Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 36

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This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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

Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change. -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, accidentally copied over the template from another guideline when setting up the page. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

IP sock

Is it okay to list a potential IP address as an IPsock, even if the IP address was not being used deceptively at the time? In particularly, I added the template to User:128.227.51.157. The evidence that it is Haizum is on the page and seems fairly clear cut to me. However User:Haizum wasn't blocked and wasn't really using the IP as a sockpuppet at the time (i.e. I don't see any evidence he? was trying to do anything illegitimate with the IP). I guess either he forgot to log on or he didn't want to log on because he was using a university computer. Is it still okay to list it in this case? I listed it because it may be useful to be aware it's an IP or IP range he may have access to, if he continues to carry out his threat to edit via sockpuppets Nil Einne (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the history, here, but if we're categorizing/tracking accounts a given blocked or banned user has used, previously, it seems to make sense that we'd do the same with IPs. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Youtube as a source

I've read here and there that you cannot use Youtube as a source, and yet, doing numerous google searching fails to turn up any policy that says so.
In particular, I'm hoping to use Youtube as a source to prove that a band was on a TV show. If the interview with the band was flighted on Romanian TV, and there is a clip on Youtube, is this not acceptable as a source to prove they were on TV? Rfwoolf (talk) 09:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That's probably a better question for WP:RSN, but my read is that what you'd want to do in that case is cite the source not as YouTube, but as the TV show itself; then in the source you can link to the YouTube reproduction of the show for convenience. As for YouTube being unacceptable as a source, the closest policy to saying that would be WP:RS. However, YouTube's really just a medium, and as for the reliability of a source, you have to consider what's being played over that medium and where it comes from. A lecture by some internationally renowned scholar broadcast over YouTube is likely to be a reliable source. Some guy ranting into his webcam probably isn't. See WP:SPS for more information about this and other self-published sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that we don't link to copyvios, so that excludes a YouTube clip of a TV show. Puchiko (Talk-email) 11:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point (although I thought YouTube was pretty aggressive about purging copyvios from its site; isn't that why you can't find Daily Show/Colbert clips there?). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No YouTube is not aggressive about purging copyvios from its site. As far as I know, they only remove copyvios in response to Cease & Desist letters or other strongly-worded complaints. Mike R (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Youtube is no different from an external link. It may contain some reliable sources, mostly it has lots of unreliable garbage. There is of course a problem of citing video sources in general - note that they are very rarely cited in academia, for example. Even documentaries and such don't have (I think) any standard citation format in Harvard style or such. At the very least, I'd expect to see time frame specified just as pages in a printed source.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how YouTube is different from WikiWorld. Opinions? superluser_tc 2008 February 22, 18:11 (UTC)

Sorry if I've missed the point, but WikiWorld is a comic strip created from free content found on Wikipedia, and YouTube is a video hosting service. Quite different. As for the matter at hand- almost every video on YouTube is either an unreliable source (some guy moaning into a webcam) or a copyvio from another source. As such, neither would be usable as sources. You could cite a programme that just happened to be illegally uploaded to YouTube, but linking to the YouTube clip would violate policy. The very rare occasion YouTube could be a legitimate source is when the publishers of a reliable source (TV show or something) upload a clip to YouTube. I know that some record labels occasionally upload their own music videos, and so I would imagine there will be a few clips of reliable TV shows that have been uploaded legally around the site. J Milburn (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

My point is that WikiWorld is an unreliable source. My question stems from this--I had been thinking of doing a series of videos based on some of the articles here, and then linking back to the videos. As the videos would be GFDL or CC-licensed, I'm wondering why WikiWorld would be used, but not (appropriately-licensed) videos. superluser_tc 2008 February 23, 20:53 (UTC)

Where is WikiWorld being used as a source? Corvus cornix_talk 23:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say that linking to unofficial YouTube videos is not acceptable (not reliable sources). However, linking to official content hosted on YouTube (such as music videos uploaded by the label itself) I would consider viable. For example, linking to LisaNova's YouTube page makes complete sense. It's the same as linking to a band's official MySpace page. If it contains further reliable information related to the subject, I think it can be included. And what does WikiWorld have to do with anything? ^_^ ~MDD4696 03:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the solution is to cite the original TV source that showed the band. But I also agree that Youtube is just another source of media and I think you should be able to cite from it, if that was the original source from which a notable topic began... such as LisaNova, or Daxflame--Sparkygravity (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

External links

I am wondering what the rational is for putting external links in their own section near the end is. [edit] would obviously be more helpful if it were a link within the list, but some editors more even inline citations to an "external links' section. Sparafucil (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, seems to me that that should not be a link but a reference. Citations should not go in External links. External links are links to related resources located in other places on the internet. ~MDD4696 03:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but why even split Further reading/ External links?Sparafucil (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocking Policy

Resolved

Isn't the attitude of Administrators in the application of Blocking Policy a bit biased? I am saying this after having experience of this. --SMS ^Talk 16:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You clearly broke 3RR, you got blocked, it's over. It happens to a lot of people, it's basically the least egregious thing you can get blocked for. WP:3RR is a good policy, and it seems to have been fairly applied in your case. If you want some free advice, let it drop, remove the 3RR note to vandals from your userpage, and this whole thing is forgotten in a month. Darkspots (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You are true i broke it and admitted it! I would have forgotten it if I haven't seen this User:BebackKeys violating WP:3RR at Scientology, and still unblocked. My intention is not to attack this editor by mentioning his case here, I just want to show that some Admins show Leniency, in blocking, while some don't. So is this "leniency" a policy or just a common practice. --SMS ^Talk 18:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Users should be warned about 3RR before being blocked for violating it. This user didn't make any reversions after being warned about 3RR. (and they were indefinitely blocked over 10 hours before this section was started, so I'm not sure where you're seeing the leniency) --Onorem♠Dil 19:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! but i couldn't find him blocked! --SMS ^Talk 19:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

go to his contributions, and hit the very small button called "block log". Darkspots (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! i missed that log! --SMS ^Talk 20:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. This is human psychology and Wikipedia policy totally ignores it, so this place is anarchy.

In this case, the admins' actions seemed justified but this isn't really the place to discuss such things.

It's best not to worry about Wikipedia quality or have any expectation of achieving anything on Wikipedia, or else you're going to eventually go crazy. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! for making an issue, which wasn't an issue at all! --SMS ^Talk 20:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What Zenwhat said above is true unless one is willing to apply ordinary communication skills. Then achieving things on Wikipedia becomes quite accessible. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

street addresses

What is the policy on street addresses. I was under the impression that addresses were generally NOT encyclopedic. Kingturtle (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Example article? I doubt that you are thinking about 10 Downing Street. But basically, buildings can be notable if they meet our general notability guidelines, and buildings have addresses. But most notable buildings have names that are better as article titles--1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is a disambiguation page. Darkspots (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Those are obviously encyclopedic. But I am not sure why school addresses (see Template:Infobox Secondary school) are encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a directory. Kingturtle (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the address of a place is an important piece of information about it. It's not that different from including the longitude and latitude of every city. It doesn't necessarily help you understand the topic, but we're a reference work for facts as well as a source for learning. That said, I wouldn't go enumerating the addresses of every building on a university campus. Dcoetzee 20:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with Kingturtle, at least in the provided example. City and State is sufficient; there are online directories for street addresses. If the address itself lends to notability, perhaps, but in a template situation I'm inclined to say forget it. CredoFromStart ^talk 20:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Where do we draw the line on addresses? and keep in mind the issue of privacy. We wouldn't necessarily put the address of Britney Spear's agent or Ellen Degeneres would we? Where do we draw the line on addresses? Should we now check all the company articles (Microsoft, Google, etc) to ensure they have addresses listed? What about their global branches? Rfwoolf (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What about this Sargodha article which also lists cell phone numbers. Is this considered encyclopedic? --SMS ^Talk 16:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed Phone numbers removed. Do you know of others Smsarmad? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Others??Sorry! Keeper i couldn't get you. Besides that I don't think that there is any need for street addresses, as mentioned by User:Kingturtle, and this article Sargodha also lists street addresses, so does it seem encyclopedic to anyone? --SMS ^Talk 16:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

We have an active geocoding project Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. I don't see why street addresses are all that different. We certainly shouldn't include street addresses for living persons (WP:BLP says so explicitly), but for public buildings, corporations, schools and the like, it should be up to the editors working on that page or in a project. I don't see a need for instruction creep here.--agr (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hidden categories discussion

There is a discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Hidden categories concerning what kinds of categories should be hidden (using the new HIDDENCAT magic word). For the moment it is proposed that hiding be applied to all categories which classify the article rather than the article subject (i.e. maintenance cats, stub cats, "Spoken articles" etc.) Please weigh in. --Kotniski (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect policy

If a page redirects to an article that does not specifically mention or discuss the redirected term, may I nominate that redirect for deletion, er, discussion?. Explain why or why not.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I am not talking about misspellings, alternate spellings, abbreviations, etc. Obviously, not every one of those would have to be mentioned in the article a redirect points to.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

example?? β^_command 01:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally the guideline regarding redirects is that they are, for the most part, "cheap." There is a speedy deletion criterion for redirects that applies to really obscure, unlikely search terms and such (WP:CSD#R3). From my experience, unless there's a compelling reason to do so, most deletion discussions of redirects end in keep. But as Beta said, just depends on the specific case. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Like a rendezvous in a seedy hotel, these redirects are "cheap" but also unsatisfying. If you, a Wikipedia reader, type in a search term hoping to read all about a highly specific topic and end up redirected to a relevant but very long article that doesn't even mention your search term once, this can be a disappointing experience. That is why I'd like to see most of these "fruitless" redirects eliminated.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There's two ways that could be taken: you can either delete the redirect, or a better solution is if the redirected term is appropriate to be discussed on the page that it is redirected to but is presently not talked about is to include discussion of that term yourself or at least let the authors know that the term is being redirected to that page and they should consider talking about that topic to some level of detail. Only in the case of patently nonsense redirects should it be deleted. --MASEM 02:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're an admin and it's truly fruitless or misleading (e.g. a misspelling nobody would ever make, or some kind of POV statement) I think you can just delete it as an IAR or housekeeping matter. If it's plausible and doesn't hurt anything, best to let it be, because for all you know somewhere in the world they use an alternate spelling (e.g. Pozole and Posole) or a colloquialism or something. If you're not an admin then I don't know. You can nominate it for G6 deletion using the {{db-maintenance}} tag. MfD seems like overkill. Wikidemo (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Just an example of what I think the poster is talking about.. Demilitarisation used to redirect to demiliterised zone (DMZ) these are two seperate topics so I created a stub on the demiliterisation.. I think this is probably the best way to handle something like this.--Shniken1 (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably a better example is something like Death of Internet predicted, film at 11, which redirected (until just now, when I R3-speedied it) to List of Internet phenomena. A similar thing happened with Shock site, where various non-notable shock sites were redirected to the Shock site page, which doesn't cover them, because they are non-notable. So, Meatspin redirected to Shock site but the term was never used. In some cases, the target article should be expanded to cover the topic the redirect would, but when that topic isn't covered and consensus seems to be not to cover it, the redirect should be deleted. (However, watch out for redirects left over from an old merge.) Mangojuice^talk 03:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Mangojuice has it right. Often in AfD debates--especially about controversial subjects--people will suggest, for example, we redirect Brian Peppers to Internet Phenomena or Wikipedia Review to Criticism of Wikipedia. But how does it help anyone who's actually looking for information on those topics if the main article doesn't devote a single word to the subject that redirects there? Far better to delete those redirects than mislead people.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

are graphs of equations OR?

I'm seeing some graphs in an article (to remain nameless) of a heavily political subject that just don't agree with my reading of the equations. The graphs are generated by someone on one side of the issue, and thus not entirely without bias, anyway.

I would like to generate some new graphs de novo, but I suspect that the people who have created the article will not appreciate them. Before I generate the graphs, I would like to make sure that I'm not doing Original Research by making graphs based off of publicly available algorithms. Opinions? superluser_tc 2008 February 27, 17:00 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Or#Original_images is the policy you're looking for. To paraphrase, yes editor-created images are generally an exception to original research. From the information you've given, I suggest you go ahead an make the new graph, then post it on the article's talk page with a list of reasons you think it's an improvement.

Regarding equations given in an article, I'm don't know of specific policy page that excludes them from OR, so believe they should always be cited.--jwanders^Talk 18:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

In the case of rendering published equations to an original image, all you are doing is translation between languages (in this case from math to cartesian). There are stylistic options in rendering (segment of axes to be shown, e.g.), but the rendered information is not optional. The NOR policy just doesn't apply because there's no research involved.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV might apply though. Since manipulating those stylistic options can leave widely different impressions on the casual reader. Taemyr (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a strong suspicion that anything challenging the consensus will be rejected per IDONTLIKEIT. If I'm going to get an image into the article, I'll have to be bold, which is why I'm making sure that I have my ducks in a row before I do it. superluser_tc 2008 February 28, 05:24 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the other strategy; just switch the image and take it to a discussion if someone else brings it up. It's great if nobody bothers, but you might find yourself on the back-foot if someone questions the change.--jwanders^Talk 07:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• One of the classic techniques in documented How to Lie with Statistics is abusing the axes of a chart. Be careful with that; and be open to discussion about how to handle that. GRBerry 05:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Edward Tufte is the antidote for that. I won't be generating sparklines, but I will try to make the data lumpy and include the same amount of data on either side of interesting data. superluser_tc 2008 February 28, 14:58 (UTC)

Disclaimers/Factual spoilers

There is currently a hot discussion here about the merits of hiding images because they spoil the medical test supported by the image. Looking at our disclaimers pages, there is a lot of material about wikipedia not hiding fictional material for spoiler reasons but the factual side to be quite vague. Where do we stand on factual spoilers? do we need clearer policy in this area? is it covered by existing policy? Do we have a duty of care beyond our duties to the encyclopedia? --Fredrick day (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been addressed, somewhat, already: [1]. The subject in question isn't exactly a "factual spoiler." It's a psychological test widely used and accepted in the professional community that depends on the test-taker not having too much exposure to the image. One extreme side wants the image on the page, so that anybody that comes upon the article about the test itself for any reason, can no longer take that test; the other extreme side felt that showing the image would be harmful to some people and should not be displayed. A compromise between the extremes was in place for quite a while. It provided the viewer with the informed choice about whether to see the image or not by having the viewer click onto it in order to display it (other proposed compromises had been to use a simulated image rather than an actual one from the test, or a blackened version of the image). The current guidelines and policies don't cover this specific case; the no disclaimer policy applies to medical advice, spoilers, legal advice, etc. I had proposed a thought experiemtn or analogy: what if the wikipedia page about antibiotics included an image of an antibiotic that automatically displayed and which magically rendered the viewer who saw it incapable of using antibiotics. Shouldn't there be a warning, preserving the right of those who want to see the image to see it (and thus harm themselves potentially, which is their free right), while not forcing everyone to see it? Faustian (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I just thought of another analogy, albeit an extreme one (tot he point of absurdity, but it still illustrates the same principle). What if seeing an image from the movie the Ring led to the consequences shown in that film? Shouldn't there be a warning that would give people the choice about whether or not to see the image, rather than just conde,n everybody who had some curiosity about the film? Isn't informed choice a good thing?Faustian (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Your examples are not remotely apropos. And even if they were: Wikipedia is not censored. We don't remove information that may lead to fanatics bombing the Wikimedia servers, or knowledge of which may make you the target of government persecution. If the test relies on people not having seen the image, it is severely flawed anyways. But that is not our problem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The second one is not; I wrote it in haste. Tee image is not censored, but hidden (requiring a click). It is no more censored than it would be if there was a seperate wikipedia page written only about the inkblots, and a link made to that page. Your comment about the test being flawed if it required someone to not be exposed to it is just your POV. Actually, most psychological tests required the person not to have been exposed to it the IQ tests come to mind). The only problem with this one is that unlike the IQ tests, the copyright for the Rorschach has expired so people who have no moral qualms about undermining a useful test can post it on the internet without any legal repurcussions.Faustian (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Committee to rewrite WP:NPOV

I have noticed that the powers that be have in the last few months made it quite clear that our current NPOV policy is outdated and should not be maintained in its current form. I suggest that under the current circumstances, having a set of NPOV texts which do not conform to the reality is unnecessarily confusing. It might benefit everyone if a committee was formed to consider new wording and rewrite WP:NPOV in that case. In particular, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE are clearly in disfavor by those in power, and should be rewritten to give a clear direction to the community, and allow uncritical description of WP:FRINGE areas and pseudoscience. How do we go about suggesting some sort of communittee or organizing ourselves to get appropriate input?--Filll (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Filll, as an admin who's an ally of yours - albeit not a terribly helpful one - let me plead with you to stop this melodramatic and borderline WP:POINTy silliness. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well we have a standing committee on the matter. But seriously, WP:SPOV was rejected and I don't think changing NPOV to incorporate it would be a good idea either. Really this is probably one of the only things that consensus would never change on. BTW Wikipedia:RFC#Request_comment_on_policy_and_conventions and WP:CENT would be the places to get a discussion together. MBisanz ^talk 16:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not suggesting WP:SPOV since that clearly is unwanted here. I am suggesting that the current standards are too vague and do not align properly with the mood of Wikipedia. And so are unnecessarily confusing and lead to too much conflict and frustration.--Filll (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Put your comments AT THE BOTTOM.

This is extremely annoying and when people do it, it makes it very difficult to read and apparently misleading. If you, for instance, rebut a certain point made by a person, some people will apparently respond to you "above" your comment for the sake of saving face. In order to read the conversation clearly and order, your eyes have to jump around, up and then down, and carefully looking at each timestamp. That's as disruptive as people not signing their comments, although in some cases (obviously) it's necessary.

This doesn't appear to be a guideline at Wikipedia:Talk. Would anyone here be willing to make it a guideline?

Another thing, too, is that there is no standard for whether stuff should go to the "bottom" or the "top." In various procedural pages, some of them work from the top down, others work from the bottom up. This likely confuses the heck out of newbies who don't know whether their comments should go at the bottom or the top, hence the reason why we're in this mess to begin with. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I write a response to a comment from an editor, then there is an edit conflict. Has happened with almost every edit in the Delegable Proxy section today. Do I put it at the bottom, or where it was originally written to go. There are formatting methods of keeping it all clear, and I do use them. Indents. Editing someone else's comment is offensive, but formating it to make it clear isn't. Sometimes it's okay to rearrange sequence .... but, usually, using indents to show sequence within some exchange is better. There are already guidelines, actually.... --Abd (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
  • Why is top-posting such a bad thing? superluser_tc 2008 February 24, 18:22 (UTC)
    • There are multiple arguments for and against chronological and reverse-chronological order - some say that by doing the last thing at the bottom means that the order of comments is preserved; my eyes don't have to move up and down to go to a reply; and that it's like reading an article. For the opposite, it gives priority to new comments and that it makes things slightly easier for threads that are fast to fix (i.e. on WP:NCP). For me, I prefer it at the bottom and proper indentation for threading, but if there is a use for the opposite and it outweighs the use of going from top-to-bottom, then use it. But I don't understand "some people will apparently respond to you "above" your comment for the sake of saving face" - I've never seen that happen - do you have anything to show for that? x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Top posting is a bad thing when the defacto consensus is to bottom post. It creates confusion, makes manual archiving more difficult, and creates the risk useful comments will be ignored because no one sees them Nil Einne (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is set up for bottom-posting, anyway.

• But then what's the point of having both styles when you can't use one with top-posting?

• • • • • Or by editing the original post

• I can change this by using colons instead

• • • I get two bullets beside the reply instead of one.
  • and I want to reply,
• If I write a bulleted comment superluser_tc 2008 February 26, 06:33 (UTC)

This is briefly mentioned at Wikipedia:Talk#Technical and format standards (under layout): "Thread your post: Use indentation to clearly indicate who you are replying to, as with usual threaded discussions. Normally colons are used, not bullet points (although the latter are commonly used at AfD, CfD, etc.)." A bit more emphasis might not hurt, but I think it's there. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I take this opportunity to again reference User:Dcoetzee/Why wikithreads are bad. Each individual reader should have the option of whether to display new messages on the top or bottom, whether to display them in a threaded manner or sequentially, and so on - but can't without a full-fledged forum system, which would have many other advantages as well. Dcoetzee 18:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Fables and Parables - source text inclusion

The article Fables and Parables contains a large section of text copied from somewhere else. I believe this kind of thing does not belong in wikipedia, and rather in wikisource or similar. Does policy state that I should remove it?--Kiyarrllston 04:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say just go ahead and remove it. This information belongs on Wikisource. Corvus cornix_talk 23:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Activity at WP:NPOV

There is an effort underway at WP:NPOV to make that policy more favorable to fringe and tiny-minority views ("sympathetic" is the word being used). This may or may not be something Wikipedia should do, but such a change should have consensus of the broader community and not just the few that hang around on the policy pages. Thus a heads-up here to broaden attention to the issue. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/Workshop has been marked as a policy

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/Workshop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change. -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This [2] appears to be a work in progress that has been prematurely transcluded. MBisanz ^talk 19:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I commented out the official policy category. Darkspots (talk) 19:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-02-01 has been marked as a policy

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-02-01 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change. -- VeblenBot (talk) 18:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

raises eyebrow whaa? --Golbez (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't been edited since 2007. Darkspots (talk) 18:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It means a page transcluded to it has had the policy cat added to it. We'll need to check each transclusion. MBisanz ^talk 19:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that the above section happening at the same time means that the pages were marked at the same moment, or was that a bot-running event? I don't see how the two pages could be related. Darkspots (talk) 19:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not related at all. The bot only runs one time per day, and makes all the announcements for the day at that moment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. –Pomte 19:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for beating me...by 5 seconds MBisanz ^talk 19:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Policy policy

Being still relatively new here, and having recently got involved in discussions involving changes in policy/guidelines, I can't help feeling that the whole page structure around this process is excessively arcane and opaque. There are so many places where changes might be discussed, and so many places where people ought to be notified of discussions taking place elsewhere, that it seems clear there ought to be one centralized page which everyone who's anyone watches, and where any policy-related discussions must be advertised before being acted on.

"Oh but there is such a place," you say, "it's this very page." Or the mailing list. Or the community portal. Or the centralized discussions page. Or RFC/Policies. Or some other page I don't even know about yet, or that I've already forgotten. So in fact there isn't one centralized page at all; there are several competing centralized pages. Can't we tidy this up? Have one page, well-known to everyone, which simply lists and briefly summarizes ongoing discussions. And an explicit meta-policy stating that no material change to policy/guidelines can be made until consensus has been reached in a discussion which has been advertised on that central page (for a specified number of days). This way no-one can object that they were left out of a discussion, as also seems to have happened recently. (Oh and perhaps a separate, protected namespace for policies and guidelines, to prevent unauthorized edits or unapproved pages masquerading as policy.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of what you propose would be practical.

Note that arbitrators have generally refused to take Arbcom cases where they're asked to take policy-setting measures. Now there's a relief, at least one place where the discussion is not taking place.

We used to have a well-advertised guideline page explaining the process of policy-building here at Wikipedia. The page was not appreciated in the long run: I saved a part of it, added new content and converted to essay. Here's the link: Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance.

The only thing not practical, and which I vigorously oppose is having policies and guidelines in protected places. Not that we didn't have proposals in that sense, I recall Wikipedia:Editing policy pages most prominently, discussed in central places. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

New Essay

Please see WP:SOW/REAP, which was inspired by a discussion last night at WP:AN/I. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

it seems to ignore the gnomes quietly editing away with little interaction with other users. Dan Beale-Cocks 21:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Doing that successfully is an example of successful interaction with others. Some people try to be an unobtrusive Wikignome and do it wrong. Being invisible is a skill, as is reacting appropriately when you're inevitably approached with some question or concern. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is he bringing this up here? That essay is painfully short. Average White Dork (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I bring it up because I've seen a lot of people leave Wikipedia over causes boiling down to what it says. It's rather true. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's also belied by its shortness, for the perceptive. That will become clear over time. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Quoting a person

Apparently Wikipedia policies (most notably WP:SPS) requires that a direct quote has to be attributed to a third party source. It's like, I can't write - Mr. B said "XYZ" - and link it to Mr. B's website, or book or whatever. By the policies, I must write something like - In the book D, Mr. B has been quoted as saying "XYZ" - and link it to an website or the book that isn't related to Mr. B. Isn't this a bit crazy? The most reliable source for a direct quote can only be a self-published source. I cannot misquote me more than you can. Right? Is this policy direction for real? Or is this just a bizarre perversion of the spirit of Wikipedia? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If it is for real, then presumably it's overridden by WP:IGNORE (see WP:Common sense).--Kotniski (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It depends who Mr B is, and what he said. If Mr B is important then there should be plenty of stuff about him, and so I guess you could ignore all rules and do direct quotes. BUT if Mr B is some minor fringe wing-nut then you need to be careful with sourcing. It might be useful if you gave some examples of who Mr B is so editors could give further advice. Dan Beale-Cocks 12:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It does sound strange; third-party sources are generally needed for neutrality and notability, but not necessarily for all fact, in my opinion. SamBC(talk) 14:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact, check out WP:SELFPUB, although it's not unusual in my experience to find those permissions a little restrictive. SamBC(talk) 14:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(reduced indent) Well, my question was about the general scene. But, it was inspired by a very specific case. Int he article on Whale tail, I added the following:

According to Urban Dictionary, a book and a website complied by Aaron Peckham (a source cited by mainstream news media), it is also known as a pull me thong.

It was reverted in quick succession by two different editors (both pretty experienced). The discussion is here. But, please, believe that I don't mind this particular piece of information never showing up (I have seen much worse, and I trust this process of rejection and dispute be the hallmark of a community project). My general worry is about the implication.

When you start saying "every statement must be sourced" and "every source must be third-party" and "every third-party should be authenticated by an authority", and then include everything under the sky into that narrow doctrine, it becomes really constricting, and counter-productive. That kind of standard already calls for more than two-third of the Wikipedia to be deleted/removed, and nothing but an Encyclopedia Britannica type authoritarian academic standard to prevail. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You should be aware of WP:SELFPUB, which allows self-published sources to be used as sources about themselves.

The problem with things like UrbanDictionary is that literally anyone can add anything; so something being in there in no way establishes notability or verifiability. If I thought that Bill Gates was an alien from Mars, I could go to UrbanDictionary, add "Bill Gates is an alien from Mars", then add to his article "According to UrbanDictionary, Bill Gates is an alien from Mars" (or, if I wanted to use a definition that's already there, apparently I could use Urban Dictionary to source that Bill Gates is "a nazi", or "the devil in disguise"). Allowing things to be in Wikipedia articles just because they're in UrbanDictionary opens the doors to pretty much literally everything. The book may be a bit more reliable than the website.

Some self-published sources are fine, and if you want to establish what Bill Gates says about MacOS, citing his blog is fine, because things on there can reliably be taken to have been said by a known, notable person (i.e. Bill Gates). UrbanDictionary, though, has too little editorial oversight and accountability of contributors (in both cases, none that I am aware of) for inclusion of a term in it to really be taken to signify anything. TSP (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This sounds pretty reasonable. If this doesn't include all quotes, then I really don't see a problem. And, really, my worries are not about UrbanDictionary at all (though it's pretty near to impossible to authenticate emerging dialectical terms, a.k.a. neologisms, to be put into articles as alternative names for something... *sigh*). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

ANI locked?

Why is the WP:ANI page blocked for new users? I had a incident and question to report on there? Or am I mistaken? It seems like I can't edit that page. Average White Dork (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Occasionally ANI is semi-protected for short periods when there is heavy amounts of vandalism to it. As an alternative you could try WP:AN, but it is a rare occurrence that ANI is protected. (And yes, it was semi protected on March 1) - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Promote definition of "source" in verifiability policies

Please consider the following language to be added to WP:V [3]:

A source is where you, the author of the article, read material. This may sound obvious, but it means that material the immediate source quotes or cites is also subject to verification if there is doubt. It also means that you are responsible for citing the immediate source. (See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Say where you found the material.)

The short justification: I continue to find many places where people do not seem to understand this, and who believe that if they use a secondary source for material, they have to acknowledge the source they actually used. Therefore they cite the ultimate source without acknowledging that they haven't actually seen it. At present I'm involved in a case where the ultimate source doesn't appear to exist, though if it did exist it might be considered a valid secondary source if it could be verified directly.

Please discuss in the appropriate section on WP:V. There is a related passage suggested for WP:RS. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT addresses the point directly but I feel the principle needs to be expressed higher up the tree. Mangoe (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Serbia vs. Kosovo

I have been patrolling recent changes for quite some time, and I have noticed that articles about cities, towns, counties, etc. that are located in Kosovo are being changed from Country: Serbia to Country: Kosovo to Country: Serbia to Country: Kosovo ad infinitum.
I think we should write at least a temporary guideline regarding this since I (and I assume many others) are unsure of whether to revert these changes. Most English-speaking countries, indeed most Western powers, including the US, the UK, France and Australia have formally recognized Kosovo's independence. Because as far as I can tell, based on Image:Kosovo relations.svg, no English-speaking country has outright refused to recognize Kosovo, I would like to propose that all places/buildings/whatever that are located in Kosovo be identified as Country: Kosovo in the English Wikipedia. What do other people think? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. The more important thing is that we stop the edit warring. Perhaps a footnote somewhere noting the justification for one over the other. ~MDD4696 03:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So, should I make sure that articles say the country is Kosovo, not Serbia? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This is just my suggestion on how to handle this. I'm not sure whether this is productive or not, but I think the key is to set up one central place for discussion of this issue. Perhaps here? (or not -- perhaps long threads are not wanted here.) Perhaps on the talk page of a new temporary guideline page, as you suggest? Perhaps on the talk page of a larger, more prominent city in Kosovo? And then you can place notices on the talk pages of the various articles where the reverts are happening, asking people not to revert except according to a clear consensus established at the central place for discussion, and providing a link to it. And at the central place for discussion, you can present arguments such as the above. At least, this is the usual procedure I think, but I wonder if it would create more conflict in a case like this. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of [quasi-]states that are not universally accepted as nations. IIRC, PR China doesn't recognize Tibet or Taiwan. Turkey doesn't recognize Kurdistan. Palestine doesn't recognize Israel. In order to avoid edit wars ad nauseum on arbitrary POV, may I suggest that a general policy on disputed nationhood and boundaries should be constructed and applied. My preference for nationhood would be to adopt whatever position the UN General Assembly takes. When they're voting members in the UNGA, they're in WP as a nation (or the converse). Then note the existence of the dispute and leave it at that. (A template needed, perhaps?)LeadSongDog (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a good criterion. Switzerland only joined the UN in 2002, but no-one denied that they are a recognized state (and have been for a long time). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the United Nations General Assembly should be the standard. Taiwan is considered a country (except by China), yet the it was thrown out of the General Assembly. --SMP0328. (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a single ironclad standard is going to work. For example, Kosovo is not likely to become a UN member for a long time, because Russia will veto any attempt to join. I think J.delanoy's rough standard of whether or not most English-speaking countries have recognized a state is a good one. Darkspots (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note on Taiwan, they were removed from China's seat at the UN which resulted in them being removed from the general assembly. So the UN has not said that Taiwan is not a country but that they do not represent China. Taiwan has recently tried (unsuccessfully) to get their own seat though... --Shniken1 (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternative standards? Acknowledgment by all bordering states? Half of all UNGA members? (big job to keep track of all the positions) Half the global population? (too easy, with just China and India you're almost there) Half the global GNP? (like it or not money talks) Certainly an English-language criteria won't cut it. You could wind up with the decision hanging on the Liberian or Caymanian position while ignoring the Russians, Chinese or French positions. Any old regional power block? (what if the African Union disagrees with the European Union over a middle east territory's statehood?) There is an informative discussion at Country#Nation, country and state: a comparison but no clear answer.LeadSongDog (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There's absolutely no need to make this harder than it has to be. A rough, common-sense standard, settled on a case-to-case basis, is all that's needed, because that's the way the world itself makes these determinations. We should care more about what English-speaking countries say and do because a) we're the English wikipedia and b) America is the most important country in the world, Britain is one of the most important countries, and Australia is a very important country in Asia, where a lot of who-is-a-state flux is happening, and all three countries are generally considered to be sensible on these sorts of issues. Nobody needs to rush about worrying about what the Cayman Islands think about East Timor or Kurdistan. Obviously whether or not America has recognized a country is something the whole world wants to know, and a lot fewer people care about Canada and Liberia's positions. Everyone knows very well why Spain and Russia haven't recognized Kosovo, and those countries' concerns about breakaway provinces means that the fact that they have not recognized this new country gets discounted. Common sense should be our chief guide. Darkspots (talk) 05:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. "Common-sense" (ad-hoc) decision making is a guaranteed recipe for edit warring between editors who are partisans of either side: on WP decisions are only taken if you can arrive at consensus (unless you wish to force every new country through an ARBCOM process). If we want to claim a neutral point of view our only interest in language should be accessibility to the reader. Yes we prefer to have English language references to cite, but the foreign policy position of a country is in no way made more or less important based on the languages spoken in it. Every large, diverse federation I can think of has multiple languages (official or not) but we're not going to start applying weighting factors on the position of India or Pakistan based on the percentage of their English speakers. No ruleset agreed on is going to separately consider the foreign policy of present-day Wales, Hong Kong or Hawaii - states or not, they are represented globally by larger federal actors. It may not even be possible to determine if they have a foreign policy on the independence of Pirate Bay.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

How about the straightforward test: "What does ISO3166 say?" It coincides nicely with all the WP management tools that way. LeadSongDog (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No. This list takes unlike entities and gives them equal standing. Example: British Indian Ocean Territory is on the list and has a top-level code. But it's an overseas territory run by an official living in the UK--very far away from being an independent country. Why do we need to have this decision made by an outside authority? Every outside authority is making decisions based on its needs, not ours. WP:CONSENSUS, the basis of the way we make decisions, works very well in many, many cases. Look at Republic of China, an incredibly complicated, controversial case of sovereignty and statehood. ISO lists it as TAIWAN, PROVINCE OF CHINA. It is not a member of the UNGA. Nevertheless, it functions as a state--it has an independent government, military, foreign policy, etc. We show that complexity in both brief, punchy statements and in great detail (Political status of Taiwan). I think we do it very well. I'm sure (without investigating very much) there has been more edit warring than you can shake a stick at. But we have some great articles at the end of the day if you want a balanced view of a controversial situation. I did a search of Arbcom completed cases, and found nothing much about China. Why would Arbcom have to make a decision about this? The process works without a central authority making a final decision. I obviously have a very utilitarian view of what a state is. The Montevideo Convention's basic definition works for me. Deciding whether an entity meets that standard is a question for consensus. Obviously (to me), when Britain, America and France recognized Kosovo, they were an independent country from that moment onwards, because sufficient military force had committed to Kosovo's survival as a state.

All that said, you make a deciding point about NPOV re: English-language sources. It happens that the world's superpower is an English-speaking country and several other English-speaking countries are very important players on the world stage, but there are clearly other important countries from a foreign-policy perspective that speak different languages. Darkspots (talk) 13:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We can all see how well the rational discussion at Talk:Kosovo has been progressing. These idiotic racist Balkan factions are always looking for another venue to push their agendae, now they've come to WP. While I'm normally disposed to assume good faith it's pretty much an untenable assumption there. The result has been an article that is an embarrassment to all of WP. Indeed, virtually every history article in the region is plagued by the same behaviour. I think you may have missed your own point on ISO3166: it already has the compromise language that has been worked out globally (not just amongst wikipedians). "British Indian Ocean Territory" clearly calls it a territory. "Taiwan, Province of China" says neither "of the Peoples Republic of China" nor "of the Republic of China". Neither side is happy with the compromise position, but they can live with it and for the time being, nobody's shooting. LeadSongDog (talk) 15:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I went to the link I placed above at the ISO website, which I didn't think was very helpful as I outlined above. Can you give us a better link that would demonstrate what you're saying?

To me, "Taiwan, Province of China" might make neither side happy but it also does a poor job of describing the actual situation on the ground. We do a much better job with our articles.

I don't think you should refer to any contributors as "idiot racists". And this situation on Kosovo will get worked out, if past history is a guide. We have mechanisms for discouraging POV pushing. Darkspots (talk) 16:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be necessary, but the fact is these people continue to fight over what their ancestors did to each other. That's as good an example as I can think of for idiocy. World War I wasn't bad enough for them? LeadSongDog (talk) 17:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, so far a minority of the world's countries representing a minority of the world's population, have recognized Kosovo. And nor has the UN, the EU (a minority of EU members have recognized, although they are the largest ones), etc. etc. It's probably premature for wikipedia to do so.Faustian (talk) 18:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Turns out the ISO3166 codes derive from this UN table. The ISO3166 FAQ is also interesting.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be counter-productive to add another guideline to cities like Kosovo, these are people who are willing to die for their cause, which means that another guidline won't help, you have to put a straight out block onto the sites relating to Serbia and Kosovo, otherwise the changes and vandalism won't stop.Tom.mevlie (talk) 23:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the FAQ is interesting. I find the statement "By adhering to UN sources the ISO 3166/MA stays politically neutral." to be one of the most amusing things I've read today. And the UN table is just spooky. Where's the ROC? Did those 23 million people just vanish? It ain't exactly Sealand.

Yes, a minority of the world's countries representing a minority of the world's population have recognized Kosovo. On the other hand, the majority of the permanent members of the UNSC have recognized Kosovo, as have a majority of the world's superpowers. Yes, China and Russia can veto America, Britain, and France in the security council. But they won't go to the mat to keep Kosovo part of Serbia, either. Darkspots (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This UN list has direct discussion of some disputed names while omitting others. here they include Taiwan as a province and here they say why. Another lengthier discussion from 2001 is here LeadSongDog (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)