proposal above). —Khin2718 (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Using a three letter acronym in the term does not work for me. If you have a plain english alternative to "POV fork", then I'm your man. Otherwise, lets stick with the simplist term available, which is "content fork". I agree that terminology being well-defined is extremely important, but that is a defintion problem, not a problem with the name. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The criticism is that "Content" is too open ended here. If you dno't like the use of POV then there are alternatives: "opinion fork", "perspective fork", "outlook fork", etc... The problem there though is that we'll then be introducing another synonym for a well established concept which has existed in policy for... well, ever. As a matter of fact, "POV" is a concept enshrined in the 5P's. For that reason I believe that "POV fork" is the best alternative, and I think that there would be fairly significant resistance to any attempts to deviate from it.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 22:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Implementing this proposal would take three steps:

1. Make a page called "same-topic articles." Content fork is already defined as "multiple separate articles all treating the same subject," so this would not be a new concept, just a language clarification. Relevant material from WP:Content_forking would be moved to the new page.

2. Move WP:Content_forking to WP:POV_fork, replace any usage of content fork in the remaining material with POV fork, leave a redirect

3. Add same-topic articles as a reason for deletion to WP:DEL#REASON, change reason content fork to POV fork

4. Am I forgetting anything?

If there is consensus for this then it can be done in the next week. However, input is needed.
—Khin2718 18:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you are forgetting that "same-topic articles" are not POV forks, when in fact all content forks address their subject matter from slightly differing viewpoints. The key to clarifiying what is a content fork (or not) is what constitutes a "meaningful distinction" between article topics. Some good examples might be provided by the articles Terminator (character) and Terminator (character concept). Is one, none or both of these articles a content fork? This can only be answered by identifying if there is any "meaningful distinction" between them, rather than lableling them as "same-topic articles." --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Same-topic articles and POV forks have separate pages under this proposal. They are clearly separate concepts as you point out. Same-topic articles would be just what the name suggests, articles that are on the same subject, which WP:CFORK currently bans.
—Khin2718 17:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I could not support such an approach. All content forks are bad. Spliting notable sub-topics into their own article is acceptable, but cloning existing topics and refering to them as "same-topic articles" is not. For the sake of clarity, can you provide an example of what you mean? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to alienate you Gavin, but I think that you're a bit on your own by continuing to assert that "All content forks are bad." Clearly, there are exceptions, and a great many of them currently exist. You're even contradicting your own argument in the second half of your statement. A spun out sub-topic is a good content fork. A same-topic article covers the exact same content as an existing article (which, incidentally, is a CSD criteria: {{db-a10}}). A POV fork is essentially a same-topic article, but with a purposeful slant to the content within. The slant brings such articles outside of the CSD criteria, since making the determination that an article is actually a POV fork is a judgment call, albeit it is usually a fairly straightforward judgment. I don't know that any existing examples could be given though, since the trouble articles are deleted so often. I do recall one AFD that I started myself a while ago, trying to deal with a POV fork, here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coup of 12 June.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 20:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: Interestingly enough, the content remains in the history of Coup of 12 June, currently. Now that I have a better grasp on process here I'll have to start a discussion with KingOfHearts about this I think, but it actually makes this a particularly useful example for this discussion.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 20:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to post this proposal as an independent topic since to make a new page requires more consensus.
—Khin2718 19:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Ohms law may be mistaken as regards spinouts being refered to "A same-topic article covers the exact same content". My understanding that a sub-topic that is notable in its own right is a seperate and distinct article topic, e.g. Economics and History of economic thought, and has nothing to do with content forks, as there is a meaningful, externally validated difference between the over-arching topic and the sub-topic in this case.
A content forks by contraast is where there is no meaniful distinction can be made between article topics, e.g. Terminator (character) and Terminator (character concept), since neither article topic can demonstrate the notability of their subject matter without reference to the same sources. All content forks are bad, becuase, as Wnt says in an earlier section, "without setting meaningful distinctions between what articles cover, there would be one "Article" split into three million parts all covering everything at random". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Changes to WP:SPS

One paragraph in Wikipedia's policy on self published sources currently says the following:

• Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

I propose we add the following line to this paragraph:

• If self-published material is being used as a source within any article (except a biography of a living person), be sure to attribute the material thus used directly to the self published source rather than as a statement of fact.

Discussions can continue from below. Thanks. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 13:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC):

• Conceptually, this seems reasonable to me. I have a problem with the wording... it reads like you are you don't have to attribute opinions in BLPs (when what I think you mean is... "Note: BLPs have even more restrictive rules about SPSs.") Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Wifione, is your proposal essentially saying that self-published sources are to be treated as opinions, where we should always refer to information from them as statements of opinion and include the author's name? If that's the desired outcome, perhaps we can figure out how to convey that more clearly. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, generally unnecessary rules creep. "According to" should be used where there is some reasonable doubt about the facts, and we say this already. If the statements are generally accepted and neither controversial nor debated, this is just silly. "According to Jane Smith, his mother, Joe Smith was born on April 1, 1975. Professor Fred Jones states Joe Smith died on February 29, 2004." --GRuban (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Can we give our editors some leeway and judgement in writing articles and using sources? If anyone questions the source or is likely to, attribute it. We don't need more rules that everyone will ignore. Fences&Windows 20:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Things like dates/town of birth etc. are just fine from SPSes. In fact I'd bet that the NYTs takes people's word for their ages anyways. So even if the NYTs did report on their age or birth date it would be no more reliable. I'm even fine with things like basic resume topics (worked for AMD until 2005, now works at HP) and the like unless there is reason to suspect they are wrong/lying. Hobit (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Updated Changes Proposed to WP:SPS after incorporating points above

Given the points above, I've changed the proposal to what is written below. I suggest we add the line mentioned below to the current WP:SPS, to incorporate the points mentioned above by some editors. Do give me your responses (please note: only the line in bold is what is being added to the current WP:SPS; everything else is retained as is there currently). Thanks.

<-------->

• Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. If the material being used from a self-published source within any article is expected to be controversial or subject to dispute, be sure to attribute the material thus used directly to the author of the self published source rather than as a statement of fact. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

<-------->

Discussions could be held from here on. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 03:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: This proposal is a result of this discussion, where Wifione would like to change this policy so a particular self-published source must be treated as an "opinion piece." Note that Wifione's standard is that no other sources need be provided to dispute a self-published source; the mere mention by a single editor that it is disputed or controversial is enough to consider it an "opinion piece" rather than information. I don't think we need a policy change so that the result of a single WP:RSN discussion can be influenced. I would rather that we hold self-published sources to the same standard of verifiability as other sources: "This policy requires that a reliable source in the form of an inline citation be supplied for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, or the material may be removed." Yes, absolutely, let's use the inline citation--but let's not belabor the point with author names unnecessarily. If it actually is an opinion, then WP:NPOV already covers it and we don't need more WP:CREEP. It isn't more of an opinion and less of a fact because it's a self-published source (assuming it meets the other criteria). WeisheitSuchen (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support in some form. It actually seems perfectly reasonable to attribute a contentious statement to its author, especially if it was self-published -- and, especially if other published scholars disagree (I don't know if that applies to the incident that sparked this proposal). That seems like common sense, and I'm pretty sure it's even in some policy or guideline somewhere already. I don't think it's all that unreasonable, anyway, to add mention of it at WP:SPS. A self-published source should IMO only be used to state facts in non-controversial situations, and otherwise, they should indeed be specifically attributed to the scholar they came from. My version of the wording would be something like, "If material acquired from a self-published source is contentious in some way, it is best to explicitly attribute the material to its author in the Wikipedia article text, rather than state it as fact." Equazcion ^(talk) 06:21, 30 Jan 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose At the least, "expected to be" should be stricken as controversy is not always easy to predict. Also seems like WP:CREEP. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment That can be done CyberCobra. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 09:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• In general, I'd agree that if someone says something is contentious, it's contentious enough to explicitly attribute it in text. In the IIPM case, I would recommend something like "A statement signed by Gale Bitter, Associate Dean of Stanford Executive Education, on such-and-such a web site, explicitly denies any association with IIPM or any other Indian institution." Of course it's contentious, it's saying straight out that IIPM is lying, that's a big deal. --GRuban (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment I presume then your pov on this issue is support, right? ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 09:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, support. --GRuban (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Weak oppose adding this to a policy page as WP:CREEP. However, as guidance about how to attribute sources, there is some merit to be considered. In general, I think the crux of the issue is more a matter of whether the claim being made is controversial or novel. That is, I think it would be good form to properly attribute novel or controversial assertions, regardless of whether the source is self-published or appears as investigative journalism in a reliable source. Anytime an author's name is given as the the person investigating an issue, any assertions made by that person (other than simple facts that are verifiable from other sources) should be attributed to that person. For example, James Fallows is an investigative journalist who is published in reliable sources. Even though his work published in reliable sources can be assumed to have been fact-checked, I would still expect that controversial or novel claims would be attributed to him. older ≠ wiser 16:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment Bkonrad, generally this is what should be done - that is, controversial statements should be attributed to names. However, when the self published source makes a controversial statement, then it becomes a bigger imperative. I believe this should be mentioned clearly because sometimes, editors might think that if a self published source is presumably reliable, then the self published source can be quoted as a matter of fact, rather than as a matter of opinion. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 09:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

But isn't it a fact that Stanford said "Neither the Stanford Graduate School of Business nor the office of Stanford Executive Education has ties of any kind with IIPM"? Whether or not that statement is true may be an opinion, but whether or not the statement was made is an issue of fact. When we provide that quote, we are stating a fact about a contentious issue. Per WP:ASF, this seems to fall into the category of "facts about opinions." Do "facts about opinions" need to be treated differently because they come from a self-published source? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

WS, we could narrow down our discussions to the policy issue in question perhaps rather than bringing other examples a general reader might not understand. Tks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 02:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Talking about examples is a good thing so other readers can see what kind of existing content your proposed change will affect. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

NeilN, The policy is meant as a general guideline. In general, controversial statements should be attributed to the sources. In SPS, more so. As we have discussed issues on RS wrt the specifc examples you wish to bring up out here, I believe you should encourage other editors to reply on your issues rather than me. Feel free to do so. Regards. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 16:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The example also brings up a question for the proposed policy, which I stated at the end of my comment: under your proposed change, would "facts about opinions" be treated differently because they come from self-published sources? Is that your intended outcome? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

WS I'm sorry I missed this thread. I actually didn't understand your question? Would it be possible for you to describe it again? Tks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 16:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The way your proposal is worded, it sounds like anything even potentially controversial should be treated as an opinion, even if it's a factual statement. In my example, it is a fact that Stanford said "Neither the Stanford..." Whether or not the statement made isn't controversial, as established at WP:RSN--we all agree that the statement was made. That's a "fact about an opinion." But based on your proposal, it sounds like since the topic of the quote is controversial, we couldn't use it without pretending that it's the journalist's opinion that Gale Bitter made the statement. You stated that you hope to "go a long way in redefining how Wikipedia looks at self published reliable sources." I'm trying to understand how far you intend to "redefine" how self-published sources are handled. Should facts about controversial topics be treated as opinions?

Let me give you a more generic example. Let's say that I have a respected scholar in a field who also has a blog, which she publishes under her own name (Mary). Let's also assume this blog meets all the criteria for being considered a reliable self-published source. Now let's imagine that Mary interviews someone named Joe about a controversial topic on her blog. If we use a quote from Joe, should that be attributed to Mary as an opinion? Or is it OK for us to quote Joe and provide a reference to Mary's blog without using Mary's name in the text of the article? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

WS, your blog example is very good. If Mary -- a reliable source -- has claimed on her sps blog that she's interviewed Joe; then whichever quote we use of Joe, we'll have to write that according to Mary, Joe said "xxxxx". To quote the Stanford context, the Stanford letter link is not on the Stanford site but on the sps. Therefore, taking that context, again as per me, we'll have to write that according to 'so and so', Stanford said 'so and so' ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 18:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If Mary's blog is reliable and we have no reason to believe that she manufactured the quote from Joe, what does attributing it to Mary accomplish besides making the article text clunky? If there's a question about whether the interview was accurately recorded, isn't that something that can be established by consensus rather than heavy-handed policy? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Haven't read the discussion, but this one caught my eye. Reliable sources make mistakes like everyone else. "Reliable" means, that in our judgment, the source will probably stand up to further scrutiny, allowing us to save effort better spent elsewhere. It does not mean that we can blindly accept anything said by an RS as incontrovertivle truth. Also, not attributing a source, even where legal, is bad form. I know, these pedantic little details eat up time, but they make the difference between an encyclopedia and some random blog. Paradoctor (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Paradoctor, so you feel that attribution only counts if it's in the text, and that using a reference or footnote isn't sufficient? I thought using references was what differentiated Wikipedia from random blogs, and that references "count" even when you don't mention the author in the text (or in this example, use double attribution)? Can you share with me the policy or guideline that supports the "pedantic little detail" that footnotes don't count as attribution? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, major misunderstanding! Maybe I'm missing context here, but my point is exclusively about your question "If Mary's blog is reliable and we have no reason to believe that she manufactured the quote from Joe, what does attributing it to Mary accomplish ... ?" All I'm saying is that if we don't quote directly from the original source, we need to attribute the intermediate source. If Mary says "Joe said Q", we have to attribute "Joe said Q" to Mary, because that is where the statement is coming from. What if Mary was in error, uploaded the wrong file, or just had a bad day? When Joe is protesting "But I didn't say "Q", I said "q", how do you respond? Paradoctor (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You have pulled my statement out of context and have used it to create a straw man argument. One of the problems with jumping in the middle without reading the prior points is that you missed the original part of the example: "Is it OK for us to quote Joe and provide a reference to Mary's blog without using Mary's name in the text of the article?" My argument is that we can say in the text that "Joe says 'so-and-so'" with Mary's blog as a reference. The reference at the bottom of the page is the attribution in the example; I think a reference or footnote is sufficient. The proposed policy change here is that this would not be acceptable, and that in every case we must say "According to Mary, Joe says 'so-and-so.'" That's the crux of the question: are references and footnotes sufficient attribution, or must we always say the author's name in the text? If Joe says "I didn't say that," can't we use the footnote to see where this came from? The question has nothing to do with whether or not we use references and footnotes--that's a straw man. The policy question is whether we must in every case use the author's name in the text in addition to the standard reference/footnote. Paradoctor, where do you stand on the actual question we're discussing? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have a little trouble parsing your statements. Let me try:

text	footnote
In X, Mary said "Joe said Q (in S)"		good
Joe said "Q"[1]	See X, where Mary said that Joe said "Q" (in S)	good
Joe said "Q" (in S)		bad (if you haven't read S)

Not exactly.

• Choice A: Joe said "I'm great."<ref name"Mary's blog"/>
• Choice B: In an interview with Mary, Joe said "I'm great."<ref name"Mary's blog"/>

Do you see the difference? In choice A, Mary's name isn't in the article text, just in the reference. The reference is used as the attribution. In choice B, Mary's name is included twice: in the article text and in the reference. The proposed policy change would make it so Choice B is the only option; references would no longer be sufficient attribution. I don't think there's anything wrong with choice B in certain situations, like if another source quoted Joe as saying "Mary misquoted me." But I don't think it needs to be mandated in all cases with WP:SPS, which is what this change would do. Do you think that choice A is so much less clear than choice B that it's worth revising one of the core policies to mandate it? Or is this something that can be determined on a case-by-case basis by the consensus of the community? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Is that your interpretation of "If the material being being used from a self-published source within any article is expected to be controversial or subject to dispute, be sure to attribute the material thus used directly to the author of the self published source rather than as a statement of fact."? Paradoctor (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that is the intended outcome. See Wifione's statement above: "controversial statements should be attributed to names." For the Mary & Joe example, Wifione said "we'll have to write that according to Mary, Joe said 'xxxxx'." Please note the have to in Wifione's last statement; this is intended to be a mandate, not leaving anything to interpretation or community consensus. The most recent proposed change makes this requirement for in-text attribution more explicit: "If material acquired from a self-published source is contentious in some way, it is best to explicitly attribute the material to its author in the Wikipedia article text, rather than state it as fact." I absolutely support using references, but I think we should determine whether attribution should be within the text on a case-by-case basis, using consensus like we do for other decisions. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, we're interpreting these comments differently. Thankfully, there's no need to argue this point. Wifione? Paradoctor (talk) 07:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Paradoctor, I believe that when the source is a normal RS, it is perfectly ok to give a citation (Choice A: Joe said "I'm great."<ref name"New York Times"/>). But when the source is an SPS RS, the statement should be attributed within the text. (Choice B: In an interview with Mary, Joe said "I'm great."<ref name"Mary's blog"/>). I appreciated your pov though and realise that given the fact that like you, different people will be interpreting the usage of sources differently, it'll be good to give more clarification. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 11:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(continued in What is an SPS?)

• Oppose - in theory this would affect any content sourced to newspapers which have been bought out by the staff. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment NeilN you perhaps don't have it spot on! Staff of newspapers are not 'publishing' the newspaper. Therefore, I think your oppose is based on grounds that are perhaps not right.Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 09:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Please define what you mean by publish. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I mean 'publish' in the same context as the wikipedia policy guideline on self published sources defines it. Thanks. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 02:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So would you consider an employee-owned newspaper like the Omaha World-Herald to be self-published? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you think WS? What do other editors think? Perhaps it might be better to start another thread that defines what constitute SPS better. If you wish, please do so. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 16:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is in the gray area for whether or not it's self-published, but that it's a reliable source. I would hate to see these journalists treated as if their work is less valuable because they own a stake in the newspaper. Your proposed policy provides no way to deal with a source like this where an editorial board is part of the process. In your proposal, the fact that it's self-published is the singular most important consideration, outweighing the expertise of the writers, who has editorial control, or prior publication. I don't think that so greatly outweighs every other factor in determining the reliability of a source. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

WS, It's a grey area because we always do a case-by-case analysis of whether a source is self published or not. In cases when an owner and editor of a newspaper writes an article. I trust your judgement in general. Tell me, if you were to change the section on sps that we're discussing to give it further clarity, what would be the change you'll propose? For example, Equazcion above proposed a nice line, "If material acquired from a self-published source is contentious in some way, it is best to explicitly attribute the material to its author in the Wikipedia article text, rather than state it as fact." Would you be ok with this? Or would you suggest any changes/improvements in this? Regards ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 18:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What would that add beyond what's already in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV: "The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true"? If it duplicates what's in an existing policy, then it's redundant WP:CREEP. If you intend to "redefine" how self-published sources are used, what is actually changing? Can you clarify what you see as the current problem that you're trying to solve? How does this proposal solve that problem? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

A statement from WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV says this:"When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For instance, rather than asserting that 'The Beatles were the greatest band ever', locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and say: 'Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever', and include a reference to the issue (of Rolling Stone magazine) in which that statement was made." I would say the change proposed helps WP:SPS adhere to this. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 12:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wifione, that's a straw man argument. I didn't say this contradicted WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, I said it was redundant. Please answer the question rather than avoiding it. Does this add anything new beyond what is already in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? What problem does this change solve? It would also be good if you'd respond to Paradoctor's direct question to you above. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC) (struck out the last sentence--I see it was answered a few minutes earlier, but I missed it with the unindent.) WeisheitSuchen (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

WS, nothing is redundant as long as it clarifies. For example, the guidelines of SPS are repeated in different pages of Wikipedia. That's made to ensure there are no issues when people might miss one guideline or the other. Anyway, let's continue the discussions upstairs :) than here. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 11:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

We'll come back to this later then; this is the second time you've dodged the question of what problem you see your proposal as solving. But depending on how the other part of the discussion goes, this may not be necessary. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Woah! ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 05:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Important changes to WP:RS

PLEASE NOTE: The short cut WP:RS now points to WP:Verifiability#Reliable sources... while the text of the old WP:Reliable sources guideline has been moved to the new guideline title WP:Identifying reliable sources. These moves were fairly well discussed on the relavant talk pages, and I think they were done in good faith. However, it might have been better to have notified more people... by initiating an RfC and announcing the move here before actually making them. In any event... please note these changes. Blueboar (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the first I have heard of these changes. The discussions should have been more broadly announced IMHO, or as you say, formalised into an Rfc. Kinda sucks actually because many of the regulars on the various help desks use the "old" shortcuts automatically.  – ukexpat (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes... right thing to do... executed poorly. When this was first proposed, I pleaded with everyone to advertize the hell out of it, and warned them that there might be some knee-jerk reaction to it if they didn't. I guess they didn't think it was necessary. I was almost tempted to revert the entire thing to make the point... except that I happen to agree with all the arguments supporting the move (I don't think "lack of notification" is a valid enough reason to revert.) Blueboar (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I shudder to think how many templates use the "old" WP:RS? Is a bot going round to fix them? – ukexpat (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Good question. Blueboar (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So you've broken the context of hundreds of thousands of links, with no plan to do anything about it? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 16:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar didn't, but apparently User:SlimVirgin did.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 20:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted it. This was a huge surprise to me, and besides breaking a lot of links and causing confusion whereever anybody referred to "the RS guideline", it seems to imply that the RS guideline now has the force of policy. Also a shortcut called "IRS" is going to have some unintended associations for editors in the United States.

I don't think a VPP post just before a triple holiday weekend ( President's Day in the US, Valentine's Day, and the Chinese New Year ) is sufficient notice for comment. A lot of Wikipedians are going to be coming back from their 3-day weekends wondering what happened to RS. At any rate, while the name change was listed in the RfC posting, which I can live with, the changes to the RS shortcut was not, and seemed to be tacked on later. I decided to be bold and put the shortcut back where it was. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said there, I couldn't really find it in myself to care enough to revert the changes, but I wanted to say that I do support the reversion. A full RFC should occur for this, at the very least.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Knowing some of the history behind all this... I suspect that redirecting the shortcut was the the entire point behind the renaming. I actually support the idea... but I definitely agree that it needs a LOT more discussion and notification before it can take place. Blueboar (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources no longer marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Reliable sources (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Both of the above are the result of a page move; the page formerly at Wikipedia:Reliable sources is now at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

And, as mentioned above, the short cut [[WP:RS]] now links to the Policy section: [[WP:Verifiability#Reliable sources]].

If you are looking for the guideline the short cut is [[WP:IRS]] Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: The [[WP:RS]] shortcut has now been re-redirected back to the guideline page. Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

alphascript publishing is selling wikipedia content masquerading as a book on amazon

I bought this on Amazon for £41, only to find it is simply sections of wikipedia, completely unedited! An example of someone shamelessy making money from Wikipedia.

Frederic P. Miller; Agnes F. Vandome; John McBrewster (January 2010). Judith Butler: Post- Structuralism, Ethics, Political Philosophy, Queer Theory, Feminism, Rhetoric, Comparative Literature, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Feminist Theory, Jewish Philosophy, Gender Trouble, Performativity, American Philosoph. Alphascript Publishing. ISBN 9786130630805. Retrieved 14 February 2010.

They should be stopped! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.149.18 (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As long as they adhere to our license terms, there is no problem. Caveat emptor. Paradoctor (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 20#The Alphascript-Amazon-Wikipedia book hoax. Look at the reviews on their products such as Georgia (country) which uses a photo of Atlanta on the cover. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Just so long as they give credit to Wikipedia and their derivative works fall under the same license then they are all good with us. Anyone who buys it may have an ax to grind though. I have often thought of making a picture book from Wikipedia's featured pictures, a nice coffee talk volume/conversation piece. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they appear to be a scam.[11] They're misleading people into thinking they're buying a conventional book, and covering that up with a figleaf of a disclaimer they know people will miss. It makes sense for us to look out for this as we do for other misuses of Wikipedia content, even where it doesn't rise to the level of breaching copyright. I wonder if anyone from Wikimedia would make a statement on it, or if we should mention this in the pages on mirror sites. You're probably not going to find much satisfaction here though. I would complain to all of this publisher's resellers, particularly Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Amazon's position on this is untenable - they're falling back on their "we can't be responsible for the content of the books we sell" defense. Of course they can! Retailers can decide which books to stock, and serving their customers by not ripping them off is pretty important. They can and should just drop this publisher from their site. If enough people complain, or the complaints reach the right person, they probably will, eventually. There is a good chance this violates false advertising or some other consumer protection laws somewhere. It's hard to prove, but sometimes fraud can be found in statements that are entirely true, if they're made in a way that intentionally leads people to buy something on a mistaken belief. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

They also seem to be writing reviews of their own books,[12] not always identifying themselves as the publisher. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I support Amazon's stance on not taking responsibility for the content of books as long as the books are legal. If they did try to take such responsibility then numerous edgy books would have to be removed from their offerings. Unless some sort of fraud is going on here then it is just a really shitty product with its disclaimer in small print. It is common in the book industry to repackage freely usable material in low quality form and sell it, it is not going to stop over this incident. Amazon is a reseller, it is up to you the customer to decide which book you want to buy. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

A book-reseller with a good corporate social responsibility program should screen their books before listing them. While legally Amazon's position is correct, ethically it is a bit dodgy. Arnoutf (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You expect a large business to act ethically? Paradoctor (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I would rather make my own decisions than have some company decide what is acceptable and what is not. What if they decided the "Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers" were of such low quality as to not be included? I love those comics. What about "Plan 9 from outer space", that is a terrible move that "borrowed" scenes from other terrible movies, should that also be withheld? No, a large reseller like that should let the customer make their own choices, regardless of how stupid those choices may be. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Searching for help from another wikis

Hello, first at all, sorry for my english. Im from the spanish wiki and there, we are talking about the IP policies referred to vandalism[13]. And someones there say that this wiki has blocked the IP editions, it seems thats not true but maybe it was. For that, I asked for you all, if this wiki have statistics about it. Some statistics like an before and after if that decision was taken sometime. Thanks, sorry for my english and i hope that someone could understand this!--Mechusriva (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

English: It's only the creation of new articles what has been denied. Unregistered users can still edit existing unprotected articles as always. But complete forbiding unregistered users from editing will not happen, as it would go against the Founding principles Spanish: Lo único que se impidió es que creen artículos nuevos. Los usuarios no registrados siguen pudiendo editar artículos existentes no protegidos como siempre. Pero impedir por completo que los usuarios no registrados editen no va a pasar, ya que iría en contra de los Principios fundacionales MBelgrano (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Anarchism/Participate/Solidarity? has been marked as a guideline

Resolved

Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Anarchism/Participate/Solidarity? (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, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• This appears to be a recently revived WikiProject document, which the author (User:Cast) has simply chosen to mark as a guideline. I've changed it to use {{essay}} instead.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me. I'd intended to mark it as an essay and forgot to swap around the template while in the preview stages. Nothing to see here, folks. --Cast (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Afd under slightly different name.

I noticed some articles that have not been to Afd, but the subject has. These don't have {{oldafdfull}} on the talk page. Would it be helpful to show them in some way, and if so how? Example would be LoveGame ^talk - where there was an Afd as Lovegame and Love Game. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Use oldafdfull, using the parameters to point to the different names. Fences&Windows 18:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly an interesting suggestion. Looking closer is seemed it might create more confusion, if the result of those other Afd's, where to delete, merge, redirect etc. So in two minds about add it this way. SunCreator (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sarah-Jane Hilliard

[14]. Who think's she should stay on wikipedia, as Casey Anthony. Admins deleted my page saying she's not notable Di Natale Massimo (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This has already been dealt with in your frivolous ANI report. Continuing to forum shop will not help your case at all. No, she shouldn't have an article. No she isn't notable. And no, she is not anywhere near being a Casey Anthony. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Deletion review is that way.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I may be to blame for this. See this ANI thread for some context. I suggested Di Natale Massimo bring their claim, that all articles in Category:Criminals are attack pages, here, if they in fact thought it would be seen as valid (sorry if there was some misunderstanding). To bring the same complaint about the same deleted article here after a failed ANI attempt would appear to be forum shopping, which I'm afraid isn't allowed. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:55, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

thanks Di Natale Massimo (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If there are any entries in category-criminals who are not either convicted criminals or deceased historical figures considered to be criminals, that would be of concern. Meanwhile Massimo even admitted on ANI that his particular "criminal" is not notable, so that would seem to close the book on it. If his complaint is that there are other not-notable criminals in wikipedia, he's certainly free to argue for their deletion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Advice on Lists of Minor Fictional Characters

I can't seem to find any policy or guideline relating to lists of minor characters, which has come up through an AfD discussion. We have a category full of these lists (Category:Lists of minor fictional characters, 122 articles at present) but they can present problems. As minor characters, they are by definition, not notable (although notability would apply to the list as a whole, rather than individual characters). The lists actually exist because no single character would qualify for an individual article. I have no problem with this and support the existence of these lists. However, the lack of any guidelines one way or the other makes AfD difficult and could cause problems in the future. The closest thing I could find to an actual policy is this obsolete and apparently rejected attempt: Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters. So, I would like some advice on when a list of minor characters is appropriate and what the content should be. Thanks, AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Their lack of notability for their own article is not a valid enough reason to have a list. In actually, they are so minor they are rejected from the real character lists as well. This is when such information should simply be culled, not shoved off a handful of minor lists, almost all from the soap opera realm. While almost all of the other projects - TV, Film, novels, anime/manga, etc - that work with these topics have agree that minor character lists are inappropriate, a violation of WP:TRIVIA, and have no place in a group of articles, nor are such characters important for inclusion in the main character lists. They are minor for a reason. Any relevance they may have is limited to just a few episodes, at most, which is already documented in the episode lists. Such characters have no coverage in reliable, third-party sources, beyond plot regurgitation (which is already best sourced to the primary sources). Little to no real world context can be added for the topic of "minor character", making the lists as a whole completely inappropriate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:SALAT would be the relevant guidelines on this. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• A quick random sampling from the search results in the Wikipedia scope[15], and going through the first 20 results, including the rejected attempt already noted:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor characters in Morrowind - closed in 2006 as keep, later renamed Characters of Morrowind which was deleted through AfD in 2007
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sealab 2021 minor characters - closed as no consensus in 2008, merged to Sealab 2021 in 2009 with the minor characters removed
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in Xenosaga (2nd nomination) - closed as delete in 2008, recreated purely as a redirect to main list
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor characters in the Ranma ½ manga - closed as keep in 2008, moved, and deleted after second AfD in 2009
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V for Vendetta (minor characters) closed as keep in 2006, moved to List of minor characters in V for Vendetta, but list seems mostly to have major characters rather than minor and should be renamed
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor characters of Crash Bandicoot - closed as merge in 2008
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in Camp Lazlo (2nd nomination) - closed as merge in January 2008 to main list
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in My Gym Partner's A Monkley closed as delete in 2007
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ranma ½ minor characters closed as delete in 2009
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor Characters of 6teen closed as keep in 2006
11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in Tokyo Mew Mew - closed as speedy keep in 2008 due to ArbCom injunction; renamed to List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters and all minor characters later removed per consensus - list is now FL
12. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in the Firefly universe - closed as keep in 2007, later merged with main list
13. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in Xenosaga non-admin closure to keep in 2007, later merged with main list
14. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor characters in Scary Movie closed as delete in 2007
15. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in Xena: Warrior Princess closed as no consensus in 2008
16. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters on Ugly Betty closed as delete in 2007, name kept as redirect
17. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters from Recess closed as delete in 2007
18. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Minor Characters in Dexter's Laboratory closed as merge/redirect in 2008

So out of 18, we have 6 deletes, 3 merges/redirects, 2 non-consensus (1 of which was later merged), and 7 keeps - of which all but 1 of which have since been deleted, redirected, or merged. Further, using some rough searching of "The result was merge" and "List of minor characters" in the Wikpedia space, we have 267 results[16], 844 for "The result was delete"[17], and 469 for keep.[18] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

So like all articles the results is ... it depends. AdamBMorgan, I suggest a note to DGG may help as they have written some well-reasoned explanations that may serve as a starting point to add a note about lists of minor characters to WP:SALAT. All our lists IMHo are easy targets for improvement and disruption so starting to refine how the fit into our current practices would likely benefit everyone. -- Banjeboi 20:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

With the great majority being deletions. And note that many of the keeps were later redirected, merged, or deleted. Minor lists do not belong, and they certainly should not be added to SALAT. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirections and editing do not reflect community consensus, just local consensus (or apathy). List of minor characters seems to be more appropriate for longer-running television shows that make use of recurring characters. Ultimately, if series credited cast are the only ones who actually get articles, there are plenty of current articles which should be merged into such lists. That is, redefining "minor" may be the best way forward, rather than blanket statements that such should be deleted. Jclemens (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how such a general list could work. By lacking a specific subject matter under which minor characters could be listed, it seems like a free-for-all for anything and everything. What kind of usefulness could possibly come out of such a broad list? Minor characters make the most sense to read about under the related franchise or other subject matter. Erik (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

...Except for the length restrictions would cause otherwise useful content to be lost. Jclemens (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ding, ding; Echo Jclemens point. Just because bullying tactics are used against less experience editors - often contradicting consensus - doesn't mean this is a new policy or standard. It simply means those who wish to delete have managed to outmaneuver those editors who created or tried to maintain the material. This is not a best editing or people skills practice but should serve as a lesson that having some consensus guidelines would help keep non-consensuss merges/redirects a bit more in check. -- Banjeboi 22:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've often found minor character lists to be largely indiscriminate (What is a minor character? What is the criteria for inclusion? How extensive should such a list be?) and pretty clear violations of WP:WEIGHT, as you're giving a veritable ton of coverage to something that usually has little-to-no real world coverage of any sort whatsoever. 99% of the time, the "minor" characters are adequately covered in the scope of the episode list/medium's plot summary/etc. and if necessary, can be merged to the larger character list. There's also the quality control issue in which practically none of these lists can reach any reasonable standard for including real world information, thus making movement up the assessment chart a practical impossibility. About the only real exceptions is something like List of recurring characters in The Simpsons, which only works because 1) the show has been around forever, so there's a wealth of sourcing 2) you have a panoply of real-world topics to talk about, namely the various cultural references. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

These lists lack any kind of relevance. They violate WP:NOT#PLOT because all the non-in-universe information for almost any character would be deemed trivial content as it is like "Dan was the best guardsman" or the like. It furthermore violated WP:UNDUE as a fork to give minor characters the same weight as other more relevant characters put on a non-minor character list.陣内_Jinnai 22:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You have a point that similar to all lists there are pitfalls to avoid but their very existence hardly constitutes a blatant violation. Some are , others are not, and many are somewhere in the middle. -- Banjeboi 22:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If you had a minor character that has some significant commentary on him from a source he could very well be placed in a general character list; however maybe they are better fit under another character, such as if they are some minor underling of the main antagonist then so that it doesn't violate undue because someone out there decided they really has a personal connection to this minor character to write a whole piece on them or if they were some one-line character that had some scholarly review done because everything else in the work had already been gone over with a fine-tooth comb. That is what WP:UNDUE is for. It means if something is minor, it should be treated as such, without some compelling reason to do otherwise, which could happen in a few rare cases.
Most minor characters won't even make it that far as there is no significant commentary on them and thus having a seperate list for them is a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:CFORK by trying to get around undue by creating a spin-off article on such minor characters.陣内_Jinnai 04:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It really really depends on exactly what the definition is being used for minor. Lists of recurring - but not present in every episode - characters for a long running TV (eg Simpsons) would seem appropriate because a full list of all characters would be too large. But a minor list of one-shot characters for a single work or the like is unnecessary. Before these should be considered for deletion, attempts to be made to merge them into a single overall character list for the work or the main article itself, ensuring a good metric for what inclusion is on the list. If such an effort makes the list still necessary, then it makes sense to keep it. But really, most of these are not necessarily bad in terms of tracking characters, but are just too damn wordy and can likely be trimmed and groupped with the major characters. --MASEM (t) 00:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not supporters of Minor characters list as the motive behind their creations is too often based on "Quantitative" thinking.

You run out of spin-out article ideas then let's create a Minor characters list compiling some of the last craps of informations available. You feel good because you created one more article for a work of fiction you like with tons of "additional informations". You think you improved the coverage done to this work of fiction by creating one more article with lot of Kilo Bytes of data.

Needless to say that this is the wrong way to think it. --KrebMarkt 08:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A little AGF, please. In fact, I think it's the other way around more often than not -- these list articles are created in order to remove articles on non-notable characters while preserving the information relevant to the larger fictional work. Powers ^T 13:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

They just act like consumers more & bigger and better it is. I won't blame their thinking but i can't express nothing save consternation after reading some of those lists. --KrebMarkt 14:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

They tend to be useful. I'm not a big fan of the "minor characters" lists for all but the largest works--I think merging into a single list is generally the way to go. But I agree with LtPowers pretty strongly on this. Hobit (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that individual entries in a list do not need to meet the same standard for inclusion as a standalone article would. It is the list as a whole whose importance should be gauged by coverage in reliable sources. Powers ^T 13:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This complaint is based on a simple fallacy. If a work is notable and its article grows to great size, then a separate article about all the characters (even minor ones) can be split off and is noticeable. If that article would be too large, the individual major characters can be split off. What is left after all that does not suddenly lose notability - in fact, it is necessary to complete a thorough coverage of the parent topic. Wnt (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The character lists still need to follow WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF so there still needs to be some non-plot information. This can be creation info, merchandising or other non-trivial real-world information.陣内_Jinnai 22:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:WAF yes, but not WP:NOT#PLOT. The latter is tied to non-plot coverage of a topic; a character list that is split out from the topic is still under the main work's topic. WAF is still very important to avoid fandom approaches to these lists, however, and there is still need to validate the information for it. --MASEM (t) 22:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, yea I agree. My point was those lists do not need to show notability; the very fact that their a list rather than an article in an indication that they cannot show notability. However, they WP:UNDUE still applies so its not open season to adding every minor character.陣内_Jinnai 05:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I feel like UNDUE has grown, and it's disturbing to have a policy about articles that I don't even understand. ("Juxtaposition of statements" gives undue weight?) I think any Wikipedia policy that involves deleting information out of the Wikipedia is probably a bad policy... in any case, I don't think even this policy can really be interpreted to mean that you can't list everyone in the dramatis personae of a work - can it? I mean, the very choice of which is "too minor" a character seems impossibly subjective. Wnt (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There has to be a reasonable line drawn at a certain point as to which characters are and aren't included. Doing it solely on secondary sourcing is impractical, and having all of the characters is as well. I'd like to think WP:UNDUE asks us to define a reasonable middle ground between the two. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sourcing provides a verifable rationale for inclusion. Listing all the character mentioned in the primary source provides no context to the reader about a ficitonal work, anymore than list of ingredients of a packet of cornflakes provides context to the reader about their nutritional value. Primary data on its own is of no encyclopedic value. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Gavin Collins goes too far. For example a film may notable may be the basis of high-quality reviews, before more extended commentary (if any) appears. Reviews are usually written to tight timescales and wordcounts, and will usually omit some very important characters - I'm look at an example right none. In such cases primary sources are needed, especially if they provide hints of a character's importance, e.g. by typography or "X starring as Y". In this character lists are like plots, where primary sources are needed and allowed, and the level of detail is a matter of editors' consensus in each case. --Philcha (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If there are no secondary sources that go to that level of detail and all such sources omit the discussion of such characters, then why should we include them? This is not a matter of local consensus, which you seem to support, but of global policies and basic inclusion criteria. Fram (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources are only necessary to introduce an article on a new topic; notability does not limit the coverage once a topic is notable. The argument by many in support of character lists is that these are a necessary part of the coverage of a work of fiction, which to me is completely reasonable. Mind you, without secondary sources, these will only be covered by primary sources, and are honeypots for poor writing, original research and theories, and non-neutral statements. Those are not reasons to not allow for them, but are reasons for encouraging them to be kept to simple, short descriptions that, if possible, should be included in the main article on the work of fiction instead of automatically being tossed into a separate list article. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

A list of minor characters is not a reasonable part of the coverage, but fails WP:UNDUE, except in the case of major fictional works. For such works, some secondary info on these characters will be available, or some other indication of notability. Notability of spin-out articles is debatable, because one can always claim that article X is a spinout of subject Y (minor buildings in village X? Why not, if we can have minor characters in fiction Y!) Again, as so often has been said, if your main article gets too long, don't just spin out sections without notability / independent sources for these sections, but remove all non-essential stuff from them, per W:UNDUE. Fram (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a question begged that is not answered yet, and that is when is it undue to cover characters (or minor characters, etc.) for a given work. It is not a straight up answer, because it is a conflict between what some consider non-essential and what some consider as essential for fiction coverage; personally, as we're not bounded by space, I'd rather include more and have issues with too much trivialities that we need to work through, than to exclude too much. Regardless, there is always the solution that should be tried first for these, and that is appropriate trimming of extraneous material, changing lists into prose, and anything else to squeeze it down in size and back into the main article on the work. Unfortunately, a lot of newer editors jump at the chance to create a list article without considering size instead of developing the list in the context of the main article, and that leads us to this problem. If it were the case that we had these lists because every one of them grew out naturally from the main article due to size, I doubt we'd be seeing them having the same problems that the ones above are cited to have in terms of their content. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course WP:UNDUE applies to fictional characters, as they are elements of the plot, and plot can be summarised. There is no rationale for splitting them out into lists unless they are notable in their own right. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with Gavin's first point, I disagree with his second. There are reasons such as size issues, undue weight of the amount (even trimmed to a reasonable level) an main topic article devotes its characters, and other more complex issues that are unique to invidious works/franchises that need to be decided work-by-work (though they should still need to apply to things like WP:V and WP:WAF.陣内_Jinnai 23:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The objective of a plot summary is to condense a large amount of information into a short, accessible format, not to recap every scene, episode or event that takes place in a work of fiction. Surely it obvious to you that the elements of the plot (fictional characters, objects and places) will be condensed in this process? Applying WP:UNDUE to works of fiction means giving weight to the key elements of fiction, not every element in turn? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As Benjiboi points out above, "it depends" is a very good guideline. Sources used to create Wikipedia include one encyclopedia which boasted it had an article on every character in Charles Dicken's novels. There is also my copy of A Reader's Encyclopedia to Shakespeare, which contains an article on every character in Shakespeare's plays (even if said character appears in one scene with one line). On the other hand, if I ever happen to encounter an article about minor characters in a given soap opera (or trashy romance novel), it has my automatic vote to delete. There are some works of fiction where attention to every character -- even incidental ones -- is justified; then there are works of fiction which just qualify as notable, & articles on its characters may not be worth keeping. -- llywrch (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, except, how do we tell which category a work belongs in. This will too easy fall into a argument of I like it vs. I don't like it. We need objective criteria, so just "it depends" isn't good enough. Taemyr (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the whole point of "it depends" is pretty much that there isn't any good objective criteria here. I think that Llywrch pretty much hit the nail on the head with this, and ultimately these questions come down to the popularity/notability of the show/play/work itself. Like he said, Shakespeare = every character possible, some trashy romance novel = probably none of the characters. It's a judgment call, pure and simple. I suppose that we could use some sort of page views metric or something, if it really came down to it, but that would require some larger changes in order to implement it.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 16:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"It depends" is a rubbish inclusion criteria. A Reader's Encyclopedia to Shakespeare will have a less stringent set of inclusion criteria, because its editorial rationale is to provide details of every character regardless of notability. However, it is not Wikipedia's objective to be directory of everything simply because it exists (or in the case of fictional characters, because they have been created). The main problem with listing every single character in the Bard's plays is that it give undue weight to the elements of fiction rather than the work of fiction itself. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand: WP:NOTPAPER.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 20:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Just because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, this is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies. However, since many of the Bard's plays have been notable for many centuries, it is quite possible that there exist many specific and defined lists of characters that are notble in their own right. For instance, I would think it possible that sources could be found that would justify spinning out the sectionn Characters in A Midsummer Night's Dream into its own stanalone list article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Man, everything really does come down to "what can I get deleted or excluded from here" for you, doesn't it? The point is, "It depends" is a perfectly reasonable stance to take due to the fact that it's impossible to have any real objective criteria in this area. The reason that I specifically mentioned NOTPAPER is because you were drawing a false parallel between Wikipedia and paper volumes such as A Reader's Encyclopedia to Shakespeare. Nobody said that there's a "free pass for inclusion" here, which is really just bald-faced hyperbole anyway.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, that is not the case. WP:NOT defines its content in terms of what is excluded, while WP:N is a set of inclusion criteria that demonstrates that it is possible to real objective criteria in this area. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted BLP Article without Backup

Could someone answer a small question for me?

I met a new user at the January Wiki-Conference in New York. He had created a BLP article a week before (something about a cousin of the Kennedys running for some office in California?) and it was deleted with only a cryptic message on his talk page. It had taken him several hours to enter the article and he had tried to be neutral. (I got the impression that he had just combined several local new articles and press releases.) But, being a newbie, he had no backup. He was understandably pissed and said he would never edit Wikipedia again.

When a sysop speedily deletes a BLP article for valid reasons, shouldn't he paste the content somewhere accessible but non-searchable, unless there's a problem with liable (G10)? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The creator can ask the deleting admin for it to be undeleted into user space, but there is no policy requiring admins to do so when they delete. Also note that WP:BLP applies to all pages on Wikpedia, including user subpages. – ukexpat (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably another victim of the BLP civil war that's going on. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

My point is the original editor didn't know how to contact the admin. He was a newbie. Doesn't WP:BITE overrule WP:BLP. At least in cases that don't involve liable (G10) or possibly copyright infringement (G12).

When another sysop who was there at the conference tried to look into it, he discovered that the actual deleting admin didn't make the original mistake. He was requested to delete the article by another user. I think that, as a minimum, the messages that are left by sysops when deleting an article should be more verbose, stating exactly how an editor can appeal the decision, in outline, step-by-step format. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I think WP:BLP - the biographies of living persons policy (not WP:BIO, the notability guideline) - trumps everything. I agree that sometimes reasons for deletion could be made more clear, or maybe when an article is tagged for any method of deletion (speedy, PROD or Afd) it should be a requirement to notify the creator.  – ukexpat (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Enigma^msg 22:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

How would I propose the requirement that all deletions notify the creator and, if possible, preserve the contents? Just mention it in Village Pump, Proposals? I've never proposed a change before. Should I expect a long, drawn-out process? And, if you know, what are the steps for appeal? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion always preserves the content. Any deleted page can be undeleted by an admin. If you're suggesting that the content of deleted pages should be accessible to anyone, that's not going to happen, especially with BLPs. Mr.Z-man 18:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that "deletion always preserves the content" is only true for a limited, indeterminate, period of time.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 20:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In theory yes, in practice no, I don't think the content of deleted pages has ever actually been cleared. Except for some really old things and rare losses from software errors, I believe all deleted revisions are still retained. I'm guessing you're referring to [19]. Mr.Z-man 22:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting (and yes, that is what I was referring to). I didn't realize that the deletion queue has never been cleared, that's good to know. The only thing that I'd like to point out is that situation could change in an instant, at the discretion of pretty much anyone with access. I'm fairly certain that at this point they would provide notice, but Brion's warning shouldn't simply be dismissed because the current practice is what we're grown accustomed to. It's also a largely irrelevant point to any non-administrator, since going crawling to some editor who happens to have privileges granted to them is not exactly part of the ethos around here (nor should it be in my opinion, at least not with the current administrator corps/structure).
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 22:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Only if you equate "asking for help" with "going crawling to" for some reason. As far as I know, there haven't been any cases of admins demanding users pay tribute or grovel before they'll userfy pages. There's also Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion (which could possibly use better advertisement) if you don't want to deal directly with another person. Given that Brion's warning was more than 3 years ago (and given that purging 25+ million deleted revisions would probably cause more problems than retaining them) I would be rather surprised if the sysadmins chose to delete them. Mr.Z-man 23:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that, as it is currently set up, Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion actively turns editors away if they don't first go begging the admin who deleted the page to userfy the page. I understand that you don't like that sort of characterization, and you're not alone, but if you don't think that myself and other users like me feel that way then you're only fooling yourself. (It probably wouldn't bother myself and others if it were encouraged rather then required to talk to the admin, by the way.)
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 23:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. When I requested a copy of a deleted page, it was promptly mailed to me. Paradoctor (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Its not just that I don't like it, I really don't understand it. Why is asking an admin that big a deal? You talked about the ethos of the project. Wikipedia is a collaborative project; if you're uncomfortable asking people for something, that doesn't bode well for collaborating. And AFIACT, Requests for Undeletion only requires people to ask the admin if they want the article undeleted in mainspace, not if they want it userfied or emailed to them. Mr.Z-man 00:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Being required to ask for someone else's permission is not my idea of collaborating. Requiring users to be confrontational with someone else with whom they obviously disagree is asking for trouble, regardless.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 01:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Being required to ask": So you're against page protection? And what do you mean by "confrontational"? If one feels really uncomfortable working a particular admin, they can ask any other admin, or am I missing something here? Paradoctor (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you ask, generally yes (although there are obvious instances where it's a necessary evil, at least for short periods of time). I actually spoke out against page protection recently as well (and was largely ignored, if not outright dismissed), and I definitely feel that page protection is overused (especially in the template space). Anyway, you're still missing the obvious issue. Any user "working with" an administrator who has deleted content is not doing so on equal footing. The way that you're characterizing this, you're implying that there's nothing to be confrontational about, and that we're talking about people being equals calmly and disinterestedly discussing some insignificant issue, and that's just naive. I resent the implication as well, by the way...
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 01:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel kind of compelled to explain this better, so forgive me if I get a bit TL;DR here. I'm a bit upset here because I'm starting to feel as though I'm being boxed into being portrayed as a "loon", but that's probably because I'm over-sensitive about it. I'm not... um, just railing against admins in general, and you'll note that I haven't used "power hungry" at all, which is purposeful. The thing is; keep in mind that I don't want to give the impression that I'm bragging or some such thing here, but there's no better way to say this: I've been there myself, in the same position that administrators here hold. While my experience wasn't here on Wikipedia it was comparable (and in a couple of larger communities, as well). The only reason that I bring that up is because I feel that my experience provides some useful insight here. It's not that I'm super-knowledgeable or anything, I'm simply trying to describe what seems to me to be a group dynamic which we all collectively are allowing to be perpetuated here. Anyway, I've been trying to avoid describing this as a cliche worthy "us vs. them" problem, and the administrator corp is hardly a monolithic block, but there are (for lack of a better term) "cabals" of admins who do create that sort of us vs. them dynamic, and unfortunately the processes and policy often support their ability to do that, especially within the realm of content deletion. Our Content issue handling is fairly atrocious in general however, and the community is certainly not helping ourselves (and especially our administrators) in handling the interminable problems with content issues.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 02:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me assure you that I'm a fan of AGF. ;) Ok, now let me try to sort things out a bit.

There is undeletion, and there is access to deleted material. The former is a request to revoke a prior decision, which is a question of policy. The latter could only be refused on liability grounds, IMHO. So, where's the need for "groveling"? If admins overstep the boundaries of their mandate, there is all kind of process that can used to deal with that. I treat my janitors with respect, sometimes even with affectation, but I still expect them to swing that broom where I tell them to. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

←See though, you're talking about the ideal (which may even be the way that it happens, more often then not), but it only takes one bad interaction between someone who has power and someone who doesn't to destroy good will/good faith. Keep in mind that we're not talking about normal interactions here, because the fact is that certain people in this equation have the ability to do Bad Things™ to others. Obviously, the reality is that any administrator who really oversteps his/her bounds will be overturned and at least trouted as a result, but the psychological effect is there regardless. The main issue though, is that the undeletion process tends to turn the normal editorial process here on it's head. Instead of "be bold, just do it, you don't need permission or any special knowledge to edit here", suddenly it's "except for this, you need my approval for this to appear on the site" (hence, my admittedly hyperbolic use of the term "groveling"). I agree that theoretically there is plenty of process to deal with editor ←→ admin conflict, but the reality that I've seen is that the administrator corps tends to reflexively defend all but the most egregious missteps. You know, it's kind of frustrating, because there are fairly well established real world solutions to these problems, since their not at all unique to our little community here. Aside from that, our content dispute policy and procedures just suck in general anyway, which isn't any administrators fault...
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"it only takes one bad interaction" ... "to destroy good will/good faith": Wouldn't that mean that someone does not understand AGF? Most of our editors are human, after all. (That's something you could never have heard before Wikipedia.)

As far as page protection is concerned, I can't offer you much in the way of consolation, it seems to be what we want. At the very least, one can always fork off. Try that with Britannica. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Come on, there's no need for put-downs, I understand AGF perfectly well thank you. What you're (willfully?) ignoring is the point that I'm trying to make that we're not talking about normal user interactions here. If you believe that user to admin interactions occur on an equal footing, just like any other, then ...well, I'd say that you're simply naive. Obviously the current situation is our collective fault, and I've said so myself repeatedly. Suggesting forks is hardly a constructive suggestion, however. Thanks for the insults and dismissive attitude, though.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about "someone". What makes you think I meant you?

"Suggesting forks is hardly a constructive suggestion": I was talking about cases in which constructive collaboration turns out impossible. Consider it an peaceful divorce. There is nothing to fight about, both parties can keep the fruits of their common labor. Paradoctor (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• What trumps everything if we want to continue the encyclopedia is the need to recruit editors --not the abstract need to have or not have particular content. As few active editors stay active more than 3 years, this requires the continuing recruitment of thousands of new active editors a year. Anything that hinders this is destructive to the entire project. Given a choice between writing an article oneself and helping a new editor, let alone discuss procedure, the choice should be personally helping the editor -- who will potentially go on to write many articles DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"As few active editors stay active more than 3 years" Paradoctor (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The main point I was trying to make was that we should have something that doesn't scare away newcomers when some sysop off-hand speedily deletes "their" article. Newcomers are the prime source of new, active editors. It's great to say "When I requested a copy of a deleted page, it was promptly mailed to me" but newbies have never heard of sysops/administrators and don't have the foggiest notion that they need to contact one or how.

In my opinion, sysops should always insert a new section on the creator's (or creators') talk page(s) that says:

1. the article has been temporarily deleted, by whom and by what authority,
2. why the article has been deleted (in detail, without wikilinks),
3. that his input has been saved and
4. a step-by-step, detailed procedure for restoring "his" article, phrased in the friendliest and simplest possible manner with no assumptions other than that the reader probably understands the basics of wiki-editing.

This should be part and parcel of the standard procedure for all speedy deletions. What would be even better is if we could replace the disallowed content with these messages, just in case the newbie doesn't know that his talk page exists. (In my opinion as well, the deleting sysop should take the primary responsiblity for leading the creator(s) through the appeal process and, if he thinks it justified, restoring the article. But I know that many sysops would object to the additional work.) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yea, what Roy said...
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, newbies have a hard enough time as it is. Requiring deleting admins to mentor their "victims" is nonsense, though. There are enough places where we can direct them. The idea of replacing the deleted page with an information page is excellent. Paradoctor (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a lot of instruction creep, and something that would slow down deletions tremendously. A simple template might suffice. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A template was all that I was talking about. However, there is something that I don't understand. Most (if not all) "delete because" templates (db-nonsense, db-copyvio, etc.) assume that the article page still exists after the sysop has seen and tagged it. But CSD states that that "administrators have broad consensus support to, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussion and immediately delete Wikipedia pages". So I guess this db-xxx tagging is only for cases in which the sysop's discretion is to let the article hang around for a little while but the article doesn't rise up to the level of a PROD. (Which happens maybe once in a blue moon, right? Do people really use the db-xxx templates?)

Nevertheless, there are about 100 templates in Category:CSD warning templates that could be expanded to include what I was talking about above. How would I turn this into a proposal? Just include a new section under VPR? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, those templates are used all the time. Typically by non admins to alert the admins to a problem article, rather than admins themselves. I'd say you want to propose this on the talk page for WP:CSD. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What is WP:FRINGE in political and political-opinion sources?

FRINGE is relatively easy to define in scientific subjects, where there's a mainstream scientific view, and a literal fringe of pseudoscience around it. But what is FRINGE in issues of political dispute? It would seem to me that the analogy in U.S. politics to "FRINGE" would be extremist political parties or conspiracy theorists/theories with little or no base of support: David Duke, Leonard Peltier, Walt Brown, John Buchanan, birther claims, Clinton-murdered-Vince-Foster, Bush-blew-up-the-World-Trade-Center, etc. There might be an argument to extend fringe as far inward as Ralph Nader (who has never gotten 4% of the presidential vote despite multiple runs), though I personally wouldn't.

But there is a repeated problem on Wikipedia is the abuse of WP:FRINGE in political subjects as an excuse to exclude notable points of view in violation of WP:NPOV: I have seen editors insist that L. Brent Bozell III, who has published op-eds in mainstream sources such as the New York Times, is "fringe," or that The Weekly Standard (the second-most notable conservative magazine in the US) is "fringe," or even that the Wall Street Journal editorial page is "fringe." This is clearly an unacceptable attempt to evade the WP:NPOV policy by excluding notable points of view. In my eyes, the problem seems to be one-sided: no one claims that Bill Moyers is fringe, though he said that Bush was planning a coup in 2004, but respectable writers on the center-right get tarred with this brush repeatedly. (I've seen talk-page claims that William Kristol, a New York Times columnist, was on the far right, which is self-evidently tendentious.)

How can we craft language in WP:NPOV or WP:FRINGE to help nip these disputes in the bud?

Further discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#Clarification_needed_for_political_views. THF (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to judge one way or another, but these questions are apparently arising in the midst of a heated dispute; see related WQA posts here and here. postdlf (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that's a pretty low blow. I didn't know a thing about that prior to you mentioning it, since THF properly avoided canvassing about the dispute.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

* Looking at the arguments that User:Postdlf linked to, it would seem that the reason that nobody claimed Bill Moyers was "fringe" is because it was in the article Bill Moyers. If you had tried to include his opinions in Politics of the United States, then he would be fringe there. 146.187.151.207 (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

* It's meaningless to say that "Leonard Peltier is fringe". If you tried to include WP:Fringe can only say that a particular thing that Peltier said is fringe in relation to the particular article you're trying to include it in. There is no need to change anything in WP:NPOV or WP:FRINGE to "fix" anything, since nothing is broken. 146.187.151.207 (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Interesting. It may be worth thinking about specifically excluding politics from Fringe, considering that politics is a social art and the very definition of "fringe politics" is a political statement in and of itself (read: non-neutral). I hadn't personally considered this before now.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Fringe politics happens. Things like the Alaska secession movement are pretty damn fringe. Things that are really far on the outside of political norms would apply. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see any reason to exclude politics from WP:Fringe. If a political theory is notable, such as the Alaska Independence Party, then they can have their own article, no matter how "loony" or "fringe" people think they are. WP:Fringe doesn't cover this sort of thing. All WP:Fringe would stop us from doing is including the Alaskan Independence Party in Politics of the United States, where it doesn't have enough notability to qualify as a major theme in U.S. political thought. WP:Fringe just prevents us from mentioning obscure political theories in places where they shouldn't be mentioned. 146.187.151.207 (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The main point to consider is that Fringe does not equal minority. Fringe is a special case of minority, a minority that is so small that it does not deserve being taken into account. When legitimate political discussions have clearly moved into accepting one of the competing viewpoints and rejecting the other, that doesn't turn the "defeated" viewpoint into a fringe one. For example, we can't write an article on George Bush with a condeming tone just because by now almost everybody considers him to have been a bad president.

Another point, when we describe mediatic disputes between interlocutors who are notable on their own terms, fringe does not apply. For example: the president said that ("polemic statement"), the leader of the opposing party answered that ("response"), the president of X institution pointed that (etc), etc; all of which being described at whole pages or sections in newspapers as they do on an everyday basis. MBelgrano (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD vs Speedy?

Resolved

If an article is currently under review at AfD, is it speediable? Doesn't that subvert the community process? I can see (and have seen) admins taking action *at* an AfD to delete an article that is obviously speediable, but can someone involved in the AfD debate simply slap a CSD tag on the article? Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

NM. Moved to Admin Notice Board. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Commanders in War articles

I keep watching disputes come up at Iraq War and War in Afghanistan (2001-present) about what commanders to include in the infoboxes. Would it be possible to establish some more specific guidelines for editors to cite when trying to make decisions about this? I don't know what should be included, but I'm tired of watching people fight about something so trivial. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There's also a related discussion at War on Terrorism. --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think I have less objection to listing the commanders involved in those specific operations. My concern was about mislabelling them as commanders of a larger umbrella conflict that was not recognised officially by their respective countries. Marlarkey (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The critical thing is that commanders should refer to military commanders rather than political leaders. Margaret Thatcher and the Falklands is a classic example. The Prime Minister of UK exercises political control over the military, agreeing strategy and aims for military engagements but is not in military command of the forces (who actually have a loath of loyalty to their commander-in-chief, The Queen). MT was scrupulous in maintaining this division. OTOH in some cases a political leader is also a military commander, for instance in a military dictatorship eg Saddam Hussein. In the US the position is grey, where the US President is commander-in-chief but the key question is whether that is a figurehead position or a genuine military commander - in practice it is probably a figurehead non-commander in times of peace, and potentially a military commander during times of war. The essence though is whether the person/role concerned exercises de facto military command of the forces concerned. Marlarkey (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

On a further thought, the terminology itself is misleading. Look at World War II. The infobox is labelled commanders but immediately underneath it uses the label leaders and lists a mix of political and military leaders. It would be better if there was consistency either it is military commanders or it is political leaders. Marlarkey (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it worth having a separate Political leaders section in the infobox, to make the distinction more obvious? In cases which are truly in the grey area, a single Leaders section could be used. Yaris678 (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable suggestion to me Marlarkey (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that only military leaders should be listed. The biggest problem with this is that people assume that since US presidents are listed under this, UK prime ministers can also be listed. The two are not the same and to my knowledge PMs don't constitute military commanders, nor does the reigning monarch (de facto). I say we stick to military commanders only and leave political leaders out. Swarm^(Talk) 02:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This will be difficult to decide in many cases. What about political leaders that have theoretical military ranks but do not in fact directly decide things (for instance Stalin named himself supreme commander of the Red Army during WW2 but he largely let his marshals and generals decide) ? A better distinction would probably by scales : "commander-in-chief", "theatre commander", "field commander", etc. After all, war is politics. --Alþykkr (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that the subject if political leaders is one that should be brought up after the conflict, if at all. I think we should list the commanders of large operations, such as Operation Panther's Claw and possibly regional commands. Flosssock1 (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Flosssock's opinion. I understand the point about political leaders; there was a discussion on both Iraq War and War in Afghanistan (2001-present) on whether or not Queen Elizabeth II should be listed as a commander since she technically is a commander of the military. She, along with Blair and Brown, ended up being removed from the Afghanistan box since they're simply not active commanders (although the Afghanistan infobox has been extremely simplified since then and now lists no US/UK commanders). Swarm^(Talk) 20:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think a clear, structured specification is idealy what we need. If I could propose these ideas;

- For conflicts which are ongoing with two or three belligerents should state important/influencial battlefield commanders as well as, limited political commanders.

- For conflicts which are no longer ongoing with two or three belligerents, the list of commanders should be refined further if necissary or possible. For example: the Falklands War.

- For large coalition conflicts which are ongoing, such as the War in Afghanistan (2001–present), I suggest that the list of commanders follows the style of that of the one on the War in Afghanistan article presently, in which links are provided to individual command structures.

- For large coatlition conflicts which are no longer ongoing the list should remain the same or, if not too large, should be expanded to state the names of important/influencial battlefield commanders and possibly important/influencial political commanders.

If you can improve these guidelines then please do so, if not then your comments would be appreciated. Flosssock1 (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps specify the rules used at War in Afghanistan (2001-present)? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What about that? Flosssock1 (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Are we always going to have wiki articles specifically for the lists of commanders in "large coalition conflicts that are ongoing?" For any conflict involving the West that's probably a reasonable assumption, but what about conflicts in Africa or Asia which don't get nearly as many hits or edits? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well at the moment the link on the War in Afghanistan article, for the UK command, leads to the chief of defence staff article. I would have to check where the US command leads to, but this is something that could be worked on. As for conflicts in Africa or Asia - would any be large coalition conflicts? and if so, would there also be a lot of commanders? Maybe there could simply be one seperate comanders article which includes commanders of all belligerents involved, in one place? Flosssock1 (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I think the War in Afghanistan version is too blunt and overly simplified. I think it would be better to list the top commander of the coalition, and then, if possible, top commanders for individual countries. Swarm^(Talk) 20:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but we did try that and it resulted in somewhat of an edit conflict itself, with multiple editors and multiple views. Flosssock1 (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I sent a message to every editor I could find involved in those conflicts with the hope that we could agree on some rules to apply to all articles, once and for all. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(Flosssock1) It wasn't so much as "we tried that and it didn't work". There wasn't some discussion where the community decided to put it in its current form. It looks like that because one editor decided to eliminate the commanders with no discussion. Swarm^(Talk) 06:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I have an idea which could solve part of the problem (perhaps). Since all infoboxes on conflicts include a list of protagonists, we could include a link immediatly after indicating the theoretical commander-in-chief of this or that force. For instance : United States (leader) ; Nazi Germany (leader), etc. (and please don't interpret this juxtaposition wrongly, they're only examples ! :p). This would allow for mentioning the theoretical head of the command chain, whether he/she is "active" or not, which could be pretty hard to decide in some cases (again, was Stalin an "active commander" in World War Two ? What about Roosevelt ? Did Tony Blair have an active involvement in the conduct of the war in Iraq ? etc.) What do you think ? --Alþykkr (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

We would have to limit it to one leader per country, to prevent the actual countries being obscured. That would make it difficult to expand as necessary. For example, if the country was the UK, the de jure leader is the queen, the de facto political leader is the prime minister, the highest commander is the Chief of the Defence Staff. I suppose we could come up with a rule that says it is the de facto political leader we are interested in, and then list the commanders separately. We would ignore leader who are purely de jure. Any commander who has already been listed as a political leader would not be listed in the commanders section. That prevents arguments over whether, for example, the president of the US being commander-in-chief makes any practical difference in comparison the status of the UK prime minister. Yaris678 (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

CSD R3 and capitalization

Something I've been wondering, and don't see really addressed.

WP:CSD R3 states:

R3. Implausible typos

Recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are redirects in other languages. This does not apply to articles and stubs that have been converted into redirects. {{db-r3}}, {{db-redirtypo}}, {{db-redirmisnomer}}

How does that cover redirects like "Craig hoffman" > "Craig Hoffman"? The target isn't a hugely trafficked page, so I'm unclear as to whether that's necessary or not. If not R3, should it be PRODed, or just left alone? -Zeus-^u|c 21:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems a completely plausible typo to me. Not strictly necessary due to the search engine, but then again I see no harm in it. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yea, agreed with Cybercobra...
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree. It's helpful to those of us who type in articles in all lower case and expect to be redirected. It's probably one of the more plausible types of redirects. I can't believe it was deleted under R3! Swarm^(Talk) 22:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

if Wikipedia becomes a forum or facebook or social network

I wonder what will happen to Wikipedia badly if people comes in and engage in forum to discuss personal opinions and biases. This certainly won't harm Wikipedia in anyways so what is the side effect as a WP:FORUM?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

They get warned, their forum/social/promotional content gets deleted and if they persist they get blocked. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 18:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the IP means "what will happen to Wikipedia if it was allowed?" not "what will happen to individuals treating Wikipedia as a forum, given that it is not allowed?" The answer to the first question is that editors who could spend their time discussing how to improve an article instead spend it declaiming a point of view. Other editors, who aren’t interested in declaiming a point of view, feel marginalised by the constant arguing and stop contributing. Yaris678 (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

One solution might be for someone to set up a mirror of Wikipedia with a forum for each article for discussion of personal opinions pertaining to the subject matter of the article. That would keep the irrelevant stuff out of our way while giving people a place to discuss their views. Tisane (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Implementation of bureaucrat removal of sysop/crat flags

Following from the recent RfC, there is an ongoing discussion about the possible implementation of giving bureaucrats the technical ability to remove admin/crat flags, where this is currently done by the stewards. All comments welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bureaucrat Unchecking. Happy‑melon 15:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Content help

I seem to be missing the point. What, if anything, is the practical difference between Wikipedia:Content noticeboard, Wikipedia:Editor assistance, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Unsorted? Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The first is for discussion on matters relating to some sort of content in question (about the substance of the encyclopedia). The second is for one-to-one advice on policies, guidelines, editing practices, etc. The third is for attaining larger-scale community-wide consensus on a particular discussion (as opposed to WikiProject-wide or the set of editors watching a particular talk page). —Akrabbim^talk 21:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide (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 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability requirements along with condensation of articles is killing Wikipedia

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's said this before, but the constant notability requirements as well as condensation of highly detailed pages about certain things into a few lines of a compound page (see the Pokemon pages incident) is driving many previous people away, and this issue needs to be dealt with sooner, rather than later. My specific gripe is with an AfD delete about a Castlevania soundtrack producer's page, but there are plenty of articles that have been deleted over the years because of notability along with issues with sources also not being "notable enough" While removing notability requirements would not be good, making them so tight that they cause many users to abandon the site from frustration does no good, and needs to be dealt with yesterday. --Pichu0102 (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I had to Wikisearch to find out what Castlevania was. And you haven't linked the AfD you're referencing either. So we're talking about a producer of a piece of music that appears on the soundtrack to a video game? If that's his only claim to fame, there is a policy against creating biographies whose subject is notable for only one thing, as you've no doubt read in those AfDs. Had that one thing been a major hit or a critically acclaimed work on its own merits, I would argue in your favor, but if that's the most notable thing he's done so far, I'd have to say the most appropriate place at Wikipedia for a mention is at the article for the soundtrack.

I'm peripherally aware, however, that there are fan-oriented Wikis that focus on a particular "world". Wikipedia's article on Muppet, for example, includes a link to Muppetpedia, a fan-generated wiki which has the leeway to give a great deal more detail such as is interesting primarily to ardent fans. I just ducked in there (for only the second time in my life, swear!) and noted that for each episode there are several photographs, a description of each segment, links to articles about the songs that are sung, and lists of every Muppet that appears, even esoteric Muppets that are only in the background. In turn, each of these esoteric Muppets has his own article. By now you're probably saying what the hell is he going on about Muppets for, but that's partly the point.

I don't really know how you go about doing this, but perhaps for somewhat esoteric but wildly popular (I'm presuming) video game details such as you're talking about, getting together a group of devoted fans to start a genre-specific wiki might be your best route? Best wishes, Abrazame (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the be-all and end-all of the internet. Information is allowed elsewhere you know. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a useful essay: WP:OUTLET —Akrabbim^talk 12:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Castlevania wiki on Wikia. Paradoctor (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

user:Nagpur31

What do you suggest should we do for this user? See his contributions. It looks like the ID is being used only to add links to his website under external references section. --GPPande 14:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Revert if spam, warn (as you've done), block if they persist despite warnings. But this isn't a policy discussion, so it shouldn't be on this board. Fences&Windows 04:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Life (EOL) verbatim copying

Now that Wikipedia has switched to the Creative Commons license, may we copy all material from EOL into Wikipedia (and Wikispecies) verbatim? Would a reference to the EOL article satisfy the attribution requirement? How about images from EOL into the Commons? See previous village pump discussion. Also see Template:Eol. Here is information on EOL's terms of use, licensing policy, and if you're interested in contributing (eg Wikipedia material) to EOL, here is some information. The EOL already uses extensive material from Wikipedia, for example Theobroma Cacao. -kslays (talk • contribs) 20:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Only the bits which are CC-BY or CC-BY-SA - none of the non-commercial bits. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Typically including a template acknowledging the inclusion of a source's content with a URL to the original is sufficient, like {{citizendium}} for example. One could easily be created from the existing {{eol}}. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Category names has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Category names (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, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) no longer marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the article was moved and changed to Wikipedia:Category names. This is still a guildeline, the tag was only removed when the orginal target became a redirect and stayed with the article under its new title.--76.66.190.219 (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia provide custom keyboard layouts?

I was typing a little bit of German for Wikisource recently, and so far as I could tell, neither the list of special characters nor the standard Windows keyboard options were really usable for the task. It would take far too long to cut-and-paste every umlaut character, but the only alternative provided by Windows is a German keyboard layout with four separate keys dedicated to ä, ö, ü, and ß -- a keyboard which is altogether maddening to use even before one discovers that the Y and Z have swapped positions...

Now there is a fix for this, which is to download a free program Windows Keyboard Layout Creator[20] and generate a custom keyboard. It offers a single-level system of "dead keys" that change the next character typed. This allowed me to define the character "`" so that `a becomes ä, `E = Ë, `s = ß, `n = ñ, `t = þ `+ = ±, `- = — and so on. (Unfortunately it does not seem to allow for double redirects like ``a = à, `'a = á, etc. (nor conditional dead keys like a3 = ǎ but an = an) or you could use one convenient keyboard for German, French, Norwegian and pinyin)

Still, the keyboard setup file it generated could be installed on any Windows machine and would allow people to use an "umlaut key" immediately, without the bother of setting up the file or the privacy issues involved with the Windows validation demanded by the download. So far as I know the keyboard files are freely distributable data files, though the point may not be settled.

Because of the limitation of the program, several different keyboard setup files would be needed for different languages, and of course other operating systems would need their own files. It would be nice to arrange this as a limited-purpose download page linked from the vicinity of the special characters at the bottom of the edit page.

Would Wikipedia allow for this? Mike Serfas (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, Windows already provides a layout that does that. By default I have United Kingdom Extended which is pretty good for most European languages (for example, ü is created by typing AltGr+2 then u). I also know the alt-codes for most of the other special characters, such as ß (Alt+0223) and ø (Alt+0248). If I didn't then I could look them up in the character map or any unicode table. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Scrambling to press control, alt, shift, and 2 at the same time to add an umlaut embodies an almost comical degree of user hostility. Nor is holding down alt while trying to remember four numbers really an optimal method either, even if you have a numeric keypad. It is much easier to type two keys: the unshifted ` followed by the key to be modified. Mike Serfas (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Make a set of hotstrings in AutoHotKey, and all your typing woes are gone. Paradoctor (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

For German the solution is simple: Use the variant US International of the US keyboard mapping. It makes '"~` dead keys which you can use for creating most French, German or Spanish characters, and you can reach more using the right Alt key together with another character, e.g. Right-Alt + s = ß, Right-Alt + , = ç.

I'm a German and I use this mapping exclusively, even for typing German text with a German keyboard. The only inconvenience when writing English text is that you have dead keys, so e.g. you have to create " by typing " followed by space. Hans Adler 13:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Progress in BLP RFC

There is momentum for a proposal to close the request for comment on unsourced biographies on living people.

The RFC will be open through Monday night, 23:59 Wikipedia (UTC) time.

In a nutshell, this proposal would declare consensus for:

1. Stronger policy against new unsourced BLP's, and
2. A deletion process for new unsourced BLP's.

There is a Q&A on the talk page. Maurreen (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Some people are commenting on the earlier proposals.

To be effective, your input needs to be at one of the closing proposals.

For a summary, please see the Q&A. Maurreen (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The Notability of High Schools

Are High Schools inherently notable? If you look at it purely from a WP: Notability standpoint, it would seem that they are not, but popular convention seems to point towards them being notable. From my perspective, the coverage of High Schools is not uniform and the articles tend to be of a low quality or even stubs. Also, the articles tend to attract vandals and trolls. Obviously some High Schools are notable enough, like the ones scoring in the top ten on the U.S News Best Schools report, but I think the question is mostly applied to the majority of schools that are not, for example, featured in that list. I think the question is: In general, are Articles about High Schools inherently notable and are valuable additions to Wikipedia? 226Trident (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No high school is notable unless a molestation occurred there, which makes most of them notable. joke to deal with boredom Equazcion ^(talk) 06:01, 21 Feb 2010 (UTC)

They are real places and thus reasonable to include. RxS (talk) 06:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

My house is a real place. So is the gated community I live in. The furniture store down the street is too. Same with the small park. Hell, so's the swimming pool in the middle of the houses. I guess I better start writing some articles... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Find some reliable sources and have at it. RxS (talk) 07:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe they are inherently notable. But this debate has been going on for more than half a decade on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Schools/Defunct; Wikipedia:Schools/Old_proposal; Wikipedia:Schools/March_2007; Wikipedia:Notability_(schools); User:GRider/Schoolwatch/Archive. --BaronLarf 06:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As Wikipedia gets older, I'm sure we'll have to have (a) page(s) similar to WP:PEREN in which we link old discussions of re-occurring topics much like this. Killiondude (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, consensus is currently that they are all notable. I strongly disagree with this consensus and hope that it changes sometime in the future to help foster a discriminate encyclopedia of only noteworthy topics. But even if this would happen our articles wouldn't change very much since most high schools pass the GNG. We don't need an unwritten rule about schools that prevents the few that aren't notable or significant from being removed. I see most "all X is inherintly notable" style of argument as disruptive to the notability criteria in general, an exception being when they are used in a descriptive rather than prescriptive manner (ex. all U.S. presidents are notable- they are, but not because we define them to be). ThemFromSpace 06:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's notability guidelines are unfortunately opaque. They say that a thing is notable if notable people or institutions have taken notice of it. Duh. Well, how do you find out if people and institutions are notable? Same problem. Notable writers are identified by the fact that they are published by notable publishers, and the same with notable works. And notable publishers are identified by the fact that they publish notable works and writers. And yes, we identify notable works because notable writers produced them, and notable publishers published them. Are you beginning to see the problem? There's no solid ground to stand on here.

It helps if you replace the fancy word "notable" by the more common word "interesting." Then, whether something is notable (defined as whether notable people took note of it) reduces merely to the less fancy question of whether interesting people took interest in it. And how do we know whether the interested people are themselves interesting? Because other people take interest in THEM. Well, what other people? You? No. Me? No. We're talking about INTERESTING. PEOPLE. You know? Do I have to draw you a picture? Turn on the TV. But not whole sections of the internet. Because the internet is full of great dark areas of uninteresting stuff, written by uninteresting people. Like blogs and wikipedia. Wups. But it is true that the plebian interests of proles like our editors do not count. It is the interests of other media, publishers, and writers that count. Wikipedia is the ultimate parasite, and it rides the "buzz" from those who produce buzz. That's a technical word, there: BUZZ. It means "notability." SBHarris 06:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Watch who you're calling a prole there, buddy!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 07:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Meh, you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. SBHarris 07:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Themfromspace has summarized the current unfortunate circumstances well. Despite many high schools not being able to even meet WP:N, many editors have decided that they are all inherently notable by nature of being a high school alone, because (I kid you note) "all high schools have sports coverage in their local papers". Of course, local papers are not really third-party, particularly in smaller towns, and if they are the only one to notice a high school, that really shouldn't be enough. Further, just printing sports scores and high light is not really significant coverage either. And some high schools lack even evidence of that, but it "must be there just not online" so that is still deemed enough. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That same logic - that HS are notable due to sports coverage - implies that this is routine coverage like most individual sporting matches, which are not notable unless something of interest happens (eg Ten Cent Beer Night). Thus, this type of coverage immediately invalids the school notability aspect. (and personally, I find it highly moronic that we're using athletic aspects to qualify the existance of an educational institution; this is not to say that some high schools produce a disproportionate number of eventual professional athletes and sources to attribute this fact, but just that in general, because a HS has a football team that travels a few miles down the road to play 6-8 games out of year doesn't shed any light on what the school has to offer). I can understand the logic of every town and village being considered notable, but not schools. --MASEM (t) 08:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

A high school doesnt have to be notable, because in addition to being an encyclopedia Wikipedia is also a 'gazetteer, so yes being a real place does automatically make a high school, school district, Census-designated place, hamlet, village, (I can keep going...) a notable article for Wikipedia GRANTED that reliable third party sources can be found to make a viable non-stub article. There are plenty of hamlets that I would love to have an article on, but there isnt enough info out there, so they cant realistically be made. Same goes for schools. A good example of a great school article is Brunswick (Brittonkill) Central School District. If we went the extreme opposite and started saying they werent inherently notable where do we draw the line? Is Herkimer County, New York notable as a county goes? Probably not. Is Wyoming now notable enough as a state? (no) Is Djibouti a notable country? (yes, but my booty isnt).Camelbinky (talk) 10:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I can agree from the point of being a gazetteer why every town/village, road, county, etc., should be included because those are functions of gazetteers, but even to that point, that would not include schools. That is, as called by definition a gazetteer is a "geographic dictionary", which implies any geographic element - natural or man-made - should be included, and I can't deny that towns/villages or roads are such. But a school is not a geographic element. Going by how WP defines a gazetteer, a town's school system may be described as part of a gazetteer's entry in the school, but the school itself is not a top-level entry. One could argue the same langauge that if every school should be included, so should every city hall, post office, shopping area, church, etc. be included. There is a fairly clear line that can be drawn to prevent non-geographic elements from being considered "necessary" as part of a gazetteer system.

(Also, but I don't want to belabor the point, notability is generally from secondary sources that are beyond routine coverage, not just third-party stuff as you suggest. But when we're talking about WP being a gazetteer, it seems we want to include those appropriate topics anyway simply due to that function, as long as there's verification via third-party sources and not through notability in general.) --MASEM (t) 13:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

For me, a better focus would be to the verifiability and reliability of the information on high schools, not notability. Especially because students are inclined to edit their own school's pages, potentially putting false information in. Perhaps we should have a stricter standard of verifiability and RS for high schools to get rid of the chaff? Also, as Camelbinky says, there isn't enough reliable info out there to realistically write an article on every school. Although making a special rule for a category seems excessive to me. Also, what of the schools in other countries?-kslays (talk • contribs) 15:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Making guidance based on the potential for vandalism or poorly-cited information is a bad idea; this is overly preventative even though no one likes the results of vandalism. Otherwise, we'd have to consider the same idea towards sports teams, cities and towns, modern fictional works, and current political figures, for some. --MASEM (t) 16:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I regret that high schools, roads, bridges and similar assets are notable, because they're in government inventories that are WP:RS. I won't contribute or reviewing them, because they're boring - and the government keeps all these inventories mainly to impose taxes. --Philcha (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• In general local media will cover a high school (founding, scandals, sports, and even changes in leadership) in enough depth that one can safely assume such coverage exists for any given school. So as long as the school is verifiable it's almost certain to be notable even if sources haven't turned up yet. Hobit (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Even though the idea of "inherent notability" is controversial, we can presume that a high school would have been covered many times over the years from sources at at least the regional level of news coverage, and a high school has a role in the community that other physical buildings such as the post office do not. Given that Wikipedia has a role as a gazeteer, it would be ridiculous not to include articles about local government and infrastructure. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have any examples of a high school, or elementary etc, that does have an article but it should completely be deleted because it wouldnt fit notability guidelines as applied to, say living people? (which I would say is probably THE category we are most strict with) And is it possible to deal with it (and those like it) simply by saying it doesnt have reliable THIRD PARTY sources or other problems with it instead of having a new "rule" to specifically deal with them? If we can deal with this issue using what policies, guidelines, etc we have already established I think that would be much better than adding a new one. We also must realize no matter what consensus we come up with here we could face a huge backlash by those who actually work on the articles to the point where it may just be futile to do anything.Camelbinky (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

While I don't have an example at hand, there have been high schools in places like Pakistan where no reliable sources could be found beyond verifying the basics of the school. Under the assumption that local media probably isn't on the web (or in English) we've kept those in the past... Hobit (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of any coverage, there is no evidence of notability, so high schools (or any other topic for that matter) are not inherently notable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• People seem hung up on the word "inherently". High Schools aren't magicaly notable due to some proclaimation. High schools are notable because if you do the legwork you will find third party coverage of them. They are not "inherently" notable. It's just that I can't think of an occasion that a High School article wasn't determined to be notable due to sourcing being found.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• The concept of "inherent notability" is one of the most unfortunate memes to have ever plagued Wikipedia. I understand that, given their nature, certain topics will undoubtedly have the sources to confirm notability. Presidents of sovereign nations are pretty much always going to be covered in reliable sources and pass our notaiblity criteria with flying colors, therefore one might make the argument that presidents of sovereign nations are inherently notable. But what does that mean for an artcile at Wikipedia? Does it mean that an article about President Fulano of Somewherestan, as the head of a sovereign nation, does not require sourcing? Absolutely false; every article must be sourced. If anything, any topic that is "inherently notable" should be abundantly sourced rather than sparsely sourced. If a topic is "inherently notable" there should be no dificulty in producing sources to establish notability. In short, the "inherently notable" argument should never be used as an excuse to retain topics whose notability cannot be established; this not only lazy encyclopedia building, but it is absolutely wrongheaded. Now on the other hand, if the community at large decides that all foo should be included because Wikipedia is a gazetteer and gazetters should cover all foo, then an argument can be made that an article about bar, as a member of the subset foo, should be retained in spite of the fact that notability cannot be established, but this is another argument altogether. "Inherent notability" is a poor excuse for lazy editing. Shereth 16:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Good points have been brought up above, and I withdraw my statement that "high schools are inherently notable," since it is an unproven stance, and not helpful to discussion. (I'd say the same thing about Millard Fillmore or, as one editor suggested, the State of Wyoming I guess.) Instead I will say that, despite the dozens of high school deletion discussions that I took part in back in 2005, I have yet to come across a U.S. high school that did not meet the general notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I agree that simple listings of sport scores in a local newspaper are not enough. But, as government entities, most school districts these days have their statistics collected and reported by state and federal agencies. These are easily discovered online, and would I believe count as verifiable, reliable sources. And yes, high school sports are heavily covered by local media. Do local media have some interest in the performance of local schools? Sure, since the people who subscribe to the papers are interested in the performance of their children. But this shows that, to some people at least, high schools are "interesting." Whenever I see a high school up for deletion, I try to use a little elbow grease in to show it meets the general notability guideline. This entire discussion began because a certain high school was put up for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Lakes High School). As that discussion shows, the high school did in fact have a good deal of third-party coverage, in places such as the Washington Post, CNN, and the New York Times. I'm not saying that all high schools will have so many reliable sources for them. But the sources exist.

Yes, articles on high schools are often the first to be vandalized by high school students with nothing better to do, and often get filled with fluff and unsourced statements. Unsourced statements should be removed, vandalism fought with warning, blocks and protection if necessary. My comments here are limited what I have experience editing: "high schools" in the United States. While I would hope they would apply to all secondary schools in the world, there are undoubtedly secondary schools out there (Pakistan, as one editor noted) without reliable sources to support them. In those cases, the general notability guideline would not be met, and the article would be a good candidate for deletion.--BaronLarf 04:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:ATHLETE in relation to referees

WP:ATHLETE clearly lays out notability guidelines for athletes that do not pass WP:GNG. However, Bradjamesbrown brought up a good point at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ian_Rogers_(rugby_referee). Referees are not included in WP:ATHLETE. For example, this person does not seem to meet the general notability guideline, but they certainly would pass WP:ATHLETE if it applies to referees. I'm inclined to personally say that it does not, but I figured it would be good to get a discussion on this topic going. So, do referees apply to WP:ATHLETE? NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe ask at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)? Maurreen (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

photographs of art

In the past I have photographed a couple of pieces of original art, paintings, that I owned. I am not the artist. i placed them on Wikipedia in order to illustrate the artist, a man recently dead, and whose copyright still therefore applies. Those images were removed with the argument that they were a copyright infringement. I am content with that.

Today I see a photograph of a sculpture with an artist whose copyright still applies. See File:The Scallop, Maggi Hambling, Aldeburgh.jpg. Please can I learn how this differs from a photograph of a painting and why this is not a copyright infringement? I am aware of the obvious 2 dimensions vs 3 dimensions answer for a photo of a sculpture. I am not sure that argument has validity. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Panoramafreiheit applies here. Paradoctor (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I chose a poor example. What about a closeup of a statue with no particular background? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Changes nothing. You're probably thinking of de minimis, but that doesn't apply here. Personally, I think that all bits should be freed, but I may not be entirely objective here. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't! I am now. I've read the areas you pointed me to, I am better informed, but I remain unconvinced. There is a borderline, somewhere, that one crosses. I just can't spot it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I wasn't accusing you of anything. ;) If you're interested in discussing the finer points of image copyright, you want to head over to commons:Village Pump, copyright is a major topic there. Paradoctor (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't feel accused of anything, you know :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Commons is specifically set up to be "A repository of free content". Their inclusion criteria are intentionally more restrictive then Wikipedia's, since there's no need or desire for "fair use" within their specific framework.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You can use a photo/reprint/whatever of the piece of art in order to directly illustrate that piece of art (If there is any reason for "fair use", this would be exactly it!). All you need to do is to use {{Non-free use rationale}} on the File: or Image: page. There are instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. It's confusing because there editors here who have made it much more difficult then it needs to be, or really should be, to use copyrighted media on Wikipedia, but it's manageable once you've read through our byzantine pseudo-legalese usage guidelines. In the end it simply comes down to making whomever it is who shows up to delete the file happy, so you'll just have to talk to whomever that happens to be (hopefully cordially, although I wouldn't bet on that. My experience with those editors who have appointed themselves to the job of "policing" images has been resoundingly negative, unfortunately.)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Those were my own feelings. My experience mirrors yours. Unfortunately the wisdom of crowds can become distorted once people don a self created uniform. I attempted to put two different style illustrations into the article Anthony Robert Klitz to illustrate his work with a couple of his works. And there they remained for a good few months. I chose not to discuss the removal because it became uninteresting. Fiddle Faddle (talk)

Talk:Johnny Weir#RfC: Is the LGBT Wikiproject tag acceptable on this talkpage

A BLP-related RfC has been opened at the above page. To some extent the issue in the RfC concerns balancing rights of members of a Wikiproject vs. WP:BLP considerations. In any event, extra input, on either side of the dispute, is welcome. Nsk92 (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

NASA collaboration

There is a collaboration proposal at OpenNASA that suggests that NASA collaborate with Wikimedia project including Wikipedia. Please vote/comment on it.

There is also a NASA collaboration task force at the strategy wiki.

What are your thoughts on a collaboration between NASA and Wikipedia?Smallman12q (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales [[supports this=D.Smallman12q (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Adnan Oktar and his reply to wikipedia

As one of the main contributors to the Adnan Oktar-article, I discovered that an anonymous user with a Turkish IP-adress added the website www.replytowikipedia.com/ to the External links-section of this article. How should we deal with it?
A) It is very, very interesitng; thus we rework the article and the WP-policies;
B) It is very interesting; thus we should expand the article with A.O.'s given comments;
C) It is somewhat interesting; thus, we keep the link in the links section and that is it;
D) It is not interesting; thus we delete this link.
I have been too involved into the article to give a neutral opinion. Let me just say that I really tried to give every claim a prper reference, I believe I succeeded in this. SO please give my your opinions and ideas in this.Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Include it for the sake of fairness. Maurreen (talk) 07:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Value of editorial templates?

How effective are cleanup tags and the like? Please join the discussion at the style guide talk page. Maurreen (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Putting artist credits on logos

Sdazet (talk · contribs) is adding artist credits to Michael Doret to several images which are already uploaded, then adding the credit to the images' captions on the articles they decorate. Is this valid? Should there also be a source to prove that Doret is the actual creator of the logo? Woogee (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Userspace guidelines to allow NOINDEX as a remedy?

User space is often used for self-promotion (WP:NOT#MYSPACE and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX), and to draft articles, keep notes, and other miscellaneous material by the user.

Userspace guidelines (WP:UP) state that where a user page may be used inappropriately the user should be asked, and deletion may be discussed. This can take considerable time and effort though, so problem material proliferates in userspace.

I would like to propose an addition to userspace guidelines, that if it appears a userspace page may be used inappropriately, a NOINDEX tag can be added by any admin.

Rationale:

1. Userspace is not subject to the scrutiny of mainspace, and pages may be nested. So unremedied user pages may go a long time between being noticed or before being remedied.
2. Userspace does not normally contain material that benefits the project or "knowledge" to spider externally. Its user pages are not a web host, publisher, soapbox, promotional medium, blog, repository, or personal web space.
3. NOINDEX does not affect correct use (it's is transparent for any legitimate use of userspace), but impedes inappropriate use from being very damaging and hinders attempts to "use Wikipedia" inappropriately for external impact.
4. Allows immediate handling, with follow-up by discussion at leisure, if the page creator objects to NOINDEX or the viewing user believes removal/redaction will be needed.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

So you're proposing that (as an alternative to MFD?), an admin can simply slap a {{noindex}} on there? And if the user objects, then take it to MFD? Seems pretty straightforward - though why limit it to admins? And does this need to be codified? –xeno^talk 19:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Not as an alternative, but as an additional option. For example instead of MFD in some cases, or while under informal talk page or formal MFD discussion. At present it's unclear if an admin could NOINDEX someone's user page, and if they did a belligerent user could arguably remove it. Why admins? Concerns about it being used in a petty way in disputes even though it's effectively harmless. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That's kind of what I meant, as a lower-volume way of getting potentially problematic or promotional material out of search engine results but not going thru the headache of MFD (unless objected to). I think I've placed a few noindex tags - WP:BOLD and WP:UP seem to support the practice already. –xeno^talk 20:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In the past, I've also noindex'd a few userspace articles that I didn't think would meet our notability requirements (and likely wouldn't be moved into the mainspace). I can see merit in this proposal, but I'm getting to be weary of instruction creep... Killiondude (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not just hard-code it into every page in User: and User talk: space? → ROUX ₪ 19:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(interjected) As an Internet website though we shouldn't erect walls as 'sightscreens' around us. A small professionally styled author profile by a contributor isn't inappropriate or something that needs to be 'masked' from search engines. –Whitehorse1 20:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk space is already noindexed (but can be opt-in indexed). It has been proposed several times to noindex userspace, but it has not found consensus. –xeno^talk 20:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This would help with Google, sure, but what about other mirrors of Wikipedia that don't follow the noindex convention? The Wordsmith^Communicate 20:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-compliant mirrors and spiders can always grab text (unless forcibly blocked by the WMF webservers). But the great majority of problem distribution, searchability, and copying, probably comes via well-known and well behaved search engines that do respect such tags. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been laboring under the mistaken impression that userspace was no-indexed by default, but read the relevant RfC and realized I was wrong. I still think that's the right approach. For example, in the Article Wizard, we are encouraging people to start new articles in user space. When I review such a draft, I concentrate on formatting and reference issues, but I haven't worried too much about really crappy looking starts, as I has assumed they weren't indexed. Now that I realize they are indexed, I should be scrutinizing every new article for copyvios or other problems, and proposing MfD more aggressively. I've taken the personal stance that if an editor asks for advice at Requests for feedback, I won't propose AfD, but now I have to rethink that position. It would make far more sense to rethink the policy, which would also solve the problem above. I've been thinking about making such a proposal, but wanted to wait until I had the time to contribute meaningfully. Sorry, this is a long way of saying I'm not going to debate the present proposal, as no-idexing user space would obviate it. --SPhilbrickT 21:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The article wizard puts {{userspace draft}}, which has the noindex template included. –xeno^talk 22:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe that's why I thought they were no-indexed. However, I was checking for a possible copyvio recently, and when I Googled some text, I got a hit on a userspace page. It was in Requests for feedback, which usually come from the Wizard, but maybe it wasn't. It was a couple weeks ago, I don't know whether I can track down what I was looking at, but I'll see.--SPhilbrickT 01:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

{{Userfiedpage}} has NOINDEX and {{userpage}} has NOINDEX as an option. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. What's missing is simply that if there is a concern over a userspace page, it can be tagged as NOINDEX by an admin (which is transparent to any legitimate use) and that the NOINDEX must be left in place unless agreed otherwise. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

How's this, then? Tweak as desired. –xeno^talk 14:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'd rather that ALL of userspace be NOINDEXed, all the time. I've just not seen any good reason, in multiple debates about this, why user pages SHOULD be searchable. The decision smacks of inertia. Jclemens (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I concur. As an alternative, make it the default and allow to opt out manually, if there's a reason.--SPhilbrickT 23:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree, FWIW.
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I also agree, automatic no-index to all userspace (including nested subdirectories) with a possible opt out. Why isn't it like this already? Has there already been a RfC about this? -kslays (talk • contribs) 16:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, see the various RFCs at WP:NOINDEX. I think the most recent was Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing. –xeno^talk 16:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Why are previous key discussions on this not linked, and could somebody link them please? Someone already familiar with them will be able to find them far quicker than I'd be able to. Thanks. –Whitehorse1 23:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  I do believe most are linked from WP:NOINDEX. –xeno^talk 16:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

  xeno, thank you. –Whitehorse1 21:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Bootleg albums

Does Wikipedia have an official statement on the validity of articles and lists of bootleg albums? Such articles do exist; I notice some have come up for deletion review recently, and have seen articles deleted in the past just because "it's a bootleg", but they keep coming back, and I can't find an explicit policy against them.

I'm in favour of such a policy. We already have policies regarding copyright violation and spamming. We have rules against inclusion of song lyrics (if protected by copyright), album cover art that goes beyond a reduced size depiction of the front cover only (and these images must be justified by "fair use" declaration), and links to external sites that contain either of these. (Actually I'm writing this immediatly after cleaning up many Beach Boys album pages, most of which had links to lyric sites and a fan site with detailed cover art reproductions; I have to presume these articles have regular watchers who know it's wrong, and just look the other way; consider yourselves admonished!)

Coverage of bootlegs implies advertising an illegal product, especially if the album is not notable. There are probably less than a dozen bootleg albums in existence that could demonstrate mainstream notability beyond the artists' fan bases, and the number of artists involved must be even smaller (Bob Dylan, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones... er, that's about it). Even when a bootleg album is alleged to be notable, there is little coverage of it in mainstream or music press, excepting the most underground press, in part because the music industry would cut off any such publication from receiving promotional materials and support. While the obscurity of bootlegs is therefore somewhat artificial, that doesn't diminish their non-notability.

Artists with many bootlegs, or significant bootleg material, nearly always have a "discography" article, and that could be a place to mention a few selected bootlegs that can demonstrate notability. Any guideline on the subject should spell out that discography articles should not include a long list of bootlegs, nor track listings, and certainly not links to places where bootlegs can be illegally downloaded. A bootleg album can also be notable if it prompts an official release of the same material, but here again, this could be covered within the article on the official release, and does not require a separate article.

I just get the feeling that we've been putting off making this policy official, to avoid raising the ire of music fans. But since I'm proposing allowing some limited coverage of these albums, and not an outright ban on any mention of their existence, this proposal should be acceptable and manageable.

Just so you don't get the wrong idea, I'm a bootleg record collector myself, and am aware that they (and their history) have been documented in books. But a personal liking for them does not suddenly lead to an opinion that they are legitimate, nor appropriate for detailed coverage on Wikipedia. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with using the usual case-by-case examination of notability in reliable secondary sources? Why is more policy needed? Where is the problem that needs fixing? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Why should we create a situation where editors take the time to write an article they believe is valid, only to have it deleted because of unwritten policy? I've seen a case where an editor wrote a number of bootleg album articles for a certain artist, only to have them all deleted. I'm trying to be fair to everyone: I don't think bootleg albums can be regarded as notable except in a very few cases (and even then they can be mentioned elsewhere instead), so why shouldn't we say that, and save editors from wasting their time? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I would think it would be as simple as seeing if the bootleg has coverage in reliable secondary sources (per WP:NOTABILITY). If it doesn't, it does not merit its own article. However, using "it's a bootleg" as a deletion reason is not acceptable, either. But I agree with OrangeDog that the general notability guideline can cover bootlegs, too. Angryapathy (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The above post is pretty much correct. If the bootleg is ACTUALLY notable we should cover it, just as we cover other illegal things. As long as there's no copyright violation (and detailing the existing of a bootleg is vehemently not that), then there's no problem making an article for one. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Should "notable" should be in Wikipedia:Words to avoid?

I see this word appearing with much higher frequency in articles than it does when the English language is used elsewhere. This is probably because the word is in the mind of many wikipedians due to Wikipedia:Notability etc. I'm suggesting that it be added to the list of words to avoid. What do you think? Noodle snacks (talk) 10:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Avoid using a word that's a core principle of wikipedia? Why? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

And what word would you substitute? There are many lists of the form "List of notable X", whether as independent articles or embedded lists, and indeed they need to be restricted somehow or many would get clogged with trivia. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Damn, it creeps in RL, that's scary. Yours truly, who reads and writes English-language business letters in RL, frequently finds himself inserting notable in an otherwise innocuous audit report. Many times per page. Others spotted him substituting "true and fair view" with "demonstration of notability" and promptly called local asylum, but he bravely escaped the straightjacket and the little gray men... On the topic: an article approaching GA/FA hurdle will be, most likely, cleaned of all weasel words. And anything less than GA nominee has more important issues to do. I would not worry at all. NVO (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

And what should we do then with the Assembly of Notables? MBelgrano (talk) 11:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Charlie took care of it didn't he? NVO (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is a combination of the oft-quoted "no claim of notability" deletion reason and the fact that WP:Notability is not the same thing as wikt:notability. Many people use "notable" in articles when they mean the former rather than the latter, which is something to avoid. Plus, there is already WP:Words to avoid#Do not note what is being noted, which would include "X is notable" or "X is a notable Y". We already know they are, because they have a Wikipedia article (and if they're not they shouldn't have). OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That depends on context: the fact of someone being notable within a specific field may be important to understand why a event described took place on one way and not another; specially at fields were such notability is not a "generic" perception but something granting exclusive powers. Another example, notable subjects may not have been notable during all of their life or existence, and it should be pointed at which point of it they became notable.

Perhaps this proposal can be improved to a more generic way: avoid (or make sure of using the real meaning) words and quotes being used on a steady manner at Wikipedia maintenance. This means "Notable", "Verifiable", "Encyclopedic", "Undue weight", "Vandals", "Original research", "neutral point of view", etc. MBelgrano (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

THF's Third Law of Wikipedia is that the notability of a subject generally varies inversely with the relative frequency of the adjective "notable" in their Wikipedia article. If you look at featured articles about truly notable subjects, you will almost never see the word "notable" used. Nobody says "George Washington was notably the first president of the United States." Its use is generally in sentences like "Smith's notably finished in the semifinals in the Last Comic Standing 6 competition, falling just short of the final twelve contestants" that tend to be evidence against notability. I agree that the word should be avoided in articles, but it should be avoided because it's a ridiculous Wikipedia cliche' that makes our articles look like self-parody. See also Wikipedia:Wikipuffery and {{puffery}}. THF (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree here - while on WP namespace pages, we need to use these terms, these are all behind-the-scenes stuff that should not be seen by our readers. Words like "notable" may come up in normal prose writing about a topic but they should only be used naturally and when appropriate, not as a means to demonstrate (or failure to do so) an article's compliance with policy and guideline. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that's partly a side effect of the way CSD A7 is written. People get told they need an "asertion of notability" so they do exactly that. "John Doe is notable because...". Not good prose, but easy to see why it happens.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Easy enough to solve: Make clear that it suffices to make the case for notability on the talk page. Paradoctor (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really. The article itself should make it clear why the subject is worth reading about, assuming that the reader has any interest at all. The reasons stated above are exactly why this is happening (and, as an editorial aside, I'd hope that you guys running around looking for things to CSD A7 and/or tag with {{notability}} would take note of the side-effect that you're causing), but it's not really a terrible problem. When you see this, simply click the "edit" tab/link and copy edit the prose to be more natural. This is a collaborative project, after all...
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"worth reading about"? Now if that isn't an essentially contested concept. ;) But my point is far simpler: Notability is a peculiarity of Wikipedia, and if you demand that the criteria are obvious from the article text, you'll inevitably have editors using Wikipedia jargon in the article. Paradoctor (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I was trying to avoid using "notable" myself. Regardless, your point about inevitability is what I was getting at myself, that this sort of problem is going to occur when people repeat ad nausium that something is a problem. It'd be nice if people would shut up about it, if even just a little bit, but that's not likely to happen. All of that being true, the best way to deal with the situation is to go and edit, removing the problem with the overuse of "notable" where you identify it.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

What? You mean, out there? In article space? Paradoctor (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"Notable" is listed in Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms, for exactly the reason THF has stated. Nifboy (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Over use of the term "Notable" isn't just a problem because people want to avoid getting their article deleted. The idea that the lead needs to establish the notability of the topic is rammed home many times in Wikipedia:Lead section. You can see why people think they have to make it explicit. Yaris678 (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I cannot count how many articles I have seen that say "subject is notable for coverage in the following news stories". It is obnoxious. New editors feel they have to assert notability (while using the term) to the extent that it is ruining leads. Notability should be proven in deletion discussions if necessary but not in the article like that. I can't blame them for feeling that they have to do it but a quick line at WP:AVOID would help in explaining the proper not-just-to-get-it-on-Wikipeida use of the term.Cptnono (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. Here are some suggestions.

1. "Notable" should be added to the WP:EDITORIAL section of WP:AVOID. I think it would be best to go immediately below the section "Do not note what is being noted".
2. Add some text to WP:NOTE. Perhaps at the end of the lead it should say "The term notable is a word to avoid in most circumstances in an article. The reader should know that the subject is notable because of the facts that have been stated, not because it has been stated that the subject is notable."

Yaris678 (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. That gives it mention in several related guidelines and essays.Cptnono (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I have just implemented my above suggestion. Yaris678 (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP for user draft pages

As I started here, WP:BLP applies to all pages, including draft articles in userspace. However, policy is generally to remove all categories from mainspace categories. Category:Living people is for articles and I assume that means mainspace alone. Does anyone know if there's a place for userspace articles? Perhaps another category just for living people articles in userspace? Even articles that are BLP directly could have BLP problems (articles on organizations for example can still have negative unsourced remarks on individuals). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you meant to say policy is generally to remove all categories from non-mainspace articles? If you acknowledge articles in user space are (or should be) draft articles (or articles in the process of being rewritten, where the editor doesn't want to have an article's edit history showing hundreds of tiny edits, and wants to move it back all at once), why would we want to have any category pages pointing to these incomplete articles? If a BLP in userspace has significant problems, and has been sitting there untouched for a while, it should probably be deleted instead of being categorized. I guess you're thinking a category would help admins to find these articles, but who would put the category links on those pages in the first place? You would need to demand that all users with draft articles put a category link on it, just for the purpose of having an admin consider deleting it, and I doubt that will happen. I think some leeway is called for. A draft article in userspace may have some negative comments which are unsourced because the editor is in the process of finding the sources. If a draft appears to be an attack page that the editor does not intend to complete and move to article space, then delete it. Otherwise, with evidence it's being worked on, it should remain, regardless of the BLP rule. If you're going to demand that draft pages be completely sourced from the moment they are created, then there is not much point to having them. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think we should be allowing even draft pages to have unsourced material. An incomplete page is fine but a long-standing BLP violation even in userspace isn't appropriate. If BLP means all pages, it should mean it. However, I was really just wondering if this issue ever came up before and it looks like it hasn't. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Contributing reporters authors or not

For the New York Times article Paterson Weighs Race as Top Aide Quits in Protest, it states at the top "By DANNY HAKIM and JEREMY W. PETERS", but it also states at the bottom "David Kocieniewski, William K. Rashbaum and Karen Zraick contributed reporting from New York.".

Should David Kocieniewski, William K. Rashbaum and Karen Zraick be considered authors as well?Smallman12q (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Posted to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Contributing_reporters_authors_or_not.Smallman12q (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

using deletion discussions to add user experience rather than risk contributor motivation

It is a pitty to look at the information and motivation losses incured in quest of relevance and verifiability. Do not understand me wrong: relevant an encyclopedia should truly be. You have the great chance to grow to be something more than relevant without destroying relevance for those who want it.

THis leads me to my question (A), some reasoning, and some proposal for implementation (B)

(A) Wouldn't it be wise to let users filter how relevant they want their wikipedia to be and to take deletion discussion results as a mere relevance score?

(B) I imagine that users chose both the language and what I would call the desired credibility level. The base to calculate the credibility are the voting results of deletion discussions. Below a minority threshold articles continue to be deleted. Articles that were never (or haven't been for a very long time) subject to a deletion discussion have top marks. They are the core encyclopedia. Articles with small deletion margins and high error probabilities are what matters to me. They often are well written, informative and unique to Wikipedia. They have the greatest potential to add strife among contributors. I am an user and I don't find this kind of stuff anywhere else with a fingertip and I'm sad if it is lost some days/month later or marked for speedy deletion. However, I understand perfectly that these articles are not encyclopedia like in the pure sense. But then: Who -if not Wikipedia with its unique base of writers- publishes this kind of stuff between encyclopedia and hot knowledge at the edge of societal and technical progress? And how - if not by such measures that may not fit perfectly to the original aim of Wikipedia- do you preserve your base of contributors and their motivation? I think the discussion on "what fits into an encyclopedia?" could add value if only you frame and use it the right way. And if articles are categorized you do not in any way damage your original aim -being an encyclopedia- but you ensure that you continue to have a proper base of writers. Moreover, you ensure that I continue to have fun using wikipedia.

Stehe (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "filter their Wikipedia"? Woogee (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the gist of it is that he wants to replace article deletion with a system of scoring for relevance. Articles that would otherwise be deleted would instead be demoted, so people could choose to view either the unfiltered Wikipedia, complete with all the crap, or a filtered one that has everything less the content that would have been deleted. The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ew, God no! Woogee (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur, it would be a terrible idea. The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Stehe can always try Wikinfo, which has no notability requirement & virtually no deletion. Peter jackson (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It happened once. Remember all the "consensus" on sighted revisions, flagged revisions, revised revisions, no unchecked contents for unregs etc.? Buried and forgotten. There's never enough volunteers. Even the most populous and active wikiprojects cannot sort their mess. At best we may discuss the ways to cull fifty or forty unreferenced biographies. NVO (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Automated Edit Flag

Different tools on the site, line Twinkle, Friendly, Huggle, or AutoWikiBrowser, all leave a little tag in the edit summary. (TW) or (HG), for example. These are not fully-automated edits, that is to say, without any human interaction. (That would be a bot.) There are "assisted" or semi-automated edits, which make the changes only after a human has eye-balled the change and approved it.

Which gets to my question: If I were to write a script or use a program to semi-automate my edits, do I have to list/flag such usage in the edit summary? --Avicennasis 04:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you don't. Any such restriction would largely be unenforceable, regardless, since it would be impossible to tell for sure if someone is using automated assistance in all but the most obvious cases. Things like twinkle, huggle, and AWB leave their cute little notes as (egotistical, in my opinion) SPAM to promote the script/tool, is all.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well aside from promotion, those notes make it possible to determine whether the edit was semi-automated or not.Smallman12q (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ditto Smallman. It could save a lot of stress down the line. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 22:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of archive link

When creating a citation, such as for {{cite news}} should archiveurl's be included if the original link is still active?Smallman12q (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. How will we WebCite it once it's broken? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 21:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

What is an SPS?

I think I'm beginning to see the problem. You think that the NYTimes is not an SPS, right? Paradoctor (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I think if the source is clearly an SPS, then an example like say WS's example would not hold weight at all ("Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer"; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources). If Joe is a living person, then whether or not Mary is a reliable SPS, we simply cannot use the source. But in case the source is an NY Times article written by a journalist, then we could use the source. Now, we come to the point that's been argued for a long time. If a reliable SPS makes a statement (about an organisation) that is exceptional/controversial in its claim, then one should clearly attribute that statement to the reliable SPS rather than just treating it like a normal reliable source. :) ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 11:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So how do I distinguish an SPS from a non-SPS? In case you wonder: I'm serious. Paradoctor (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to provide a better example so there's no BLP confusion in the mix, let's assume Joe says "Bach was the greatest composer ever." WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't help me distinguishing between SPS and non-SPS, I'm afraid. Paradoctor (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

My apologies; I was just trying to provide a better example for Wifione so the BLP issue isn't part of the question. I wasn't really attempting to answer your question. However, I will: My answer to how you tell whether it's an SPS or not is through consensus. Does the publisher or owner of a newspaper writing an editorial count as a SPS? What about a staff-owned newspaper? These are questions for consensus, either on an article talk page or WP:RSN. I'm not trying to cop out of answering; I'm trying to acknowledge that we can't make a hard and fast "bright line" rule that will work for every circumstance. We have to leave the opportunity for process and consensus to do what they do. Wifione, what do you think? How do you tell the difference? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In general, the way the policy currently defines it. (Might I suggest that the change that I am suggesting in this whole discussion is not particularly related to how sps is defined, but how controversial statements made by sps are attributed). ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 05:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In that case, the NYTimes is an SPS. The only criterion mentioned is (after a trivial abstraction): The author of the content is the one paying for publication. The NYT fits the bill. Paradoctor (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not. When a journalist of NYT writes an article and prints it after an editorial review, the publication (which is not owned by the journalist) prints the news item. Therefore, NYTimes might not at all be an sps. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 07:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Then again, who is paying the journalist to create the content? Paradoctor (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually you're looking at it from top down. Look at it in reverse. As long as an employee (journalist) is writing the article, it becomes clear that her/his article would be published in a source that is not owned by her/him and would be subject to more editorial scrutiny than would be an article of a journalist who herself/himself owns the newspaper. The one step of difference between ownership-operational management, in this case, is what defines the critical difference between sps and non-sps. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 15:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's invoke Godwin for a good cause. Assume a Nazi newspaper publishes something. They will of course exert editorial control. Would you say such a publication is reliable non-SPS? If not, then "editorial scrutiny" is not a sufficient criterion to establish reliability. So what is it that makes the difference? Paradoctor (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies always are made for the general cases and not the exceptions. (For example, ip-blocks are made in general on vandals, knowing very well that there would be cases when non vandals get caught as collateral damage). For exceptions, like the Nazi case you mention, talk page discussions, the RS noticeboard, and consensus are the critical factors (in the same way as the ip-block exempt is provided on a case by case basis). ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 03:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What makes the Nazi newspaper an exception? How can I distinguish it from a reliable source? It can't be my (or your, or anyone's) personal opinion about the editorial policy. It isn't the mere existence of editorial control. What are the objective criteria that allow me to rule the NY Times ok, and the NS Times not? Paradoctor (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

In specifics, to answer your question, in case a reasonable editorial review process is in place, then a source is considered reliable. When considering an RS, one would have to consider many issues, specifically the source, the author, the article in question. What is a reliable source is an issue already answered by our project pages. SPS policy is different. It simply means what I have told before. In general, SPS should be considered unreliable with extremely limited exceptions. Your view about the Nazi newspaper, when you mention that they will influence editorial control, skews the argument to considering it unreliable. I repeat, consensus is the most important concept one should follow on a case by case basis. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 03:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"In general, SPS should be considered unreliable": That makes "SPS" a technical criterion in the context of applying WP:RS. No problem with that. The question I'm asking is "how do I know it when I see it?" If we agree to consider the Nazi newspaper an SPS and the NY Times not, then there must be some objective criterion. It's not editorial control. So what is it? If there really is no difference, we have to judge their reliability equal. Paradoctor (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If a writer has a piece published in newspaper that someone else edits and publishes, that is not a self-published source, even if the newspaper is run by Nazis. That does not mean that the Nazi newspaper is necessarily a reliable source, much less equal in reliability to a widely respected mainstream newspaper. There are other ways to be unreliable besides being self-published. Trying to redefine all fringe publications as "self-published" is trying to make the SPS policy do too much. --RL0919 (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "trying to redefine", I am asking for clarification of an unclear concept used in Wikipedia policy.

Can't speak for Wifione, but I could live with not considering NS Times an SPS. But your clarification has a problem: What if the publisher pays "someone else" to create the content to be published? How does that differ from the creator paying the publisher? Are publishers (i. e. people with copiers) inherently more reliable than creators (i. e. people with pens)? If not, I don't see why we should be treating those cases differently. Paradoctor (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that the NYT pays its staffers to produce certain general types of content, not just for specific content dictated to them by the publisher. In the case of a vanity press, the author goes to the publisher with specific content and says, essentially, "I will pay you if you publish this specific content." Newspaper publishers don't typically hire writers just to take dictation of stories that have already been predetermined. Instead, the writer gets assignments (with varying levels of specificity) from an editor, who reviews the result and perhaps modifies it, but does not predefine the content for the author. And typically the publisher is someone else still, who often has little direct input into content. Now, with a small publication you could potentially have an editor who is also the publisher, and perhaps writing his own stories or so thoroughly rewriting staff articles that they might as well be his. In that case, I'd say yes, that is the equivalent of self-publishing. But larger-scale publications don't work like that. --RL0919 (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

How do you know that publishers take no interest in the content they publish? Is that what NYT says? What if NST says the same? For commercial publications, we have to assume "commercial bias", i. e. the universal conflict between vendor and buyer: get as much as you can for as little as you can get away with. Accuracy is expensive. So far, I have not seen verifiable evidence that the NYT is any less biased than the Nazis. (I know, I'll be going to a bad place for that one. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wifione, I agree with you that consensus is the most important concept. Consensus, after all, it what helps us determine together whether we think an editorial review process is "reasonable" or not; that isn't an objective criteria like Paradoctor requested. If consensus is able to help us decide what is or is not a RS for specific situations, isn't consensus sufficient to help us decide how a SPS should be cited in a specific situation? For example, if a question is raised on a talk page or at WP:RSN about whether a particular SPS is reliable for a selected statement, isn't consensus enough to handle that? I don't see why determining the reliability of SPS is "different" than consensus for any other RS. Yes, the standards are different, especially for WP:BLP, but shouldn't consensus be the tool for determining how to apply the standards? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The reliability of an SPS, yes, consensus at a particular forum does help in determining that as the same has not been decided by policy/guideline. But how the SPS should be used cannot be decided by consensus within a particular forum if the policy/guideline formed by the overall community goes against the consensus being formed in that particular forum, however strong that consensus in that particular forum might be. ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 13:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Why can't how an SPS be used be decided by consensus? Deciding the reliability of a source by consensus also involves determining how it should be used; the separation you're trying to make doesn't make sense. A source (SPS or not) isn't reliable for all statements at all times. How it's used in the article is a critical piece of the puzzle. This is why I'm opposed to your proposed policy change. I think it should remain as it is now: consensus lets us decide both whether a source is reliable and how to use it appropriately. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

How does this have anything whatsoever to do with policy? Why not take this to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion started in December at WP:RSN, but moved here when Wifione suggested this change to the SPS policy. It's hard to tell that now that this part of the discussion has been separated from the original policy suggestion. But the question of "what is an SPS" is fundamental to understanding the implications of Wifione's proposed policy change for how SPS are handled.

Essentially, the proposed change would make it so when a SPS is used, normal inline citations & references are not sufficient. The only acceptable way to use an SPS would be to attribute it with the author's name in the text. In other words, you couldn't say "Joe said 'Mozart is the greatest composer ever.'" <ref name"Mary's blog"/> You could only say "In an interview with Mary, Joe said "Mozart is the greatest composer ever."<ref name"Mary's blog"/>. I'm opposing the proposed change because I don't think we need a bright line rule and can leave it to consensus--partly because it isn't always clear what an SPS is. Wifione, as you can see above, does not believe how sources are used should be determined by consensus. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's a quote, then it should be clearly labeled whether its an SPS or not.陣内_Jinnai 20:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad to, as soon as I know how to spot them. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

By "clearly labeled," do you mean in the reference/citation (i.e., "Mary's blog") or in the article text? If we use a citation template with full source information, is that "clearly labeled"? (This, of course, assumes that we can all agree on what makes a SPS--which we can't, but let's pretend.) WeisheitSuchen (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A request for consistent application of NPOV and BLP

I've recently run across a problem on talk-pages with about four or five editors who insist that BLP/NPOV prohibits the use of the sources in the left-hand column. Now, I realize that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an excuse, but it's hard for me to look at the sources used in BLPs in the right-hand column and understand why WP:BLP prohibits the use of the sources in the left-hand column--especially since some of the articles in the right-hand column are even starred as "featured articles" as the epitome of Wikipedia standards.

In my mind, NPOV requires the inclusion of notable points of view about the subject: that would include all of the sources in the left-hand column, and most of the sources in the right-hand column. BLP just requires fastidious observation of NPOV to avoid COATRACK, and the requirement of strong sources for potentially libelous claims; it doesn't require censorship of anything negative said about a living person--certainly that's the way it's observed in the articles in the right-hand column, but BLP was used as a rationale for eliminating notable points of view that were critical of the subjects in the left-hand column.

I can understand (though I would disagree with) prohibiting the sources in both columns; I can see permitting the sources in both columns; if pressed to make a decision, I would permit the sources in the left column, and prohibit a handful of the sources in the right-hand column; but what I cannot for the life of me understand is the status quo.

Were the editors on Bill Moyers and Nina Totenberg wrong, or is there a failure to enforce WP:BLP on pages of the more politically unpopular? I could just remove the sources in the right-hand column, but I'd surely get accused of violating WP:POINT. So I'd like to get consensus. Can someone help me understand what the rules are here, so I don't cross the line mistakenly again? Many thanks.

Judged unacceptable source in liberal BLPs and repeatedly deleted and accusing me of being WP:TEDIOUS	Seemingly acceptable source in center-right BLPs (incomplete list of examples)
L. Brent Bozell III (head of Media Research Center, conservative media analysis group) in Nina Totenberg (liberal NPR analyst): source was critical of purported liberal bias	Media Matters for America (liberal media analysis group) in Rush Limbaugh (conservative talk-show host) Media Matters for America in Ann Coulter (conservative author) Media Matters for America in John Stossel (libertarian journalist) Media Matters for America in Anne Applebaum (center-right author) Media Matters for America in Stephen F. Hayes (conservative journalist) Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (liberal media analysis group) in Rush Limbaugh Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting in Clarence Thomas (conservative Supreme Court justice) Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting in John Stossel Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting in George Will (conservative columnist) Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting in Christina Hoff Sommers (conservative academic) Eric Alterman (liberal media critic) in Bill Kristol (conservative journalist) Eric Alterman in Elliott Abrams (Reagan-administration attorney)
Washington Post column by Charles Krauthammer (Pulitzer Prize-winning conservative columnist) in Bill Moyers (liberal PBS journalist): source singled out Moyers's rhetoric as basis for notable neologism Bush Derangement Syndrome	Bill Moyers in Karl Rove (conservative politician) George Monbiot blog post in George Will Adam Cohen op-ed in Clarence Thomas Neva Chonin (who?) in L. Brent Bozell III Roger Axtell ("an expert on body language") in Antonin Scalia (conservative Supreme Court justice) Timothy Noah's "Chris DeMuth, Hack Extraordinare" in Christopher DeMuth (conservative academic) Timothy Noah in Sarah Palin Andrew Sullivan blog post in Sarah Palin Scott Horton and Glenn Greenwald podcast in Sarah Palin
Weekly Standard (2d-largest American conservative magazine) report by Stephen F. Hayes in Bill Moyers; source (along with the Philadelphia Inquirer) examined conflict-of-interest issues in Moyers's reporting	The Nation (left-of-Democratic Party magazine) in Ron Paul (libertarian politician) The Nation in Bernard Lewis (academic) The Nation in Daniel Pipes The Nation in Bill Kristol (conservative journalist, EIC of Weekly Standard) The Nation in Elliott Abrams Scott Horton blog post in Bill Kristol South Florida Gay News in Arthur A. Goldberg (anti-gay activist and felon)
David Limbaugh (best-selling conservative author) in Bill Moyers; source (essentially parroting Krauthammer, supra) criticized Moyers's rhetoric	Al Franken (liberal author) in Rush Limbaugh Al Franken in Dennis Hopper Al Franken in Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) Keith Olbermann in David Addington (Bush administration attorney) Maureen Dowd (liberal NY Times columnist) in Antonin Scalia Maureen Dowd in John McCain

COI Disclosure: I worked for the McCain-Palin campaign for two months, and volunteered for McCain before that; Chris DeMuth was once my boss; I was a lawyer for Palin in 2008 and for the Weekly Standard in 1997; Scalia and Thomas turned me down for a clerkship, but I have friends who clerked for each of them; a former co-worker was a research assistant for Franken; I've met Kristol and Krauthammer; Applebaum and I once worked for the same employer, though I never met her; Sommers and I once worked for the same employer, and we've dined together; I sat next to Stossel at a lunch, and was on a panel with him another time; Coulter used to work for a friend; a friend works for Palin's PAC; Totenberg interviewed a partner I worked for in 2003, and I declined his suggestion that I also talk to her about the brief I wrote; Sullivan sometimes blogs from a coffeehouse I frequent; Greenwald has blogged negatively about me; Sullivan has blogged neutrally about me; I subscribed to the Weekly Standard, the Nation, the Washington Post, and FAIR's newsletter at one time or another. It's a small world here in DC.

THF (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Well, the thing that jumps out at me here is the idea of using opinion writers to diagnose psychiatric conditions (even if they are made-up ones). Seems like a pretty serious BLP problem. Guettarda (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

But it is a notable fact that Person A's comments led to notable Person B creating a notable term. Nobody claims (yet, anyway) that the Bush Derangement Syndrome article violates BLP; if the term violates BLP in one article, then it's verboten in all. BLPs are any articles that refer to living people, not just articles that have living people in the title. THF (talk) 06:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I also fail to see how the humorless epithet "hack" is any less violative of BLP than the humorous "Bush Derangement Syndrome." THF (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Because it's problematic to accuse someone of having a mental condition, even a poorly-defined one. I can't wrap my mind around how that could possibly be acceptable. We don't repeat unfounded accusations of mental illness. Guettarda (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

For one thing, no one reasonable thinks that "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is actually a mental condition (even if Krauthammer has psychological training). You still haven't responded to my argument: if the very term Bush Derangement Syndrome violates BLP, why does the article exist? THF (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You're missing my point. We have articles about all sorts of things. We have articles about things like schizophrenia and depression, but we can't say someone suffers from one of these conditions on the say-so of a newspaper columnist. Quite frankly, it would be problematic even to quote a qualified psychiatrist if they were simply speculating. Guettarda (talk) 07:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

First, even accepting the questionable premise that "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is a medical condition rather than a joke, notwithstanding the fact that the BDS article clearly states otherwise, the proposed text does not say "X suffers from BDS" or even "Y says X suffers from BDS" but the indisputable fact that "CK created the term BDS in response to statements made by Moyers." (Statements, which I might add, already make up five paragraphs in the Moyers article, including a POV quote from an entirely insignificant book that the speech was "inspiring.") If BDS is sufficiently notable to have its own article, and the Moyers speech to which CK is responding is sufficiently notable enough to be in the Moyers article, how is it the case that notable commentary from a notable columnist about a notable speech that resulted in a notable neologism violates BLP?

Second, if you are going to say that a joke about a medical condition still violates BLP, it doesn't change that Al Franken's non-medical diagnosis of Rush Limbaugh as an "idiot" is in that BLP, without any evidence that Franken is qualified to judge a mental state with legal implications. We are presumably okay with the existence of this article, notwithstanding the BLP implications, because it's understood to be a joke. I fail to see how BLP permits at least a dozen articles to repeat Franken's joke about Limbaugh, but does not permit Krauthammer's joke about Moyers to be repeated. Again: where is the consistency? THF (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Your argument fails when you try to equate calling someone an "idiot" (not used in its old-fashioned medical meaning anywhere in the world today) with the term "Bush derangement syndrome", which most definitely does contain medical terms and implies real mental disease. ► RATEL ◄ 11:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

First, you've ignored that I didn't make one argument, I made two, and you ignored the first one. As for the second one, please find me one example of someone using "Bush Derangement Syndrome" to "imply real mental disease." The wiki article on the subject certainly never comes close to asserting that it is anything of the sort. The sort of lexicographical hoops you're jumping through to distinguish what is very self-evidently a joke from equivalent jokes in other BLPs is not unlike claiming someone can't be called an anti-Semite because they only hate Jews, and not all Semites. Everywhere else, we trust readers to understand what words mean. THF (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course there are people who take it to mean a real mental disease! Take this for example (one of many): Question: And we all know where Chris Matthews works, right? Answer from Bernard Goldberg: (Laughs) That’s right. By the way, I was asked by Bill O’Reilly a week ago, “Do you think it’s a mental disease or do you think it’s business?” He was actually talking about the general Bush-hating. I immediately said, “It’s a mental disorder, because don’t underestimate the power of insanity. ‘Bush-derangement syndrome’ is for real.” [21] So please, your argument is totally baseless. ► RATEL ◄ 15:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion 2

Also, I think it is very difficult to judge the validity of your complaint based solely on this table. What we all want are sources that are authoritative for the purposes of the reference. We don't want secondary sources when we have a primary source, either. There may be invalid uses in the right-hand column; but I don't see how that can be used to justify the sources in the left-hand column. Are your sources witnesses, or commentators? Are they commenting themselves, or repeating other's coments? Also, you are interacting with different editors on the various articles, too, so there will not be identical responses to your edits. I would seek a discussion in the appropriate Wiki project for the articles. Your comments seem directed at the American liberal/right divide; I'm not American, but from what I've seen, using the terms liberal and conservative can be used as insults. The use of the word liberal especially in the phrase 'liberal bias'; so there could be objections on that basis too. Someone can be liberal; but stating that that person has a liberal bias may be beyond what a particular source can show. This whole argument of course can apply from the other point of view; sources have to be able to show the point; the source should illustrate and not be biased itself. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "Bozell says that X has a bias as demonstrated by her reporting on Y" is indistinguishable from the article that says "Franken says Z distorts the facts to serve his own political biases"--with the exception that Bozell holds himself out (and is treated by reliable sources) as an expert on media bias, while Franken was a comedy writer. THF (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No comment about which opinion writers are allowed to comment on each other, or which of these comments are Wikipedia-worthy, but I agree that using FAIR or Media Matters for America in the manner of a neutral source on conservative pundits' BLPs is a big problem (likewise for, say, Focus on the Family on left-leaning or irreligious pundits' BLPs). The real problem, though, is that on many political topics our current format emphasizes "responses" in the name of neutrality (e.g., "...which Group That Doesn't Like Things has criticized as being exactly the sort of thing that they don't like", etc. ,etc.), and the responses tend to get the last word because they are responses. I've more or less come around to the position that neutrality requires stating political positions baldly, without responses or criticism, and just linking to some article that treats all sides of the issue in full. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters is not a reliable source. I can't believe that wasn't established long ago. Maybe we should do an RfC and propose deleting it across the encyclopedia whenever it is used to establish a fact in an article. Even their quotes are unreliable. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

JohnWBarber, you're quite right. I don't thik it can be cured, though. The preponderance of Wikipedia editors, and the overwhelming majority of admins, are liberal/leftist, antd their idea of "NPOV" is well to the left of center. We're just going to have to resign ourselves to Wikipedia being considered to be a source as biased as, say, the New York Times. I just hope we can keep it from becoming as thoroughly discredied as Media Matters and DailyKos: a compendium of left-wing spin and conservative-bashing. I long ago gave up on any attempt to reform the hatchet-job bio pages on climate scientists who dissent from AGW orthodoxy ( clear violations of this bio:livingpersons policy): the unlamented WilliamConnolley may be gone but his acolytes are still in charge. Solicitr (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If you think WP bias can't be stopped, then you have to decide whether it's better to try to reduce it as much as you can, or alternatively let it get so bad that, you hope, it will become totally discredited & its bias will no longer matter. Peter jackson (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Solicitr, could you please support your claims about editors and articles with evidence? Looking around here, I see the exact opposite of what you claim. Featured articles like Ronald Reagan were written by conservatives and take a center, right of center perspective. If you have any evidence of featured articles tinged with left-wing spin, I would like to see it, otherwise I will assume you are projecting. You sound like you are lamenting the fact that Wikipedia isn't more like Conservapedia, which for all intents and purposes has become a parody of itself. There isn't a serious scholar or rational person that takes Conservapedia seriously. Viriditas (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Please drop the insulting Conservapedia strawman; no one here is proposing Wikipedia be more like Conservapedia. The proposal is that Wikipedia live up to its own standards.

• Global warming finds room to cite left-wing politicians and articles criticizing skeptics, but does not cite any skeptics themselves. The article also omits any mention of CO2/$GNP statistics, which biases it towards its conclusion that the US is a worse offender than China when the reverse is true. The article does not distinguish between skeptics of the science and skeptics of the economics, making opponents of radical climate-change policies seem like know-nothings. It also POV-characterizes the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute with the pejorative and incorrect "business-centered."

• Ronald Reagan has repetitive mentions of the International Court of Justice ruling on Nicaragua without any sourcing to or discussion of the US's position on the issue. It mentions convictions in Iran-Contra without mentioning how many of those were overturned, or mentioning the controversy over criminalizing policy differences. The far-left Mark Weisbrot is cited without qualification as saying that Reagan's policies were a failure. There's a lengthy UNDUE violation about the time Reagan chose to be sworn in when assuming the governorship.

And that's just in a quick non-systematic glance at the featured articles; I could no doubt find more problems if I studied the articles longer. (The only reason the Reagan article is as good as it is is because most of the bias has been forked off into side-articles.) For the vast majority of articles that haven't risen to FA status, the bias is even worse. THF (talk) 06:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The strawman here is the "left-wing bias" canard that always crops up as a red herring. Eric Alterman already explained it: "The conservatives in the newspapers, television, talk radio, and the Republican party are lying about liberal bias and repeating the same lies long enough that they've taken on a patina of truth. Further, the perception of such a bias has cowed many media outlets into presenting more conservative opinions to counterbalance a bias, which does not, in fact, exist." Same is true on Wikipedia. As for your lack of evidence about editors, I suggest you get to work analyzing Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits and more importantly, Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. I don't have to even look because I already know the outcome, as it is the same in most computing environments: Center to right of center, leaning libertarian. Left-wing bias on Wikipedia is a myth, just as it is in meatspace. As for the conservatively written, glorified whitewash of a hagiography known as Ronald Reagan, I'm not even going to go there, as you already destroyed your own argument by defending POV forking. Viriditas (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Where did I defend POV forking? I merely made the empirical observation that most of the subarticles about Reagan aren't nearly as unbiased as the biased feature article. You asked for evidence of bias: there is plenty at the top of this section; you asked for evidence of bias in featured articles, and your response is WP:IDHT and to cite someone who claims there's no such thing as liberal bias, which is it's own self-refutation. Do you think it's acceptable for a featured article to poison the well when discussing an organization by falsely representing its alignment? THF (talk) 11:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Separately, I note that Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_on_Media_watchdog_groups would not exist without the presence of liberal bias on Wikipedia: if there weren't any bias, there would not be a problem of the same editors adding references to Naderite-left FAIR while deleting references to the mainstream-conservative MRC, because such obvious POV-pushing would be dealt with by means other than an RFC. (Certainly a right-wing editor with that pattern on global-warming articles who so blatantly disregarded NPOV would be blocked very quickly.) And I've never seen a liberal editor be personally attacked for their politics the way conservative editors are: witness your own uncivil "Conservapedia" sneer just two paragraphs ago. THF (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So, "liberal bias" is like pornography? You know it when you see it? Viriditas (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for a response that demonstrates my point about civility quite nicely. THF (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Where's the liberal bias? You can't show any because 1) the primary editors to Wikipedia are not liberals and 2) the majority of featured articles are written from the center to center right, not from the left or towards the left. Editors who are constantly screeching about political bias are usually the ones guilty of the deed. It's like that study of homophobes that found they were actually more attracted to members of the same sex, or like the guy who farts in a small room and blames it on the dog. Viriditas (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, plenty of evidence has been provided showing liberal bias, and you've chosen to hurl multiple insults instead of addressing any of that evidence -- all at the same time providing more evidence of how little respect center-right points of view are treated on Wikipedia. You can have the WP:LASTWORD if you're going to continue to uncivilly insult instead of address the evidence. THF (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Please pay close attention: 1) Solicitr claims that most editors and admins are "liberal/leftist" and that Wikipedia is biased towards the left of center 2) I ask for evidence 3) None is provided 4) I observe that the cry of "liberal bias" is unfounded, and that most editors and admins per the computing demographic, are actually libertarian to conservative. I also observe that featured article writers and their associated articles are generally center to right of center. Are we on the same page? Viriditas (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion taking place at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_on_Media_watchdog_groups. THF (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)