Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive AL

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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

Barnstars

Recently, I was given a barnstar by an editor and I wanted to express my thanks. I discovered that on their talk page, there were many messages of thanks, I checked the editors contributions and I found that the editor, had given literally, hundreds of barnstars. I confronted the editor, Sharkface217, who is very decent with this message -

It is obvious that you like to give out Barnstars by the hundred, and I'm sure everyone that has received a Barnstar from you is very appreciative. However, I must advise you that giving a Barnstar to just everyone you come across is not the way to do it. Barnstars are awarded as special recognition, and the giving out of hundreds degrades the quality and significance of the award. Please bear this in mind, as you continue to edit, and I advise that you give out no more for the time being. If you want awards yourself, trading barnstars is not a good way to do it either, it is much better to earn recognition for excellent editing and community service that to simply buy them from other editors.

He responded with:

It is probably true that I have given out far too many barnstars than what is good, I would like to note that they greatly boost the morale of long-time Wikipedia contributors who have received little or no recognition. Certain "Smile tags" are ok, but really serve no purpose. Almost all of those who do have Barnstars on the Wikipedia community have many. Barnstars awards are usually concentraded; most users who do have at least one have many more. Other users who I have awarded Barnstars to have been here for years and have edited many good articles with no recognition whatsoever.

I am willing to greatly curtail my current habits of giving out Barnstars, but I would like to note that Wikipedia has lost many important users, such as RickK (who, I might add, has a Barnstar named in his honor. He left because he recieved little or no recognition while those who played the system and vandalized were mistakenly rewarded), because they see their efforts as going unappreciated. -- Sharkface217

I agree with him, but think that the issuing of thousands degrades the worth. We then both decided to bring this issue into public domain. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . 3 06:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In a way, you're both right, since you both made very good points. Everyone appreciates recognition, but handing out hundreds of Barnstars tends to cheapen them somewhat. Sometimes it actually is enough to just Smile and say "Thanks" :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 06:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I got a barnstar from Sharkface217 yesterday. Yes, barnstars do boost morale and yes, they should be handed out parsimoniously (and they are for the most part). But I don't see a big problem in the occasionnal barnstar-crazy user. That's just part of Sharkface's wikipersonality. And I think it's also ok to tell him nicely if you think he's going overboard. Pascal.Tesson 07:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The value of the barnstar is only the degree of value it has to the person who receives it. For someone who maybe benefit from a "morale boost" or some recognition, a given barnstar holds just as much value to the receipt if it's given sparingly as if it was given in the thousands. For others, it may not mean anything. Then there are receivers who may increase or lessen its personal value to them based on who the giver is. I know a barnstar given from a respected editor means a lot simply because of the respect of that editor. In short, I wouldn't worry about the number of barnstars Sharkface gives out. I don't think there is any harm and at best, I'm sure there is some benefit. Agne 07:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In my view, if you merely wish to thank people in general, you say "thank you". Barnstars are for ongoing contributions or single notable accomplishments. The reason they are meaningful is because they are a unique, personal award for a unique, personal contribution. Did Sharkface interact with those hundred users, or indeed even know what those hundred users had done that might deserve a barnstar? If he researched the contributions of each one and found something unique and worthy of a personal barnstar, then great. Otherwise, he's turning the barnstar into the equivalent of those "Sunshine student" and "Biggest smile" awards they give to kids in kindergarten: everyone receives an award, so nobody is actually recognized for their unique accomplishments. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 09:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the barnstar craze is annoying. Incidentally, I remember a user who displayed a similar pattern of behaviour, attempting to use these flattering ways to get himself promoted to admins. Im my experience, barnstar-happy behaviour often reveals lack of interest in content, immaturity, or penchant for trolling. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I was both surprised and very pleased to have gotten a Minor Barnstar. It really was one of the best moments I've had on Wikipedia so far. I agree that handing them out by the "thousands" cheapens it -- but if someone deserves it, doesn't that make it okay, regardless of how many other people are getting barnstars at the same time? --Wolf530 01:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey all, I'm here to expand upon my original point. English Wikipedia has over 2,000,000 accounts, most of which are used infrequently. However, a good deal of them are used quite frequently. Of those that are used quite frequently, only a very, very, very small minority have Barnstars. The other accounts get almost nothing. Today I gave several stars out to editors who had been on Wikipedia much longer than I had (Some since November 2004) with many edits but no credit going their way. Indeed, I notice those that get no credit often do not speak on Discussion pages often, instead spending all their time either adding and improving articles or quietly fighting Vandals.

I do understand the sentiment that giving out Barnstars en masse will degrade its significance. I also believe that thousands, maybe even tens of thousands more Wikipedians would have to have at least one barnstar before we reach that point. Sharkface217 01:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to mention that Wikipedia has lost many hardworking, important, and influential users (I mentioned RickK before) due to the lack of recognition or boredom. Isn't the point of Esperenza (or one of it's missions) and other Wikipedia projects to keep long-time users from leaving due to the stress of the site/real life? Isn't that one of the reason's why those green stress-o-meter things exist? Sharkface217 02:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Where's mine? John Reid ° 06:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I am one of those guys who received a barnstar from Sharkface217. For me it was one of the happy moments at wikipedia. I've been here for a year and a half and do a couple of edits almost every day. But because I've never pushed an article to FA and don't work in a specific field but rather here and there, I guess its hard to catch anyone's attention. If I really deserve a barnstar or not I don't know but its nice to get appreciation from someone and it boosts the morale. So, I guess it did its job. Thanks, Splette :) Talk 18:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I also received a Barnstar from Sharkface217 recently. While I was pleased with the recognition, I wondered how he came across me (we'd never met in editing as far as I know), and I must admit that I felt a little ambivalent when I saw that he had been handing them out by the hundreds. To me, that devalues the concept of a Barnstar. Recognition is important, true, but as someone once said to me, "a barnstar's value derives solely from the reputation of the user who bestows it". I think this is true, and that it should remain true.

Sharkface, perhaps you should realize that true recognition lies in letting someone know that you have really taken the time to read through their contributions, and that you appreciate them. A specific message ("Your expansion of Bono Manso is superb. Thanks for taking the time to actually read offline sources and improve this article. Know that your contributions to Wikipedia are highly appreciated.") can be of great value to an editor. Your messages in contrast are very generic (e.g. 'For many contributions with limited reward...', 'For dedication to improving and expanding Wikipedia....', . This makes it feel like you have not taken the time to really familiarize yourself with the contributions of the receiver. Add to this the fact that you've been handing out the exact same message to many people ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], to pick some random examples), and you'll understand why some doubt the value of your approach.

Your explanation here clears things up somewhat. But still, the point remains that this may well cause inflation of the Barnstar. While I do not doubt your good intentions (and let me once again stress that I'm glad with the recognition in itself), you should keep in mind that others, seeing how much Karma it brings you, may copy your strategy for their own good and much to the detriment of the barnstar. Consider giving out a little Sunflower of Thanks, and a more personal message. That way, more of us will feel really appreciated. — mark ✎ 19:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a bit more detail, Sharkface217 subsequently started spamming many of the same users that he gave barnstars to with requests to support his nominated article at Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight on November 5th. He was successful, so I suppose the lesson to be drawn from all this is that spamming, bribery and vote-stacking is now acceptable. Good to know. - BanyanTree 17:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, that doesn't sound too good. Sharkface, care to comment on this issue? — mark ✎ 20:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

My view on Barnstars is that there should be a great effort made to reward them to the countless individuals who deserve them. I agree that while nice, giving a truck load out to those who only have say 3 main space edits is a bit too casual. One thing that bothers me greatly (according to the Sharkface news above), is Barnstar debt. I think its shameless to give so many Barnstars and in return expect more than a very well thought out thank you or say another barnstar for your user page. Its more than just bad taste, its extortion.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


Whoops, sorry about not replying to this sooner. I am currently on Wikibreak but decided to stop in to see how things are going. In responce to Banyan, I admit to making some huge blunders that week relating to my campaigning for the US-Australia relations article. Yes, I do admit to campaigning and that most of or all the people (to my knowledge, anyway) who did vote for that as the Wikipedia Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight, but I would also mention that there were many more I did not award barnstars to who I asked to vote for the topic, which, I might add, I started many months ago. It should be noted that I was punished for these actions (rightly so) as I did not know the Wikipedia spam policy ofWP:ACOTF. My lack of familiarity of Wikipedia policy is no excuse. As such, I am in the process of reviewing all of Wikipedia's rules (or I was before my wikibreak, anyway) and I am currently awarding very few, if any barnstars. Banyan, my block history if fully accessable through my talk page and I have nothing to hide. I fully admit to my failures in this case and I was not bribing anyone. Hopefully, this issue will move beyond me and my failures and instead to the topic at hand: What is the criteria for awarding out barnstars and how many is too many? Sharkface217 03:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't be a dick as a component of WP:TRI

Heh, I don't clearly understand the don't be a dick case, namely the goal of its existence. Why its corollaries are Be civil, Keep your cool, assume good faith and avoid personal attacks since the principle contradicts all of them? :) --Brand спойт 03:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

if you are referring to the title of the guideline, i think that it sums up the aims quite succinctly; there are far, far more offensive things on the internet than the word 'dick'; and they can be found quite unintentionally by a google image search. --Kaini 03:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Since the don't be a dick is a part of WP:TRI (which is in turn among Wiki's basic info) I personally don't understand how this principle could be a "basic social policy", which as stated has no definition. Currently a significant part of the principle drops out of NPOV and has an ambiguous character. The renaming discussion seems to be ceased. --Brand спойт 03:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
the title of the guideline transgresses linguistic boundaries pretty well though, and therefore makes the meaning far more apparent to a wider audience than an alternative phrasing. if you understand the meaning of the word 'dick' in the perjorative sense, then you understand the policy. far more people understand 'don't be a dick' than understand 'don't engage in personal attacks, don't make articles or edits in order to prove a point, and apologize if you're wrong'. i think that the guideline in question gets across a relevant point in a very efficient way, personally. --Kaini 04:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Though I support the statement that Wiki is not censored, in this case I don't think it's the way of keeping such a title only because it has a fixed linguistic boundaries thus making the meaning far more apparent. It simply looks like an appealing to vulgarity. Apparently a much more laconic and appropriate title for this policy exists. BTW, of course there are far more offensive words on the web, but it's only a kind of one trash. In my opinion the policy should be finally renamed and the content partially revised. --Brand спойт 05:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
It would lose something if you tried to be tactful about it. The lack of any tact is what gives it its effectiveness. "Don't be a dick" is far more effective than, say, "Please stop acting like a child" or "Quit being a douche." – Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I personally like the "don't be a dick" line. It encompasses a lot of stuff in one simple sentence that cuts right to the point, although it does boaderline rudeness. If you're confused about it, have you actually read the "don't be a dick" page? (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick) --`/aksha 08:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't be a dick is a very important rule but note that asking somebody to follow it is "something of a dick-move in itself". I think it's really important for me to keep the rule in mind, though, and try to follow it to the best of my ability. All of us act like dicks from time to time; we need to minimize that.

The page says "dick" because that's what you shouldn't be: a dick. "Dick" has a highly specific meaning, although very hard to define. We've all met full-time dicks; you can hardly go out in the world and do business for a day without running into one. Your boss may be a dick; just being a boss tends to bring out dickness. Dicks are worse than, say, jerks; the latter may just be sort of stupid and careless; dicks are deliberately annoying. No other Anglo-Saxon word has quite the same flavor.

The most important thing to remember is: "If you've been labeled as a dick, especially if you have been told this by several people in a particular community, it might be wise to consider the possibility that it is true." This applies to all of us, everywhere, at all times. John Reid ° 09:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've read the page completely and agree that the lack of tact gives the effectiveness, but it's a vague effectiveness, which as I think shouldn't be used as a policy. The "don't be a dick" may be used as an essay, but not as a component of WP:TRI in its present form (especially while asserting that it is very hard to define). Of course being a boss or someone like him tends to bring out dickness, but Wikipedians are neither bosses nor any other kind to which the word "dick" could be applied by default. So I think that the statements like "if a significant number of reasonable people suggest, whether bluntly or politely, that you are being a dick, the odds are good that you are not entirely in the right" and "if you've been labeled as a dick, especially if you have been told this by several people in a particular community, it might be wise to consider the possibility that it is true" are simply ridiculous (mainly because Wikipedians should not label any particular Wikipedian as a "dick"). The dick policy may apply to all of its adherents. I'm out of them and personally like what Jimbo once said: "Here we are Wikipedians, which means: thoughtful, loving, neutral". --Brand спойт 16:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the dick rule is important, but its mention on TRI needs to be reworded to avoid saying "policy". "A general community consensus" perhaps? EVula 16:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
One problem with the admonition is that it's US English, and so may be either confusing or more offensive than it's meant to be to speakers of other forms of English. For example, its most obvious British English equivalent has an undertone of agression that may not be present in the US form. Another problem is that it's the kind of adolescant invective I'd expect from a nerd who spends too much time of his time on Wikipedia. But that might just be a problem of translation. Countersubject 17:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It might offend some Americans, too. Don't be dense might be a better way to go. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 20:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, do we really need to be frightened of maybe offending some Americans with "dick"? I'm from the U.S., and it doesn't offend me at all. "Dense" doesn't have anywhere near the same punch as "dick" does. EVula 21:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Apparently the US usage in particular doesn't reflect a global point of view. As I suspect, a significant part of non-native English speakers could be surprised the "don't be a dick" being a policy. The point is rewording to avoid saying policy, as EVula has wrote above. I know that I'm probably in minority and that the revision might be painful to the policy's adherents, but would like to know the opinions on that. --Brand спойт 22:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh I agree totally... I don't find it offensive either. I was responding to the previous comment which said it might be offensive to non-Americans.
There is a certain gracefulness in going with dense rather than dick though, since if someone's a dick calling them a dick isn't going to be helpful (since dicks are dicks and pointing that out is just asking for further dickery), but if you point out that someone's being dense, they might be more likely to say "what makes you say that?", rather than "yo mamma". --SB_Johnny|talk|books 21:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a prude about language in general, but in a world where tempers can easily flare (read: Wikipedia), why go out of our way to couch it in such an abrupt fashion? As someone noted, it tends to evoke the response, "Yo mama" (or the equivalent), which isn't useful. I wouldn't say it in front of my grandmother, or my mother, or my children. Profanity and/or "colorful language" has its place, but in controversy and argument, I feel that it becomes a species of emotional violence to use it. -- PKtm 22:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that's the thing. I'd say that to my friends when appropriate, but I wouldn't say it to someone in the supermarket without being ready for a brawl. I probably wouldn't say "don't be dense", either: maybe the best policy would be "Oh give me a break, man!". --SB_Johnny|talk|books 22:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above concerns, I don't think it's a very clever page - it contradicts WP:AGF - and, as Countersubject notes, it carries an undertone of aggression in British English that may not be known to US editors, where different words have different powers of offense. Basically, if one stranger in the UK said to another "don't be a dick" - that's a pretty offensive statement quite likely to lead to a smack in the face! The bottom line is that such sentiments do little to improve editorial harmony.--Zleitzen 22:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
"Don't be dense" just doesn't work here. Denseness refers to your intellect, not your attitude, and I don't think we have a better word for the attitude problem it describes that isn't even more offensive. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 22:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
One solution would be to phrase it positively rather than negatively. I vote for Wikipedia:Be excellent to each other. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like something out of the King James Version... just a step below Wikipedia:Thou shalt not be a stumbling block to the brethren. The point of the phrasing is that it be a non-esoteric policy. The major policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:CIVIL, etc. all assume you know a bit about Wikipedia, or at least the internet, in order to properly comprehend them. WP:DICK is the absolute entry level of policy. You can't misconstrue the meaning of "Don't be a dick" the same way you can misconstrue the Undue weight policy, for instance. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 23:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's straight out of Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. I don't see how it's possible to misconstrue a rule that says "hey, treat each other excellently!" Apparently the way it's couched as a "Do Not" offends some people, so I'm saying why not couch it as a "Do" instead? Is that a bad idea? Is "treat each other well" actually esoteric? Does anybody think that being a dick is an example of treating each other excellently? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In reply to the original posting by Brandmeister... If one is applying WP:DICK to others, then it is indeed a violation of AGF, CIVIL, NPA and COOL. (It even says that calling someone a dick is itself a dick move.) If one is applying it to oneself though, then it doesn't fall afoul of any of those. Indeed, all of those corollary policies are undermined if they're used as accusations against others, and they all find their correct expression in rigorous application to oneself, even - especially - in cases where one feels that others may be violating them. This should perhaps be clarified somewhere? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the point, GTBacchus. --Brand спойт 23:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
This discussion is either very funny or very sad. See irony. I'd also suggest see wanker, but the argument might seem a little circular ... Countersubject 23:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Pfft, forget all the above. I officially subscribe to Don't be a fucking douchebag instead. EVula 05:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That's helpful :). What about something like Be bold in rethinking? --SB_Johnny|talk|books 11:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, here's a draft... Wikipedia:Be bold in rethinking. Could be a start to a positive version of the policy? --SB_Johnny|talk|books 11:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
WRT to dickery: Wasn't it Oliver Wendell Holmes who said "I can't define obscenity, but I know it when I see it."?? The same could be applied to Don't be a Dick: It is why it is left undefined. We all know what a "dick" is; if you hear that someone else is called a "dick", you have a pretty good idea in mind about their behavior. We all have the same basic ideas in mind. If someone calls you a dick, you know exactly what they are accusing you of. There is a community concensus on civil behavior, behaviours outside of the norm are considered dickish. The policy is concise, to the point, and unambiguous, even if undefinable. We can't define dickish behavior, but we all know it when we see it. To define it is to inadequately capture it. A comprehensive list of dickish behaviors would never capture the whole nature of dickery. It's a very Gestalt thing. --Jayron32 06:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't be a dick cannot ever be policy. You can't tell somebody Don't be a dick, that's "something of a dick-move in itself". "Don't be a dick" is something over which to meditate; perhaps, to measure one's own dickness against. That's all. John Reid ° 09:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with John Reid. This would be a completely ludicrous thing to define as policy. The word is utterly subjective; defining it as WP policy would be tantamount to inviting users to fling it at anyone who disagrees with them, as currently occurs with the term 'troll' under WP:NOFEEDING. Also, although I'm no prude when it comes to language, I think it would be hypocritical of the Wikipedia community to introduce this controversial word as policy, and at the same time continue blocking users for profane vandalism. Basically, as a member of AMA (Association of Members' Advocates), I've seen what happens with some Wikipedia policies, particularly the no-trolling rule; users just shout 'troll' at anyone who disagrees with them. We need all policies to be clearly defined in proper, precise language; and we need to assume that Wikipedia users are intelligent enough to understand these policies, rather than trying to reduce them to some kind of sweeping universal statement. So I would argue for deletion of this essay, and will passionately oppose its introduction as policy. Walton monarchist89 10:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that some are being too quick to delete articles. If NOBODY sees merit in an article, well okay, but if even a couple of people find an article useful and intriguing, keeping it is less likely to do harm than not having it. I have noticed this too quick to delete trend on many articles that could have value if improved and that I in particular like. I always thought that the purpose of encyclopedias is to catalog human knowledge. Why limit ourselves? Blatantly false articles, I can understand as having no useful place here, but many lists are helpful an convenient, especially for those of us who simply don't have time to search through multiple articles. I realize Wikipedia must have some kind of server limits, but nevertheless many of the deletions will end up discouraging serious contributors, especially when some of the pro-deletion comments are insulting in nature. A lot of pages could be improved, but I whole-heartedly believe we should not be "delete happy." Have a pleasant week and best regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I do think people are a little too quick, as well. That being said, if there are 10 people who want to delete, and 2 or 3 who are for it, should that mean no consensus? Do we really want to go off the other end? -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 01:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, maybe we should go with something along the lines of it not taking a simple majority of votes, but rather something like 2/3 votes for an article to be deleted? I don't know how many people actually visit Wikipedia, but a vote in either direction could represent an actual percentage of users far beyond the number who actually vote on the AfD. For all we know, 2 or 3 people who vote for a people might actually represent hundreds or thousands who casually came across on article and enjoyed it or found it useful, but weren't around to notice the sudden deletion tag. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Often times, those for delete will often have a concise and convincing arguement for deleting said article. I've noticed that people voting keep, Le Grand here in particular (just read his talk page logs), do not. This is usually why delete will come out on top. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I've greatly improved on my comments for keeping articles after the mass attacks and vandalism to my talk page. We all have to start figuring this out somehow . . . And most of those I've seen for delete have in fact provided arguments like "sucks" and the like, which is hardly convincing . . . --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Because of the repeated vandalism to your talk page, I made a link from it to this discussion to prevent this topic to being "all about you." I hope that you approve, Monsieur! --172.148.94.163 03:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Log in when talking about yourself. Hiding behind an IP won't help. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I do log in when I talk about myself. I use multiple computers, mostly public and in multiple cities (I travel A LOT!), and so please don't confuse all of the anonymous IPs with me. There might be a moment here and there where I forget to log in, but many times, you could just be seeing whoever is on the computer after me. Thanks! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
So several different IPs just happen to find your talk page and revert it in the same manner? Give people a little credit. It's quite clear you're using IPs as sockpuppets. It won't work. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't give me too much credit! Anyway, Kavadi carrier, who seems to be a reputable user, said that "if the user [meaning me] sees these are excessive, s/he can remove them himself." I agree that the comments are the same thing over and over about my early comments on the topics, which are now irrelevant, because I've read them, responded, and now contribute different as a result. Therefore, I am following Kavadi carrier's instructions regarding my talk page and am cleaning it up accordingly. Please don't contradict each other! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The whole prinicipal of deletion is to uphold WP:N and WP:NOT. Whether the article is "intriguing" or not has nothing do with deletion. - Tutmosis 01:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but based on many of the pro-delete comments, those wanting deletions simply don't like certain articles. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Le Grand, I strongly suggest you read the actual deletion policy found here and other relevant material found here. JoshuaZ 01:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I have and I still think many are too quick to delete without providing solid reasons and that there's a tendency to jump on certain proponents of articles. Thanks for the links, though! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that there's serious evidence that AfD is delete happy. We already have default keep when no consensus is reached and admins will often claim no consensus when enough editors have shown interest in the article, unless these editors are supporting the keep on the basis of principle (you know, those "all X are inherently notable"). Pascal.Tesson 01:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there too much of a trend then to submit articles for deletion? --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Things are working by and large just fine. JoshuaZ 01:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I have to disagree, especially when articles are voted to be kept and then renominated to be deleted. This strikes me as some having an agenda against certain articles. My principal concerns are that visitors and even editors will be turned off by having articles they spend time working on or enjoy being deleted by perhaps a handful of individuals who just don't like the article. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Calls for deletion from "individuals who just don't like the article" will generally be unsuccesful. There is no rule against renominating since circumstances can change and even with the same circumstances, the prevailing attitudes may have changed. JoshuaZ 01:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I suppose it's just maddeningly frustrating when I visit an article, which I, my family, and/or friends find useful in whatever context and then all of a sudden, it's gone! For example, the original version of the article on American Idol Finalists' Album Sales (not the one deleted the second time) provided a clear sense of how successful the contestants were, but the article was deleted, re-created in a not quite as good fashion and then deleted again. I can understand the second deletion much more than the first. The deletion of the RMS Aquaculture article also baffled me in that the chain has been around for several years has had stores in around five or six different locations had a nationwide online store either had or was in negotiations for a fish farm in Mexico and so seemed more than just some minor local business. I was more recently horrified to see the fictional battles and wars and the proposed state of Superior articles being nominated for deletion. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you have specific examples of this? JoshuaZ 02:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, see my revised post above. Thanks! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The best way to get articles kept is to improve them, especially by adding references. People are much more likely to want to delete a poorly formatted, incoherent article with 5 cleanup tags on it than they are a clean, well-referenced one. Also, making good arguments is critical to getting an article kept (or conversly, deleted). The days of widespread support for keeping everything mostly for the sake of including as many articles as possible are gone... now the focus is more on quality than quantity. So provide quality, and it's still easy to include articles on most topics. --W.marsh 02:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote. Nominations with insufficient interest, or opinions that don't supply a rational reason, should be ignored by the closing admin. If they're not doing so, take the admin to task for it. Deco 02:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
AfD is not a vote? Gee golly I wish I'd heard that before I closed a thousand AfDs or so! --W.marsh 02:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't responding to you, W.Marsh, but to the OP. :-) Blame wikithreads. Deco 08:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, how much server space does Wikipedia have left versus how much has been used thus far? --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't running out of disk space any time soon, it's not even an issue. Deleted articles stay on the servers anyway, as they're viewable to admins. Inclusion standards aren't about preserving disk space though. --W.marsh 02:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but does anyone know how much disk space something like Wikipedia actually has? How much bigger can this site get, especially with all of the archived material? --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm using up the last few bytes as I t.y...p..e....<end> <no space left> <cucumber error> <reboot universe>. Carcharoth 02:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A useful link is Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. Carcharoth 02:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Server storage space is not a problem... in other words. Look at our server list... add up all those gigabytes, and consider that the entire current database could fit on a single one of those drives. --W.marsh 02:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
As has been said many times before, disk space is not the resource that we need to worry about: for all practical purposes, it's limitless. But every article requires time and effort to maintain and that is not a resource we have unlimited amounts of. Pascal.Tesson 03:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
And every worthless article makes Wikipedia worth less. Postdlf 03:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow! This discussion really took off! I whole-heartedly agree that false and/or defamatory articles do not help. I'm more concerned about factually articles created with good intentions that might get lossed in the shuffle. Have a pleasant night! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
You appear to have tried to vote twice at this AfD, once while logged in and once while not. Please don't do this again, as it's not allowed. You may express your opinion and respond to comments, but casting multiple votes is against the rules. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
If I voted twice, then that was unintentional. We are able to respond to other votes and comments, though, correct, i.e. to discuss the topic? --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 12:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
In response to your question, yes - I said as much. There's nothing wrong with responding to people's voting rationales (if they say there are no sources, provide a source, if they say something might need attention by someone who speaks Swahili and you do so, then use your language skills to help out) and adding comments to the discussion. To say, however, that your duplicate vote was "unintentional" appears to be somewhat disingenuous. The comment and subsequent "keep" vote was made by an anonymous user (User:172.148.28.36), who gave every indication that s/he was unrelated to you. I responded to his/her advocation of a keep and you answered. The fact that the same anonymous editor made various edits to your userpage along similar lines to ones you have made when logged in makes it quite clear that he's simply you when not logged in. There's little or no indication that this was an "unintentional" duplicate vote, which was why I mentioned it on your Talk page. Making it more public was not my intention, but in order to support my claims I submit the following diffs from the AfD in question: the first appearance of the anon, my response to the anon, your response to my question to the anon. Also see the anon's contribution list. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I do notice that sometimes when I edit, I seem to be logged out (even though I logged in earlier) and then have to re-log in. Please don't jump on the conspiracy bandwagon here. I'm giving the AfDs a rest for now anyway. Have a pleasant day! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 13:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
If all that you did was add a comment here and there, I wouldn't "jump on the conspiracy bandwagon". The point that I'm making is that that's not all you've done. You have in fact pretended to be somebody else (an anonymous IP) in a discussion. AfD procedures are clear enough that you should know that, logged in or not, you get one "vote" only. "Voting" again, whether pretending not to be yourself or not, shouldn't even cross your mind - and yet there's yet another occasion on which you appear to have done this (this conclusion reached by looking at the contribs, Le Grand Roi not having identified himself in this case). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 13:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, any posts by me while not logged on were purely accidental. There's always the "Oh, I haven't logged in yet" mistake after making a post and moreover I use public computers a lot and so a good deal of IPs that I use are used by others as well. I recall someone trying to pin an AOL IP on me when I don't even have an AOL email! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 13:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
That would be reasonable if all you did was add a comment. But you didn't. What you in fact did was vote twice in two AfDs, on one occasion pretending to be someone else. This "somebody else" then did a series of things identical to what you do. You either have a doppelganger or it was you all along. Those are the only two explanations I can think of. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 13:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
My friend, this is a dead issue and we're starting to just go around in circles. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 13:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
This is far from a dead issue. As the administrator who issued Grand Roi block warning earlier today - a warning which has already been blanked - I'm quite interested in this accusation of double voting. Please respond to the request at WP:RFI with relevant page diffs. DurovaCharge! 16:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Stick a fork in this issue, because it is indeed done. I checked the user’s talk page who everyone is flaming and see that the guy is gone for like a month anyway. He says it’s for work, but who knows; maybe the haters bullied him away for awhile. Let’s stick to the real question at hand, whether or not people are getting rid of good and popular articles too quickly, and not get sidetracked needlessly. Or we can just talk about who everyone voted for in the American elections today . . . (Ducks!) As to my eight cents, I think some articles are laughable, but yeah, I’m sure some semi-popular ones might be getting mowed down as well. Maybe the criteria for deletion should just be re-evaluated? Smell ya later! --64.12.116.200 21:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
There's always Wikipedia:Deletion review. Fagstein 05:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Total nonsequitor, but I know one thing that often results from an AFD is "transwiki to wikibooks". As one of the people responsible for the transwikiing, deleting and userifying is a really bad idea. Locking the article would be better (has no effect on import), and even blanking in favor of a soft redirect for a month or so might be a good idea since it would let contributors find where their contributions went.

If something has to be moved in a hurry, just list it on WB:RFI.--SB_Johnny|talk|books 18:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Le Grand Roi, I find it hard to believe that your talkpage is targeted so frequently by IPs. We have many long-standing contributors here who are not targeted as much. IPs appear to follow your edits, too, and you appear to follow theirs. I'm following your RFI with interest. But I digress.
AfD is definitely not delete-happy. I myself have brought an article to AfD where the result was a unanimous keep (I was unaware of ongoing policy discussion). The point of having a system like AfD is to generate discussion and consensus. If not, one would tag everything with {{prod}} or {{db}}. Alternately, we'd all be handed a delete tab.
The thing is, if an article is brought to AfD, it's usually done so by a user experienced enough to know what does/does not belong on the encyclopedia. Server-space is irrelevant. The guidelines for inclusion are clearly set out in WP:space; if the article does not adhere to these, it can and should be removed sooner or later. riana_dzasta 18:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot to read. Unfortunately, what I got out of this was:

  1. - Deleting articles makes inclusionists sad
  2. - Worthless articles and vanispamcruft are okay to keep since 'someone created them'.
  3. - Anyone who puts an article up for AfD or votes to delete is evil.
  • rolls eyes* See, this is why Deletionists don't listen to Inclusionists. Saying an article can be made better is fine and good -- but how often IS the article made better? IS Wikipedia really served by having massive listings of crap alongside the real articles?

Everytime someone takes up Jimbo's offer of 'an encyclopedia anyone can edit' they're going out on faith, trying to help. In theory. In fact, lots of articles are made that simply do - not - belong. Saying AfD is too delete happy dodges the issues.

A good way to look at AfD is look at how many get posted to Wikipedia:Deletion review and overturned. Show us the proof that AfD is too trigger happy with lots of overturns and I'll buy this argument and hand you my delete-key emblazoned Deletionist Membership Card.

Oh. The comment 'The point of having a system like AfD is to generate discussion and consensus. If not, one would tag everything with {{prod}} or {{db}}. Alternately, we'd all be handed a delete tab' made me giggle with glee. --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 06:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

AFD is completely broken. Encyclopedic content is constantly destroyed simply because people think it's in the "wrong place". It's an abuse of the system and a betrayal of our audience. Kappa 06:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
WTF? Look, just because, as an inclusionist, you think it's okay to deprod everything, to keep every page of every band's song as a service to "audience" and the like does not mean that actually is reality. What's broken is the rationale that some people seem to have which says "keep everything, even if it's worthless, since there is a 0.00000000001% someone might make this article better." I'm tired of seeing AfD votes with "Keep , rewrite" or "Keep, expand" and 4 months later nothing has been done to the article, and it goes to AfD again, and you same people vote the same way. When I do the Random Article test I want to cry because I get things like GamerNode, University Mall (Little Rock, Arkansas), and BZPower. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not toilet paper. --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 15:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if it was too rough... :) I don't mind inclusionists who offer to improve articles to save them from deletion (like TruthbringerToronto). I do object to keep !votes like "oooer, title made me laugh" or "my friends and family enjoyed it". We're not YouTube. riana_dzasta 06:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • AfD doesn't work perfectly, and no system would work perfectly with so many diverse contributors. I don't find it a big problem that there are usually a few people voting to keep like Le Grand Roi who disregard WP's core policies, and a few people like Kappa whose interpretation of those policies differ widely from the consensus of the project's founders. Nor do I find it a big problem that there are usually a few people voting to delete because they don't like a topic or haven't done a minute of research to find the supporting sources that exist but aren't yet in the article. There are generally enough people who understand WP:WWI/WP:WWIN and the "Five Pillars" to get each nomination considered reasonably. A few mistakes are made, and deletion review usually works well enough to correct most real AfD mistakes. I haven't seen a proposal for an alternative which would work any better. WP is not an unedited collection of everything anyone feels like sticking in, and WP is not an "experts-only" work where you need to be accepted by an elite circle to contribute. There are projects like both of those, mostly freeloading on our past work, and frankly none have become nearly as valuable as Wikipedia. One reason WP is valuable is that unencyclopedic content is usually deleted if noone fixes it up and shows it to be encyclopedic. Barno 16:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • One case of AfD getting it wrong recently was mentioned (by me) here. But that was a mistake of insufficient (or non-existent) research into the history of the article, which would have uncovered a previous version that was acceptable. Not a case of imbalanced voting, but voting on the wrong version of the article. Carcharoth 17:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe that some selective pruning improves Wikipedia. If you click on 10 random articles from the tool bar at the upper left, how many seem encyclopedic? I rarely find more than 4 which are about a subject worthy of an encyclopedia, and which are more than a stub. By extension, if a great number of articles about utterly unimportant subjects, lacking references, and with little content, were deleted, the overall quality would improve. Yet I vote to retain a good many AfD nominees, and go to great lengths to look for the multiple independent sources which are supposed to accompany an article. Edison 20:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFSL

Wikipedians are often involved into long contentious disputes. All forms of dispute resolutions but Arbcom have no teeth - they could not enforce the solutions, so they would not work if the parties do not trust each other. Arbcom is painfully slow and does not scale well with growth of Wikipedia. Community ban is fast and effective but works only for simpler cases. I have wrote a proposal for a hybrid between RfC, Arbcom and the Community Ban and named it WP:RFS. It is intended to be am RFC with teeth (or faster Arbcom that works be Admins not by Arbitrators or Community ban with discussions). If works this system would allow to get the main load off Arbcom and use it only for really important or difficult issues. It could also be used for nasty content disputes that are usually rejected by Arbcom. Please review Alex Bakharev 16:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe you meant to link to Wikipedia:Request for solutions. WP:RFS redirects to the historical page on "requests for summary". I haven't read the proposal yet, just clarifying. Trebor 16:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, read it now. I am worried by the amount of power it would give the administrators who would be able to vote to enforce closing bans. This wouldn't (couldn't) have been considered when they went through WP:RFA and would be a significant increase in their capabilities. I'm don't think this can be approved by community consensus either, it would have be approved by Jimmy Wales (like the ArbCom). I am not against another method of enforced dispute resolution in theory (if the ArbCom cannot manage), but this gives too much power to too many people, in my opinion. Trebor 16:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I have edited a little to show that the results should be on the table for at least a week, so it is impossible for five admin conspirators to endorse a controversial proposal by stealth. I think that 66%+5 super-majority of admin votes make it difficult to abuse. Admins are usually reasonable folks who like to err on the safe side. Alex Bakharev 09:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
"Usually" is the bit that worries me. I would be wary of giving this increased power to over 1000 admins. And the similar proposal at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcement was also rejected on these sorts of grounds. And the users who feel hard-done by (which would be almost all who get action taken against them) would appeal to ArbCom (which I assume inherently has more power) thus not reducing the workload of it. That's my view - others may view it differently. Trebor 13:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
As a member of the AMA (Association of Members' Advocates) I have some experience with dispute resolution. It's true that our form of dispute resolution has no teeth - but I think it's best that way. Otherwise those of us in the dispute-resolution business would be able to impose arbitrary solutions, probably influenced by our own views. As to giving any more power to admins, I will fight this all the way - they already have far too much power, and many of them abuse it constantly. I realise Wikipedia isn't a democracy, but it ought not to be a dictatorship either; admins, like everyone else, are users with their own views, and cannot categorically be trusted to be neutral. I will fight this proposal all the way. Walton monarchist89 10:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

User pages in template categories

A fairly significant number of user pages are in template categories, probably due to copy and pasting. This must be common as for example Category:Food user template says After you save the user page, please edit it again to insure that no user template categories have been placed on the user page. User pages are not user templates, so they do not belong in user template categories. - so in fact they should be all fixed.

I started changing some user pages to fix this, but I have some hesitation. From one point of view it's not uncommon to see someone going through user pages and changing user boxes (without permission) to make them conform, on the other hand it seems I'm invading. Sending a messsage to the talk page, which I tried in one case, is probably not effective, as some usera are not active, and others will not bother or will not know how to fix the probelm.

I'm considering setting up an another user name specific to doing this, so it's user page will identfy the purpose of the its; edits. --ArmadilloFromHell 02:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you identified how widespread the problem is? I'd be willing to lend a hand as I'm sure other would, but if it's really widespread, maybe soliciting a bot operator would be in order. I don't think you are invading. The categories are wrong and I'm finding it hard to imagine a protest that has a valid basis. I would think most users would either not even notice the edit, or just say "oh, housekeeping."--Fuhghettaboutit 03:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I haven't really done an analysis - my gut feeling is it's not enough for a bot, and probably manageable by hand. I think it varies with the type of user template, but probably around 5%. However in one template it looked more like 20%. I'd be interested in writing a bot for the experience, (I'm a full time programmer) but I'm not sure where to start looking for info. --ArmadilloFromHell 04:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead and remove the categories; if they complain (which is unlikely), just point them to the page that tells them they should have done it in the first place. As long as you use a descriptive edit summary, the chances of someone getting pissed off are fairly slim. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for answers. --ArmadilloFromHell 06:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Having fixed a number of these in the past I can say that many of them can only be fixed by fixing the template that is improperly transcluding the template category in the user page/talk page. So any bot is either going to be fairly sophisticated to fix the transclusion (<noinclude>) elements in the templates, or will have to produce a list of either user pages that couldn't be fixed, or better, templates that have transclusion errors. (The problem I see with automatically fixing the transclusion is that sometimes the fix needs to transclude more than just the category.) —Doug Bell talk•contrib 11:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

At Image:Piccadilly_T5_Extension.JPG it says "I, the author of this work, hereby publish it under the following license...". I presume that the person who selected this permission-template is the photographer. But the photo is of a sign of a diagrammatic route map (or more likely just part of it), which is itself a creative work and therefore probably copyrighted (by Transport for London). It seems possible that to use this image we would need the permission of TfL as well as that of the photographer. I'm no expert on what circumstances would qualify as fair use, so for all I know it might not be a violation of TfL's copyright to photograph and republish a small part of the sign, but we still need to say so.

In short, it seems to me that this sort of image page requires two, not one, statements justifying its legal right to exist: one regarding the photographer's claim to copyright, one regarding the material being photographed.

Another example is Image:Dord.jpg. In this case there is a claim of fair use that seems to refer to the dictionary excerpt rather than to the image itself, but there is also a statement that "If someone had a copy of this dicionary and could take a pic of it we could get something that's not 'fair used'." There seems to be a confusion between Merriam-Webster's possible copyright (if any — and if there isn't any, we need to say so) and the photographer's.

I don't have the time to pursue this matter in any way (I don't even expect to check back for followups), but I imagine there's someone reading this who would like to take it up. Or maybe there's a project in existence for this sort of thing, and this just needs to be brought to their attention. Or maybe they already know about the issue, and I didn't even need to post this. Thanks for your attention, or apologies for wasting your time, as the case may be.

207.176.159.90 02:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"I am not an expert", but my gut instinct says that your first example of the photographed sign is acceptable. One could claim that you can't photograph a McDonald's restaurant, because you'd be infringing on their copyrighted/trademarked distinctive styling...but that's basically bullshit. Gut instinct also says that the second example you posted, of the dictionary page, is not acceptable. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 02:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Sort of. It's possible the photo could be considered a derivative work, based on the amount of creative interpretation added by the photograph. Even if this is the case, however, there would still be only one license statement - the author would not be able to release the photograph under a license of their choosing, since they're assigning rights of a work that they are not the exclusive copyright owner of. Deco 02:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Deco's right about the photo possibly being a derivative work, which means that it copies (or makes use of) the copyrighted work from which it is derived (i.e., that which it depicts). But it's a derivative at best. In the case of the photo of the sign above, it's practically just an unchanged (though low quality) copy of the sign itself. The dictionary scan is even more clear-cut as a slavish copy, so whomever scanned the dictionary doesn't have any right to the scan itself. A photocopy machine or scanner just takes a picture of whatever you lay on its flatbed; the fact that you happen to be standing vertically with an independent camera in your hand aiming at that two-dimensional surface doesn't change the fact that you're just making a copy.
So if you don't have the right (or a fair use claim) to use a copy of the creative work featured in the photograph, you don't have the right to use a photograph of it (unless it's a photo of a building's exterior, but that's an express exception under U.S. law). If your photograph added nothing to the original, then you've gained no rights over your copy. Postdlf 02:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC) (IAAL, btw)
I'm looking at this, and I'll bet that it depends on how you use it. The Dord seems to be fair-use, because it was just illustrating how the Webster dictionary goofed up. It wasn't using the text in the article. The other one would probably need the second tag, IMHO. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 04:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
The first image is a 2D representation of a (presumably copyright) work, so the original copyrights would apply, to the best of my understanding. To claim it as a derivative work there would have to be some creative content in the representation (framing, lighting, etc). That seems a rather long shot argument for that image.
Dort appears to be appropriately tagged. Guettarda 01:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

(Okay, so I did check back.) The point is that since it's policy to be explicit about whether something is copyrighted-and-used-with-permission or fair-use or public-domain or whatever, in cases like these it's necessary to be explicit at both levels: the image and its subject. Even if both of the pages I cited are fine, the issue would still apply to some other image pages and there needs to be policy on it. And that's all I have to say. 207.176.159.90 03:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Internal Plagiarism

What is wikipedia´s policy on plagiarising other wikipedia pages? Is that against the rules? Am I allowed to, when writing an article, copy bits and pieces from other articles on the site? Franchez3 18:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be OK. If you are trying to copy multiple paragraphs of information, however, it might be better to link to the article in question, to avoid duplication of content. Tra (Talk) 18:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Depends on how large those bits and pieces are. One or two sentences of summary plus a Wikilink seems fair. Copy/paste operations of large blocks of text wouldn't be good. DurovaCharge! 18:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Per the GFDL we need to credit all authors. If you copy information from another page you need to provide a link to the original page. At the very least the edit summary should say where it comes from. Doing otherwise is a violation of copyright, as far as I can tell. Guettarda 01:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As people have said above, it depends. When you find yourself needing to explain something in an article, you can either link to another article where that something is explained, or you can explain that something in the article you are writing. It is an authorial judgement on whether you think you can provide a short, relevant explanation in the article (plus a link), or whether it is better to just link to another article and leave the reader to either follow the link or not follow the link. If the explanation is essential for the article, I tend to explain in the article. If it is not essential, then just a link will do. Imagine you are the reader - would you want to have to click a link, or would you prefer to have the explanation included in the article you are reading? Another method of explaining things is to use a footnote as an aside to explain something without breaking the flow of a sentence. The linking method can also vary. You can link from inside a sentence, like this, or you can put a link at the beginning of the section if you are summarising a whole article. An example of this is the "main article" link at the Isaac_Newton#Early_years section of the Isaac Newton article. This is called Summary style; please read about this style before using it. Finally, as Durova said, copying and pasting large blocks of text is not good. It can be done, but only if you know what you are doing. The key thing here is to maintain a clear chain of attribution. This sort of thing is usually only done when merging pages, and it requires clear edit summaries that link to the pages between which text is being transferred, allowing someone looking at the editing history to find out who wrote which bits of the text. The essential thing to do is to say in the edit summary who wrote the text (though in practice this is done by linking to the article the text is being copied from), as saying nothing incorrectly implies that you wrote the text you are moving between articles. Making sure the authors of the text can be identified is part of Wikipedia's licence, the GFDL. Finally, a very important point about copying from Wikipedia pages, is that moving entire pages is done using a "move page" function, not the copying and pasting method. Carcharoth 01:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

In an article which has had a lot of editing, such as George Bush, there is often no way to attribute a complete sentence to a single author. In general, words, phrases, facts, and ideas have no copyright protection. Then tere a the cases where paragraphs have been inserted and deleted repeatedly by various editors, with modifications. The thread of authorship is a tangled skein. So if a sentence or a definition from one article clarifies a related article, I can't see the issue of preserving authorship attribution. There is no ownership of articles, and less ownership of sentences. Edison 20:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about introductory paragraphs

I guess I do not understand the seemingly desperate need in many articles to try to shove a huge amount of material as close as possible to the start of the article. At least in my opinion, the introduction should be brief and just a very short summary. Readers should not be overwhelmed by a lot of details in the introduction, but just be able to learn a minimal description of the subject. In other words, the introduction should answer the question, "What is the article about?". Readers can then continue if they are interested, or move on to something else if they have learned enough in the first few sentences. I am curious as to the reasoning that drives people to want to front load these articles with several different translations and synonymous terms (all in bold) and etymology and many many dates and caveats and extraneous information and details, to the extent that the introduction tells the reader NOTHING about the subect of the article, since it is so buried in minutae.--Filll 16:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion is thoroughly backed up by WP:MOS. I have a theory about this phenomenon...I suspect it is due in large part to "layered" editing when many editors participate. Each one adds a tidbit, thinking "This is so interesting it should go in the intro". Trimming an intro per MOS is always appropriate. Just keep in mind that the info removed from the opening should be moved down into a relevant section of the article, not just deleted. Not exactly glamorous work, but necessary and worthwhile. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 16:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
This is probably due to the tension between the lead section often trying to be both an introduction and a summary. See WP:Lead section for details. Carcharoth 18:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I support your frustration, but I think the issue is very well addressed by WP:Lead section. Happy editing! Cephyr 03:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't there also a nice essay at Wikipedia:Lead fixation? (Let's see if this turns blue now...) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:COUCH

An essay, to help deal with users who violate WP:CIVIL (without resorting to blocks), and also users who feel threatened.

The way it works is twofold:

1) If you feel that someone is being uncivil to you and you feel that you need to take a break from the action, simply declare "I sit on the WikiCouch." While on the Good Side of the WikiCouch, no one is allowed to say rude or uncivil things to you, BUT! You must withdraw from the conflict temporarily and not get involved in any other conflicts while on the Couch. When you feel that you are calmer and ready to again take on the world, you get up off the couch and go about your business.

2) If an administrator or Esperanzan believes that someone has been rude or uncivil (or both), they may declare (either to the person publicly or via talk page) "Please go sit on the WikiCouch for [some time amount, like ten minutes, twenty minutes, three hours, 24 hours, etc] to chill out." The person on the Bad Side of the Couch should not speak to ANYONE, but no one should speak to them either. The person, whenever they feel calm enough (and lose all their wikihate), may move over to the Good side at any time for the rest of their 'time-out'.

Is is silly? Yes. Is it light-hearted? Yes. Is is simple? Yes. Does it require the assumption of good faith? Absolutely. Will it stop BIG flame wars? Probably not. But it is a step towards a more friendly community.

I would appreciate comments and/or suggestions.~ PonyToast...§ 07:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If you feel a need to dewikistress yourself from time to time by having a wikiholiday, please do - it sounds like a good idea. But it's not really suitable as a policy or guideline - sounds like a little naughty boy corner and instruction creep, jguk 08:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I very much dislike this proposal. In particular, the assumption that an Esperanzan is in any way elevated above any other non-admin. That is not a way to a friendlier community. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 16:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Concur that Esperanzans are not special and while they are entitled to their opinions, they are just ordinary users. If this proposal becomes an essay than it would be harmless; it obviously shouldn't be a guideline. Addhoc 16:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
See, efforts like this is why I'm really starting to wish Esperanza was gone. The ideals are nice, but there is this constant influx of pure silliness, and the vague feeling that Esperanzans think they're better than the average editor. The two particular things that strike me with a sense of unease are 1) the idea of couch patrols, on the discussion page of the essay, and 2) the statement that "admins or Esperanzans" can do this. I think people can find better things to do than preach civility at others -- like, oh, editing the encyclpedia. --Shrieking Harpy......Talk|Count 16:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm shuddering to think of the ensuing arguments: "You can't say that to me! I'm on the couch!" "What, all I said was blablabla." "And that was rude! You've violated WP:COUCH!" "Well, then, bla you and your couch too!" FreplySpang 16:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I am very disappointed to see everyone acting so melodramatic about this proposal. In regards to Esperanzans being involved, the COUCH IS NOT OFFICIAL. But since Esperanzans are about spreading love and kindness, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowe dot request people to chill out. Anyone can send you to the couch, with good enough reason. But being ON the couch isn't official or anything. It just means that you have an asylum and you can chill. Stop taking it so seriously. Whatever happened to friendliness? ~ PonyToast...§ 17:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
In which case, would you remove the proposal tag and replace it with essay... Addhoc 17:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thanks! Addhoc 17:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
So how exactly is "This side of the WikiCouch is ratty, torn, stiff, and much less comfortable than a spike closet. It constantly plays polka music off-key, has built-in pokey-spikey objects, and has been noted to have a distincly bad smell, not unlike rotten bologna" spreading love and kindness? Sounds like a way to tell people to shut up hidden in a parcel of cutesiness. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the wording is kind of at odds with having been written by a user with the name PHDrillSergeant. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have put this preposterous thing up for deletion here. The Crying Orc 20:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank god. And people wonder why I'm a deletionist.--Shrieking Harpy......Talk|Count 20:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hehe — my first few days on Wikipedia were filled with bellicose unpleasantness as after nominating a few articles for deletion I ran into a clique of do-gooders who took exception to my personal philosophies...I shudder to think what would have happened if someone had told me to go and sit on the WP:COUCH. The Crying Orc 21:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit mean for it to have been so suddenly deleted. A mistake was made by marking it as a policy proposal, which naturally led to comments assessing whether it is suitable as a policy. But it does no harm as a suggestion, to die or fall depending on how persuasive it is, jguk 22:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware of this discussion until after nominating it for deletion, and then checking the 'contribs' list of someone who commented. I happened upon the existence of the Couch through the 'WikiLove' page (which is quite high up on my hitlist as well: I wouldn't have dared previously, but since some brave soul has put Esperanza up, one never knows...). The Crying Orc 22:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles

Please see this new policy proposal. (WP:CSDUA, since it's a mouthful.) The concept has been mentioned quite a bit recently, especially on WT:CSD. This is formulated into a specific policy proposal, beyond the concept stage, and has explanatory text. This is the result of considerable thought toward all the views expressed, and it has already generated quite a bit of positive feedback on the talk page (when it was in my userspace). Please take a look at it and see what you think. We hope it can become an official CSD sometime in the future. Dmcdevit·t 09:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If this ever becomes policy, can you give everyone a prominent warning, so they can source the stuff they really want to see kept... :-) Carcharoth 01:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
That proposal only affects articles created after its becoming policy, so anything already existing that you want to see kept wouldn't be affected. But you should want to source it anyway. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Esperanza up for deletion

Esperanza (yes, all of it) is up for deletion at MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A rewrite of the Wikipedia:External Links guideline (Wikipedia:External links/workshop) has reached a level of stability and is now up for comment. --Barberio 13:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia heavy emphasis placed on a person's ethnic/racial/religious background?

I'm a huge fan of WP and use it everyday, but one thing that I find a little creepy is the almost fanatical emphasis that is placed on a person's ethnic/racial/religious background. Every time I look up a person to find out more about his history, there is almost always information on his father's ethnic origins, his mother's ethnic origins, both parents religious background, his spouse's ethnic background, her parents' religious background, etc. It sometimes makes me wonder if I've logged into some racist website.

The really bizarre material is saved for the end of the article. There I can look up such groupings as Italian-Americans in the Music Industry or Arab-Americans who are Christian or Bangladeshi-Americans who were scientists. I personally believe that anyone who needs to know who in the music industry is an Arab-American may have a questionable motive.

I think that this feature of Wikipedia should be looked at and hopefully toned down in the future.

From an American born in South Africa, living in the southern United States with his wife who is the child of an Italian-American and a Dutch-English-American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njg123 (talk • contribs)

Hi, welcome Njg123, and thanks for sharing your thoughts here. (How did you find out about this page, by the way?) I think you may have a point with your observation. I think the reason is this: Once one editor starts adding such things, it is likely to attract a certain amount of controversy. The more controversy is attracted, the more attention is paid to that aspect of the article. The more attention is paid, the more space ends up being devoted to it in the article finally. It's a bit of a nuisance, but we can't really do very much against it, in my experience. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Njg makes a valid point. In a world where every other individual is a mouseclick away from communication, racism is a non-issue. Who cares? Perhaps as we rub and link our consonants and vowels, editor ideas of which information are important will change too. Terryeo 23:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I respectfully diagree with all of the above for several reasons:
  1. One of WP's goals is to be as complete as possible. If an individual merits an entry at all, there's is no reason not to be complete.
  2. An individual's background, whether religous or racial, is almost always am inportant part of who they are and many, if not most, people are proud of their background or heritage.
  3. The idea that mentioning someone's ethnicity is somehow inherently rascist is simply a fallacy.
  4. Personally, I have a lot more concerns about WP editors who emphasize their religous or racial backgrounds to the detriment of accuracy and quality in our articles.

--Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 23:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well written, Doc Tropics.
Racism is the belief that one race is better than another, and I hope you're not seeing that reflected in Wikipedia articles. Its existence is not a reason to hide one's ethnic background (at least not where I come from, thankfully).
One of the great things about Wikipedia is that with contributors from around the world, it is not written from, for example, a British, American, or any other Anglo-centric point of view. Editors supply their points of view, and information from sources in other languages, and it all gets shaken out to create better articles. Yeah, I've seen it get ugly on the talk pages, but many patient and thoughtful contributors and Wikipedia's consensus system give great results. —Michael Z. 2006-10-28 23:38 Z
I'm sorry, njg, but Doc Tropics is correct. Simply mentioning a person's race is not racism, and to think that way is to have a very misguided view of racism (at least in my opinion). Terryeo, we're not at that stage yet (we're not even at that stage in certain parts of the world, let alone the whole world), and pretending we are at that stage creates its own of problems. ColourBurst 02:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The observation is probably valid. I suppose when there seems to be a disproportionate amount of emphasis on racial background in an article, it would seem a quite odd, especially when racial backgroun isn't an important to the article subject. But the solution in that case wouldn't be to tone down on talking about racial background. But rather, tone up on talking about everything else. --`/aksha 08:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. At one time, one's linage was very important within the group comprising one's society. As transportation increased it became less important to society's view of the individual. Today, we don't know the race of most of our fellow editors, tomorrow we wouldn't care if we were told. However, I do recognize the situation with people who are in the public eye. Terryeo 08:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nig123. A person's lineage is no doubt important to them, but it in most cases it has no importance to me. Sometimes it is a part of why they are notable and should be included. For example, we should note in an article that the individual was the last white man to captain the West Indies cricket team, or first black and Asian to captain them - that's notable. But to go through and make a note by each West Indian cricketer as to whether he is white, Asian or black is useless information. And as Nig123 correctly notes, it would be racist to do so.

Mentioning someone's race is tantamount to saying that it is a feature about them that is notable to others. Doing this indiscriminately is inherently racist (and DocTropics, ColourBurst and Mzajac really need to research what is meant by the term if they believe it just refers to an assertion that one race is superior to others! Would an apartheid system offering an equally good life to different races not be racist?). The solution is, of course, to remove racist categories. However, these tend to be added and strongly defended by those who use them to for their own race-politics purposes. This leave those who do not subscribe to seeing the world only in terms of black, white, Asian, etc. with the choice of putting up with a constant stream of racial epithets in certain Wikipedia articles, or going elsewhere for a better read, jguk 09:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hyperbole much? In all my time on WP I've never seen an article that contained "a constant stream racial epithets". That kind of absurd overdramatization does a profound disservice to our editors and it also cheapens and degrades the topic at hand. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 10:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, an apartheid system does pretty much assert one race is better than another. There hasn't been an example in history where an apartheid system has offered equally good life to different races, so your example is a straw man (Even the crime of apartheid under the UN's definition explicitly includes oppression as part of the definition). ColourBurst 15:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

So I'm reading some gross generalizations above, that there's an overemphasis on race in Wikipedia. Please show me a few examples of articles which overemphasize race to the point of racism. I'm reading that race is not important to us, so mentioning it is apartheid and racist. I may not find someone's date of birth, age, place of birth, citizenship, religion to be significant, but I don't think that these things should be removed from articles because someone out there will perceive the very facts to be ageist, nationalist, religionist or racist. So please explain how apartheid has been manifested in Wikipedia. Also, please name a few of the racist categories.

If there's really a perceived problem, I don't see it, so let's make the discussion a bit more concrete. —Michael Z. 2006-10-30 00:02 Z

I, too, thank the user for his comment, but I don't really see a problem. I don't see them so much as "racist categories" as "racial categories". And, if the fact is not controversial or disputed, why not include it? Sadly, small-minded people are always going to find reasons for bigotry, and the presence or absence of these categories isn't going to do much about that. Lankiveil 01:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC).

I would like to welcome Njg123 (and maybe bandage his ears incase he feels bitten). I think his post has a point that we are overlooking -- overly racial catagorization. It's good to put the ethnic information in the article, I suppose -- but must we have long lists broken down by race of "famous black artists", "chinese acrobats", and "welsh ventriliquists" and all of this? Sometimes there are inches of categories for one article. --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 04:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome Njg123, the references in category or information in an article about an individual's race is simply to reflect a part of who that person is. Cultural heritage is just as important in a biography about a person as referring to what color hair they may have. I agree that I hate the over-categorization but its a bit much to call the whole point of having these categories or information "racist." I myself reflected my heritage in my user name merely to reflect a feature about who I am. However, I respect your opinion and greatly value that you asserted it in a civilized manner.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Everyone is looking for something to be offended about. 68.244.242.171 06:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

nothing wrong with mentioning a persons race etc. It's not the most important thing to some people - others may be interested in it. What I find questionable is the gossipy stuff that people still alive have in their articles. Things about personal medical procedures that they've had. Stuff like that. And if their spouse dies, it's on here within hours. Is that a little "privacy-invading"?

SpookyMulder 09:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Google hits must not be taken as a yardstick in Asian related AfD's. Newspapers of Vernacular Languages may have millions of readership. For example, in India every state has its own language. There are more than 20 widely speaking native languages in India. But the news reports from the newspapers of such languages are not available in google search.Take the case of Malayala Manorama Newspaper. Currently this Malayalam language newspaper has a readership of over 9 million, with a circulation base of over 1.4 million copies according to Audit Beureu of Circulations. Manorama is one of the India's largest selling and most widely read news paper. There are more than 50 such newspapers in India. News reports from such dailies are not available in google eventhough it have millions of readership. But news reports from English dailies with 1000 or 2000 copies are available in google search. It is really misleading...Isn't it...? In this context of notability tests based on google hits may be a worthless, foolish effort. In such circumstances we must consider the words of native wikipedians with more importance.  Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 05:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Google hits must not be taken as a yardstick in any AfD. Google can be used to find independent reliable sources which can show notability, but the number of Google hits means absolutely nothing. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It always depends on the subject. It's definitely of use in determining the notability (or even existence) of current commercial/creative products in the U.S. or UK, for example; I dare say it's impossible that an active band in the United States could be notable yet have absolutely no presence on the web outside of their own website. I wouldn't apply that same standard to bands in India. Postdlf 15:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal Knowledge of Article Subjects...

Hello...I was unsure where to put this information, so I'll ask here. I've recently found an article on John Andrew that someone started. Most of the information seems to be based on personal contact/discussions with Canon Andrew. Is this OK on wikipedia? I'm not sure what the policy is on this issue. Thanks. --dave-- 15:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No, we need reliable published sources, see WP:V. Thanks/wangi 15:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
So should I delete the whole article? How would one filter out the personal knowledge from anything that is verifiable?--dave-- 15:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
You yourself can research and edit the sections which you believe come off as personal knowledge. Just make sure to declare in the edit summary the purpose of why you are editing said sections. You can also add citation needed tags as well if you are unsure of what to edit.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Off topic a bit, but it seems odd to me (i.e. problematic) that Wikipedia would have to reject an article on heart transplants written by Dr. Christian Barnard, but retain one written by any random Usenet crank. Any idears? Gzuckier 17:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd have serious objections to Dr. Christian Barnard writing any articles on wikipedia. Simply because he has been dead for years. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
When his articles fall out of copyright, they might be found in wikisource, and could be copied verbatim into Wikpedia if the style was suitable (more likely they would be rewritten into the house style and merged into the relevant material, or used as quotes - that last option is possible now). Carcharoth 18:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
We'd have no objection to an expert contributing, nor a usenet crank, because neither of them would be allowed to publish original research and both would have to cite previously published, reliable sources. See WP:EXPERT for more. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Here are the problems as I see it: 1) we can't verify that User X is actually the person who he claims interviewed the article's subject. 2) even if we verify that User X actually is someone who interviewed the article's subject, we can't judge that User X is relating the content of that interview accurately. However, if User X got Magazine Y to publish the interview, we could use Magazine Y as a source (presuming it's a reputable publication) because a) Magazine Y's professional editors made a judgment that User X is a reliable source for the interview, b) User X has openly declared certain statements of fact and attributed them to himself in a permanent, published record widely available to the public, rather than pseudo-anonymously posting them to a transient, electronic medium for the first time. Postdlf 17:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Prompt anon users if they want to enter emty edit summary by default

I just had this idea. Most anonnymous users, even if doing good edits, do not enter edit summaries and therefore it is difficult to distiguish good intentions from bad ones. In preferences there is a check box saying "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". If you check this and forgot to fill edit summary, editor returs once again and asks if you really mean it. You can still go without edit summary, but you have been warned. What I propose is to make this behaviour default for anonymous users. It will not stop the vandalism, but it will prompt good users to explain their edits. The side efect is that it might slow vandals who do not fill edit summaries as they will have to send form twice. Is this a good idea, bad idea or what kind of idea? --Jan.Smolik 12:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent idea. I don't think it'll noticeably slow down- and hence discourage- either legitimate users (fortunately) or vandals (unfortunately). However, it'll make differentiating good edits, ropey-but-well-intentioned edits, tests and blatant vandalism much easier. Nothing's stopping a vandal from lying, but they could do that anyway- and if they do, it's clear that it's not a legitimate test. Fourohfour 13:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
See also WP:PEREN. >Radiant< 13:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not think it is the same thing. I am only proposing this as a default for non logged users. You can always create account to get simpler behaviour. Anyway EVERY edit should have summary. If anybody cannot be bothered with filling it is he really helping us? What more, even good reverts are to be reverted as vandalism this way. Let's say Mr. XYZ was born in 1971, but our aricle incorectly states 1970. Anonymous editor comes and changes it to correct 1971. But I see vandalism becouse somebody changed only one number without explanation and I hit revert button. There is no other way 90 % of edits as such are vandalism. So unexplained edits from anonymous users are generally going to be reverted anyway so where is the reason to do them at first. --Jan.Smolik 22:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
You shouldn't revert like that. If someone changes a fact, you should try and verify it before changing it back (and if it can't be verified easily, the article probably isn't well sourced). It's a violation of WP:AGF to assume that an edit is vandalism just because it's anonymous and it doesn't have a comment. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately such a change would probably lead to vandalism going undetected in cases where the vandal uses an edit summary and the user browsing the recent changes assumes good faith and takes that summary at face value. I often come across vandalism edits with unrelated (and good) edit summaries as things are just now... Ta/wangi 14:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A recent proposal on the mailing list was to force edit summaries only if for edits that remove a consistent part of text. This is in response to a recent episode when the subject of an article removed libel from the article about herself, and an administrator reverted and blocked taking her for a vandal. Forcing an edit summary would have solved the problem, becuase that subject had to explain what she was doing. Tizio 16:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why this is a user preference for anybody. All edits must have edit sums, IMO. John Reid ° 06:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
In mainspace, probably. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Radiant that this is an excellent idea. Can't think of any downside at all. The other issues are not going away, but this change will be a net improvement regardless. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 11:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's already a default setting. At least; when I first edited as an anon I got a "Reminder: You have not provided an edit summary. If you click Save again, your edit will be saved without one." message. I remember thinking; "edit summary? What the hell's an edit summary? I just want to fix a friggin typo here!" ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 17:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Logged out - this is a test to see if it prompts an edit summary. 198.179.243.50 19:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess it doesn't. I thought it did. Strange. 198.179.243.50 19:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Stubs and categories

I have cross posted this from Wikipedia talk:Categorization.

I have noticed a few users "categorising" articles by simply adding stub tags, (often replacing the {{uncategorised}} tag with a stub for example). Can we formally add a sentence explicitly explaining that a stub tag (or any maintenance tag) does not categorise an article (in an encyclopedic sense), despite the fact that it does add a category.

Please reply at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#stubs_and_categories. thanks Martin 16:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Esperanza

is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza. I have already commented there that I believe that's the wrong venue for disbandment and deletion of a wiki-project. I'm not endorsing or opposing any views, but letting everyone know what is going on. I hope that we can actually have some discussion here as opposed to what goes on there. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, so I was editing this while that above was posted. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
There is quite a bit of discussion there...just what is it that you are implying is going on there? —Doug Bell talk•contrib 00:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I think there should be a discussion as opposed to a vote (and don't deny it, each discussion is preceeded by something like "delete" or "keep"). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Let us please not have a discussion here! From what I saw, there is actually a lively discussion on the MfD. Sure, people vote but we all know that this does not currently have a snowball's chance of garnering consensual deletion so the votes are more like a summary of people's feelings. Pascal.Tesson 00:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, MfD is the place for discussion. MfD is not a vote. —Centrx→talk • 00:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. And for the record, my comment (the third only because of 2x edit conflict) was not preceeded by either a delete or a keep. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 00:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I know this is just an opinion here, but if it were just a discussion and just that, then there would be no bold words at all. We wouldn't bold the words delete or keep at all. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought XfDs were now called X for discussion? Like WP:CfD. Or was that the only one to get changed? Carcharoth 01:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Categories for discussion also makes decisions on merges and moves, unlike the other *fDs. People suggest and support moves and merges on AfD, of course, but the only thing AfD makes an actual decision on is deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks for that. Carcharoth 02:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, 150,000 keystrokes in the first 12 hours. That's an almost-audible 3.4 hertz. Certainly a lively discussion. --Interiot 04:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but what percentage of that is esperanza-inspired extra-long sigs? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It's always a bad sign when an MfD has it's own WP Shortcut. WP:MFD/EA. Wow. Anyway, the discussion seems to have done some good, but if someone goes after further parts of Esperanza (specifcally the Coffee Lounge) should it be taken up here, or on a new MfD? --Elaragirl ||||||Talk|Count 14:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
MfD worked last time, why not again? I don't see a lot of active Esperanzians around the Village Pump, so the discussion might not be very even. riana_dzasta 15:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

'Vandal' and 'sockpuppet' -- frequently misused epithets

I submit that the terms vandal and sockpuppet are frequently misused when discussing a user who contributes to Wikipedia in a questionable fashion.

To vandalize an article is to deface it, with obviously out-of-place or out-of-context additions -- almost always profanity.

If a user adds questionable material which is not obvious defacement they should not be called a vandal. They may be silly, misguided, foolish, defying the NPOV or citation principles, or otherwise damaging the credibility and/or accuracy of Wikipedia. They need to be corrected, of course. But please, use the correct language!

To sockpuppet is to use multiple accounts to attempt to build false consensus.

Making second accounts without the intent to build false consensus is not sockpuppetry. If it is for the purpose of editing Wikipedia while blocked, it may well result in further blocking. But to give the reason as 'sockpuppetry' is a complete lie. Just say: this person has been banned, and will remain banned so long as there is any indication that two accounts belong to the same person. Yes, this requires more typing! But at least it is fair and accurate.

I'm sure that this over-use of the 'vandal' and 'sockpuppet' epithets is for a simple reason: Wikipedia has clear and simple rules that forbid vandalism and sockpuppetry. To expand the definitions of either of those two terms is a simple, lazy effort, and it effectively condemns the offending user without ambiguity. But it is nonetheless a misuse of language.

Please, admins and other individuals who monitor Wikipedia for unhelpful contributions: use the right language. Be brave -- call someone an idiot, if they are indeed being an idiot. Remember to uphold the spirit of the law, and do not be overly concerned with the letter of it.

Please, discuss!

Takesh 20:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. Another similar "epithet" is calling any external link "spam" whether it is or not. Why debate the merits of a link when you can just make an accusation (even if it's false) that most won't want to argue with. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right. The idea I was trying to express is that an admistrator (or other policing editor) who only uses the terms 'vandal' 'sockpuppet' and 'troll' to describe someone who makes dubious edits will not have much success in helping that person become a useful editor. Takesh 23:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Observing Hanlon's razor is a good idea though. Postdlf 21:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree about vandalism. Too many people label content disputes as vandalism. (Though there is a lot of vandalism that doesn't involve profanity: that's just the most visible.}} I don't have a problem with using sockpuppet for anyone who registers a second (or 3rd, 4th, ... 79th) account for dishonest reasons, whatever those reasons are. If you're pretending not to be yourself, youve created a sockpuppet. Now it is true that "sockpuppet" is often wrongly used to describe meatpuppetry, but that's a separate issue. Fan-1967 22:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • In Wikipedia, a sockpuppet is any alternate account (see WP:SOCK), not necessarily one used to build a "false consensus". Sockpuppetry is not by itself forbidden. Tizio 22:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok -- well if sockpuppet has been expanded to include that sense, I guess it's ok. Still, I get the sense that very expansion was a product of laziness. But, it's a Pandora's box thing. No going back now. Takesh 23:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the words are used carelessly but I very much disagree with your definitions. Someone who maliciously changes dates in an article is a vandal. Someone who deletes sections of an article is a vandal. So is anyone who knowingly decreases the quality of an article, I don't think profanity has anything to do with it. Similarly, any alternate account which is used knowingly to game the system is sockpuppetry, whether or not they are used to build false consensus. That includes evading blocks. Pascal.Tesson 00:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Someone who deletes sections of an article is a vandal." Always? so I'm a vandal then? We need to be careful about making blanket statements like that. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 16:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding overuse of the word "vandal", I believe Wikipedia:On assuming good faith is a relevant essay. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Also, given the connotations of these terms on Wikipedia, calling an editor a "vandal" or "sockpuppet" is both incivil and a personal attack if you don't have any evidence to back up your claim. Hanlon's Razor is a good one; some editors characterize anyone that disagrees with them as a vandal, but that's definitely not acceptable behavior. (Radiant) 11:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. As a member of the AMA I have come across numerous unfounded accusations of sockpuppeting; some users slam anyone who argues with them with the label of "sockpuppet". "Troll" is another one that's overused; people tend to misinterpret WP:NOFEEDING and describe any user they don't like as a troll. Walton monarchist89 13:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocking vandals

If you look at the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:217.21.232.179 you can see that repeatedly giving gentle hints is pointless. These type of vandals know from the start that it's vandalism. It's not accidental in the slightest, and I can imagine them laughing at the suckers who keep on posting them "do it 3 more times and you'll be blocked" "do it 2 more times and you'll be blocked" messages. My plan? If the vandalism is pointless and not accidental (this is usually obvious) give them one warning. After that, block for 6 months. Pussyfooting around, trying to "win them over" is not going to work. If you don't believe me, take another look at the page. Thanks. -- SpookyMulder 09:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

{{blatantvandal}} is what you're thinking of. Also, it's very difficult to ban IPs for such periods unless they're deemed to be a single person or a continual source of vandalism. I only know of a few IPs that have been banned for such a period. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 09:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Why is it difficult to ban IPs? I realize more than 1 person may use the IP. Is it possible to block an IP except when use by particular usernames? Someone said before in a previous section on this page that most anon edits are vandalism. None of us wants to spend hours blocking vandals, and it's gonna take DAYS if we have to send them several warnings each time too, after which they just wait 2 days and their IP is unblocked again, or they change IPs. We can do without these idiots. Don't feel sorry for them. The warning you mentioned states that they may be blocked without further warnings, which is good, as long as such a block is a long one. A 2-day "time-out" period is pointless. It needs to be at least several months.

SpookyMulder 09:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW when you a BV has been given, and vandalism persists, as happened in this case, remember to report to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I did and user was blocked for another month Nil Einne 09:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

imho, vandalism-only IPs may well be blocked for a couple of months at a time. Just put a polite note on the user page, along the lines, we apologize if you run into this block guiltlessly etc., bona fide users can always request unblocking. I am thinking on a guideline like, if an IP shows persistent vandalism with not a single good edit for more than half a year, feel free to block it for three months. After all, our vandal-fighting and RCP resources are limited and we don't want to waste them on pointless friendliness to dyed-in-the-wool vandals. dab (ᛏ) 10:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. 3 months sounds like a resonable time. I'm doubtful above user is going to get any better so until and unless other people start using the IP (in which case they can request an unblock) there's not much point letting him/her come back. AFAIK, a number of admins do indefinite blocks on persistent vandal usernames who've done nothing useful so I assume the only reason we don't with IPs is because we easily risk blocking potentialy contributors who may use the same IP. Nil Einne 16:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
NB noticed the IP has been traced to the City of Stockholm so may be a shared IP. This is obviously one of the problems. We should attempt to ensure that IPs don't appear to be shared when doing 3 month blocks. Nil Einne 16:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh and I noticed the above IP did make at least one constructive edit just before being banned here. There were probably a few more earlier. Whether it was the same person or not, who knows? But given the amount of vandalism/constructive edits, I'm guessing it's probably only one persistent vandal Nil Einne 16:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Categories for stubs

In recently noticed that the template for the stubs appears in the stub lists inside the stub category. And most often amongst the stub articles under the letter "T". Wouldn't it be more logical to have a category for stub templates and not include template the stub category. If it is necessary to place a link to the stub template, why not put it on top of the respective stub category in the how-to section? OMG, you may have to read this twice cause I got dizzy just writing it. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 10:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  • They appear under 'T' since 'Template' starts with T. They could be placed at the top by employing a category sort key, e.g. [[Category:Foo|*]] places something at the top of the category. (Radiant) 11:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I know all that, but some people seeem to think they belong in the stub category rather than in the stub template category and remove the includeonly clause. Or they misplace the templage page by removing the noinclude in [[Category:Page<noinclude>|*</noinclude>]]. What is the policy on that? Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 20:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What to do with how-tos

Wikibooks has has Special:Import for about a month now, and I've been doing several imports per week in the hopes of cleaning up Category:Articles containing how-to sections and Category:Copy to Wikibooks. After transwikiing, I replace whichever template it was with {{Copied to Wikibooks}} or {{Copied to Wikibooks Cookbook}} (I should probably make a third to replace the how-to template?).

This adds the pages into the category Category:Articles copied to Wikibooks in need of cleanup. I had been adding to the transwiki log as well, but it's gotten to be enormous, so I've given up on that and just log it in on wikibooks. For the how-tos, I've recently been adding {{howtobook}} to the talk page as well to make sure editors are informed.

The problem is that even after the copying, templating, etc., 2 things are happening:

  • In many cases, the how to sections of the article continue to be added to. There's no point transwikiing if the how-to sections continue to be developed here, rather than there. We can of course re-import any number of times, but that would get tired rather quickly.
  • In other cases (the majority), the how-to sections aren't actually added to, but they aren't removed either. I personally am a bit shaky on where exactly the line falls between "describing a process" and "providing instructions", so I generally just leave them alone and work on the wikibooks side to adjust the articles to fit the Wikibooks MoS.

In cases where the article seems to be nothing but a how to, I just prod it (I also prod things that are much too stubby for wikibooks... stubs don't fare as well there as they do here on wikipedia). But what to do about these other cases? People seem quick enough to add the tags, and while I'm happy to do my part and help wittle down the backlog in the to-be-transwikied cue, there seems to be no follow-up on the wikipedia side rewriting the articles to be "encyclopedic".

I'm bringing this up here because on the Category:Articles containing how-to sections page, it reads

  • "There is currently no consensus as to how the how-to articles should be edited. To-do lists may be replaced with great prose, or more simply, introduced in a way that reduces their how-to-ishness."

Now that Wikibooks has the tools to run down the wikipedia backlogs in this area, maybe it's time to come up with some sort of policy on this? --SB_Johnny|talk|books 14:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think your best bet would be to remove the how-to'ing information and mark the page as {{stub}}, or if nothing much remains (or the title is inherently indicative of a how-to) throw the page on WP:PROD or WP:AFD. (Radiant) 11:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I do that sometimes... problem is that there's usually a lot of work to do to them on the wikibooks side (the Wikibooks MoS is dramatically different), so I was hoping there'd be some way to standardize the how-to removal for better "wikidivision of wikilabor" in getting the cleanup done :-).
Moving to wikibooks is a great way of honoring and preserving contributions that don't happen to jive with the Wikipedia MoS, but once the copting is done, cleanup should follow promptly. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 13:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

you tube as a source

Is information about one of our biographies which is included in a "gotcha" youtube video useable? Would YOU TUBE be the source? Reportersue 19:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The source would be whoever created the video. Cite the author of the video and the place of first publication. If the place of first publication is YouTube, then so be it. —Psychonaut 19:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
A lot of people upload a lot of things to youtube, and a lot of people have fairly sophisticated editing software, so they can create whatever they want to. If there isn't an original Reliable Source for the video, I don't see how we could consider it adequately verifiable. Fan-1967 19:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
YouTube is not exactly what would be considered as a reliable source (see WP:RS#YouTube) and if referenced, should be done so with assured verifiability (seeing as many can copy the original author's video and upload it themselves). As stated above listing the reference (if valid) may not be as harmful as linking directly to the reference.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use "replaceable" photos

Interesting discussion when the fair use photos are to be deleted: when the free replacement is theoretically possible (e.g. photos of any living person) or then they are already present. See Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#A_change_to_FUC_.231 Alex Bakharev 00:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Rollback to the bots!

I propose to let antivandalism bots (Tawkerbot2, etc.) be granted the rollback feature. A proposal made some time ago for giving rollback to people was not been approved, but I believe that its main objections do not apply to bots. These objection were:

  1. it's additional bureaucracy
  2. if you can be trusted for rollback, you can apply for adminship
  3. can be abused (encourages people to use rollback when inappropriate)
  4. creates an additional "access level"
  5. you can still do this using popups et at.

The first objection does not apply to bots, since there are currently only a handful of antivandalism bots, and requests for rollback can be granted via WP:BRFA as normal bot permission requests. As for the second objection, no bot has so far be granted adminship (even if limited to uncontroversial tasks such as blocking open proxies). The third point does not apply to bot for the obvious reasons that the bot behavior depends on their program and not on their ego. Since bots are generally considered out the "hierarchy" of users (assuming that exists), the fourth objection does not apply as well.

As for the final question "why doing it at all?", it's true that bots can perform rollback; however, rollback would help reducing the load on the server; especially for accounts such as the antivandalism bots that make lot of reversions, this could be overall useful. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 17:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  • You will have to contact the Devs about this since it involves modifying the MediaWiki software. >Radiant< 14:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think the actual software needs any (nontrivial, at least) modification for this, just the config. That said, I guess a dev (specifically, someone with shell access) will probably have to be involved at some point, if we decide that this is a good idea. Personally, I'm in favor. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    • That what I also got at least by reading Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_rollback_privileges/Archive_2006-01-06#Rollback_group_added and the following section. Once a "rollback" group is added, a steward (not a bureaucrat) can make a user a member of this group. Programming was required to make this ability availiable to bureaucrats; this was considered necessary at the time of the original proposal because of a large number of expected users requesting rollback. It's not necessary now, given the little number of antivandalism bots around. Tizio 16:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Since this proposal has not been opposed (so far), I have asked a developer if this feature could be re-enabled. Tizio 17:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, one of the objections I've heard about non-admin rollback is that rollbacks may be flagged as bot edits in recent changes (presumably if they roll back to a bot edit), which obviously doesn't apply here. Of course, it would require a small change to special:makebot, or a similar page to be written. This seems like a reasonable idea.-Steve Sanbeg 19:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Policy regarding 'games' hosted on wikipedia

With the recent nomination of Wikipedia:Esperanza/Coffee Lounge/Games and Wikipedia:Hangman, I believe it is about time that the issue be discussed properly and through out, not on a whim of an afd, with a clear policy coming out of it. Some discussion topics are:

  • Should games be allowed at all? Do they violate WP:NOT?
  • If games should be allowed, should they be allowed in the wikipedia namespace? user namespace?
  • If games should be allowed, should we restrict the type of games allowed?

Please provide your opinion on the issue. Thank you. - Tutmosis 18:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No, anyone who wants to play a game can ask someone on Wikipedia to join any of the many chess, checkers, backgammon servers online. Wikipedia is a dictionary. —Centrx→talk • 18:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
In fact, WP is an encyclopedia, but I agree: Games have no place here. It is laughably easy to ask someone to play elsewhere if you need to de-stress. Distraction from actually helping the encyclopedia and violates WP:NOT a place for social networking, or a games website provider. Moreschi 18:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
If I might suggest something, we could host most of this games on yahoo for free, and we could use 1 page to organize a time table for tournaments or whatever you guys are currently doing with this pages. This could in a way satisfy both supporters and deletionists of game pages. Or did I miss something? - Tutmosis 18:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not create a page called "Wikipedia based games", and a community (or even just me!) to manage it? This would solve this problem. Or host it off wikipedia, on another site for example, but link to it? Most games could easily be transferred. If you want to play games, go on Miniclip and similar sites. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a source for information. I know I'm repeating other points, but it needs addressing now, before wikipedia might as well be 'wikigames' You wouldn't expect games in Encarta (microsoft trademark), so why should wikipedia be different? We could go all out and ban games completely, but that could cause an uproar. Wikipedia is about everyone, so we need a comparise. Any ideas?Micropw 17:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT a gaming server. However, IMO we can keep/allow the few games that actually involve bulding an encyclopedia, like WikiRPG or whatever else people come up with in this mood. Misza13 18:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ditto Wikipedia:Wikistory and Wikipedia:Wikirace and similar games that use Wikipedia functionality. Carcharoth 02:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems like most agree that majority of games should be deleted. Should we add this to WP:NOT page and work it into policy? I hope I'm not the only one who hates the process of "on a random rainy day, all of sudden someone decides to delete a a project with a long history". Which happened to userboxes, which still hasn't seen a clear policy made, just mass-deletions enforced by democracy (see WP:NOT). Also on the afd, I feel I brought up a valid point which I want answered, How do barnstars help wikipedia and not encourage social networking? - Tutmosis 02:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Also Wikipedia:Esperanza is pretty much 'social networking' why not delete that too? The point I'm trying to make is we need clear boundaries so we wouldn't need this mass deletion crusades. - Tutmosis 02:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't use barnstars (I felt uncomfortable about them from the beginning, along with userboxes, and I am still uncomfortable about them), and I'm not a member of Esperanza, so I'm probably not the best person to answer your questions! :-) Carcharoth 02:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Um... aren't barnstars generally given for doing good work on the encyclopedia? I would say that barnstars are helpful to morale in a way that is directly related to contributions to the project. They encourage us to work together on the encyclopedia in a spirit of respectful and appreciative camaraderie. They positively reinforce good work on the project. If, on the other hand, barnstars are being given out for actions unrelated to the encyclopedia, I would say that's inappropriate. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Not always. I've seen a barnstar given for having a creative username. ColourBurst 17:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hence my use of the word "generally", and my last sentence. I'm pretty sure 99% of barnstars are given for contributions to the project. If that's not true, it should be. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a problem of when social networking becomes loosely related to editing. Here's how I think of it: It's ok to interact and to get to know people (the networking part), but in doing so it should be apart of the making of an encyclopedia. Discussions can find themselves in grey area, and some stuff does get off topic, and that can be ok, but we shouldn't actively seek such activities. -- Ned Scott 02:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean delete Esperanza and barnstars‽‽‽ Esperanza is to bring together a community. Basically it means strengthening the encyclopedia. The Spanish Wikipedia weren't a community so a whole big chunk of Spanish Wikipedians broke off to form Enciclopedia Libre. Esperanzians also make sure that Wikipedians' work feels appreciated. This is done using barnstars. Ok, so maybe some people give away barnstars for just having a creative user name, but we just want to say "well done" to all Wikipedia contributors (except vandals etc). Barnstars give it a personal touch. I think that games should stay on Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't just about editing tirelessly; it's also about having fun. Games are quite good for passing the time and they don't hurt anybody. Games may not be encyclopedic but as long as this website doesn't somehow turn into Gamepedia, a bit of gaming should be ok. Games generally don't take up that much room and if you want a game that does, try putting it on Uncyclopedia. --lE☺N2323 21:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think most of these turn-based games should go. However, there are some that seem pretty harmless such as Wikipedia:Wikington Crescent or Wikipedia:Wikirace (just remove the score keeping). Also, these "games" actually uses articles and could get people to think about how readers might navigate between articles. Some of the "write a story" or "finish this sentence" games might be ok as long as they stay in the sandbox subpages as demonstrations of Wiki editing (and again, remove the archives, we don't need to keep this stuff). That's probably where I'd draw the line. -- Ned Scott 02:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay so we are getting there, could we put a border around social activities, such "they must be connected with wikipedia in subject matter"? Or does the community see no point in such activies per Carcharoth? - Tutmosis 02:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
"per Carcharoth"? I do see a point in some of the activities. I've supported the retention of games using Wikipedia as part of the process of the game. Please don't misrepresent my position. I also support other people using barnstars, and I support Esperanza in principle (though I don't intend to join). I do see people awarding barnstars for trivial or irrelevant stuff as ego-inflating or irrelevant, and that can devalue barnstars. I also support off-topic humour when appropriate, as that is invaluable for lightening the atmosphere. ie. Don't be too serious, but don't spend excessive amounts of time playing, joking and socializing. Carcharoth 11:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Wiki-related fun is likely ok, but things like turn based games (and/or high edit counts in order to "play"), games that have score keeping or "tournaments", or games that are not Wiki-related at all, are all red flags of going too far. So, yeah, they should definitely be connected with Wikipedia, be simple, and have a value other than being a game that contributes to helping build an encyclopedia (other than social networking or a sense of community). -- Ned Scott 02:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Personally I agree, of course it's a community decision. Do you think it be best to work something like that into wikipedia policy? So in the future we could just refer to such policy, without having people getting into arguements on afds and possibly leaving wikipedia in anger. - Tutmosis 02:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
We do have policy on this in WP:NOT, so I think it would probably be better to make something a guideline. For one the average editor seems to be agreeing with what we're saying, and this isn't a big issue like the userbox dispute, so I don't think we have to "lay down the law" so to speak. Is there an existing guideline that we could attach a note about keeping wiki-fun wiki-related and such? I think a simple paragraph conveying the basic idea would probably be all we need to do. -- Ned Scott 02:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
and when I say "no record keeping" I mean avoid things like those extensive game archives in the Coffee Lounge Games MFD. It's probably ok to mention such stuff in discussion, especially when the game is wikirelated, etc. Also, keeping track of things and collaborating for "games" like WikiRPG would definitely be ok, since they're games of collaborative editing, and such. -- Ned Scott 03:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Didn't come across any such page. Maybe create one? let's say regarding "Community programs"? - Tutmosis 03:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Who cares? — Omegatron 03:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
We don't want Wikipedia to become a general game playing forum. Nor do we want editors who only play games. That said, I would apply a similar attitude to what we say about user pages that have a lot of not Wikipedia-german material. As long as the users in question are making productive edits we should give them a fair bit of leeway about minor things like this. I do however, agree that game archives are in any event not good. JoshuaZ 03:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
"As long as the users in question are making productive edits..." What are we, the Wiki-Gestapo now? Are we going to start monitoring everyone's usage? Spying on users to see where they're making edits, and if they're being "productive enough"? Clearly, Wikipedia is not becoming a "general game playing forum." As far as I can tell, the Esperanza area is the main place where this is taking place. Just corral it all there, and let's get on with our day. This is a lot of useless cycles when everyone here could be more productive making useful edits to the wiki articles. --Wolf530 (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Normally, I'd agree with you. It doesn't seem like a huge issue, and it was mostly contained. One problem is when we make an exception for one place but not another, and so on. Maybe if there was a strong reason to keep those pages, even if they were the only ones allowed, but so far I personally haven't seen any good reason to keep them at all. -- Ned Scott 04:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

How about a clear statement on what is good and what people have a problem with?

Right things

  1. Games that promote Wikipedia are good. WikiRPG, Wikirace, etc are fine.
  2. Events and things that promote Wikilove and community are fine. Barnstars, smileys, and the like don't *directly* contribute to the project but boost people's morale and make them feel appreciated. This , in turn, helps the community.
  3. Event-groups like Esperanza have the right idea, but implementation sometimes confuses those of us who are not , shall we say, wikiextroverts? Some people place more value on structure, organization, deleting crap, editing, and the relentless and psychotically-fixiated destruction of vandals than in wikifairy-esque prettying , making the newbies feel at home, and other things. These are both important concepts, even to grumpy deletionists.

Wrong things

  1. Things that don't directly related to the Wiki, and don't indirectly contribute to it either. The games in question, in my view (which can be wrong) can't be said to directly or indirectly aid Wikipedia. Some games, like the Sandbox poetry stuff, show you pieces of Wikipedia you would have never seen otherwise. But chess? Come on. I'm almost sure at least one person who has played this chess game has also decided userboxes are a waste of diskspace. The games are wrong because of anyone BUT Esperanza did it (like, say, if they were on a userpage) they would be a smoking deleted salted ruin in minutes.
  2. Things that become an end unto themselves. Hell, who wants to deal with vandals when you can chill out and play chess and not edit? DOES this make people more productive, or less? I can chat with AIM and play with my daughter while editing, watching Lupin's AV tool update. I don't need to play a game. Do others? (And yes, I know I shouldn't project myself onto everyone, but still...)

Alright, that's it. --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 04:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Very nicely summarized, I would support such guideline. - Tutmosis 13:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
How do things like the Reference desk topics fall under this? I can't really say that the non Wikipedia refdesks help the encyclopedia directly (maybe very indirectly by suggesting topics that aren't already covered) ColourBurst 17:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not create a page called "Wikipedia based games", and a community to manage it? Or host it off wikipedia, on another site for example, but link to it to show the link? Most games could easily be transferred. If you want to play games, go on Miniclip and similar sites. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You wouldn't expect games in Encarta (microsoft trademark), so why should wikipedia be different? We could go all out and ban games completely, but that could cause an uproar. Wikipedia is about everyone, so we need a comparise. Any ideas?Micropw 17:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC) (The preceding statement was moved from the section Wikipedia:Game guide by Jcam as it appears to be about "gaming" on Wikipedia and not articles which are/are not game guides.)

I see nothing in the WP:NOT that specifically bans games such as this. It says that Wikipedia is not a social networking site, but are turn-based games hosted on here the same thing as MySpace or Friendster? Unless a user tries to initiate a conversation on Wikipedia with whoever they're playing with, I don't think this violates anything. Spartacusprime 21:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are the same. They are social in nature, and do not contribute to Wikipedia. To claim that WP:NOT doesn't cover these already is wikilawyering, pure and simple. In fact, I'm not sure if we need new guidelines; existing policy, plus knowledge of our core mission and common sense, already give us clear guidance on games: those that are fun and improve the encyclopedia somehow are good; those that do not contribute serve no purpose and should be moved to another site. -- SCZenz 21:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The whole point of making policy is to inform all users of what is wrong and what is right. If you didn't notice, some people are voting 'keep'. Just because the majority can use "common sense", doesn't mean everyone agrees with it. Most people have the common sense to agree with NPOV. Why do we need a policy for that? - Tutmosis 02:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
There's a difference between core policy and new guidelines that follow from it. For peripheral details, we can't always write a new guideline for every situation that comes up. Have you read about m:Instruction creep...? I think that deleting the esperanza games page will set an adequate precedent that most users agree that such games aren't helping with our mission; there's no reason for the extra time and angst to put a guideline tag on it. -- SCZenz 03:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Even though I dont think this is instruction creep, I still see your point. I dont wish to have endless policies and guidelines, it's just some areas are completely not covered by any policy or guideline. Userboxes were a testimony to that. No policy was ever made, people were divided and huge amount of time was wasted. Even adding "game site" to WP:NOT would send the message so we don't have deal with this discussion ever again, since most agree with deletion of such pages. - Tutmosis 03:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
You could add a games section to WP:NOT, sure. But remember that WP:NOT is descriptive, not proscriptive, and that we can never hope to write down all the things that Wikipedia isn't. And there was no userbox policy because nobody could agree on one—sometimes doing the right thing on a case-by-case basis leads to less trauma than hashing out a guideline—and I think the same might end up being true with the games issue. -- SCZenz 06:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed I agree with you, but I feel you might be taking my comment out of context. I don't want another section added to WP:NOT. There is a wonderful sentence there "You may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikipedia." Would it do any harm to add "games" to this sentence? I think it still falls under "descriptive", since in my mind 'proscriptive' would be listing actual games like "Don't play chess" which isn't what I want. If another game page is ever is created, we can just point to that and * puff * afd closed with no arguing. - Tutmosis 19:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
If you want to add that to WP:NOT, I'd certainly be in favor. But if there's a big argument about the added text, I personally wouldn't participate very much. -- SCZenz 21:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that hosting games on wikipedia would take the value out of this website because it would disrtact people who have work to do and are trying to gain more knowledge. Putting games on wikipedia would also attract some people who would mess around editing pages to this site. Thes are the reasons I think wikipedia should not host gamesBennyj600 21:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)bennyj600

"If I play, and don't work, then I am a fool, but if I work and don't play, then I am still a fool." bibliomaniac15 Review? 03:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that games with no relation to editing, e.g. hangman and the chess championship, should be deleted. However, others, such as the India Quiz (which is educational), Word Association (which helps editors hone their linking skills and can direct to interesting pages to work on), and WikiRPG (which encourages editing) should be kept. I'll produce a list later sorting what I think should and shouldn't be deleted. The barnstars and Esperanza, which though not "games" have been mentioned here, should be kept because they encourage civility and a good relationship between fellow editors. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 12:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to play games on a wiki there are sites out there that will give you a free wiki to play games on. This is for writing an encyclopedia. Too often people see Wikipedia and they think What a great tool for all kinds of things. But they are really thinking about the MediaWiki software, which provides the functionality they want and does not have a limited scope like Wikipedia. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I've created a page to summarize what I think: User:Gray Porpoise/Wikipedian Philosophy/Games on Wikipedia --Gray Porpoisecetaceans have large brains 21:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Elaragirl wrote further up: "Right things: ... 2) Events and things that promote Wikilove and community are fine. Barnstars, smileys, and the like don't *directly* contribute to the project but boost people's morale and make them feel appreciated. This , in turn, helps the community." [emphasis added]
 Do Wikipedia:Emoticons (and all those listed at Template:Smiley) really help anyone, more than they annoy the rest of us? I've been wondering whether these could all be MfD'd and strongly-discouraged. They're spreading from usertalk pages to articletalk pages, and I consider them distracting, unprofessional, and unappealing. -Quiddity 00:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the belief that Wikipedia is more as a central hub for knowledge and not frivelous games or gaming forums. I also agree with the suggestion of keeping games that encourage strong utilization of Wikipedia's encyclopeadic purposes. As far as the discussion regarding Barnstars/user boxes, I honestly do not see much harm in them on this site. For one, Wikipedia differs from other encyclopedia websites in the sense that it views its contributers as an online community. The Barnstars/user boxes are a way to encourage the community feel and recognize those who diligently contribute to Wikipeida's various types of articles. I cannot really comment this way or that about Smileys, I have to admit I am one to abuse them (text wise not so much image wise) when sending a thank you message or the like.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems from the discussion here and the recent discussions on MfDs to delete the games that there is largely the following consensus:

  1. Games that do not contribute to or leverage the encyclodia and in some way encourage or support the development of the encyclopedia don't belong here.
  2. Games other than those covered by #1 above may have a place here.
  3. There are other sites that are more suited to playing games than Wikipedia.
  4. Social elements on Wikipedia that are directly related to the construction of the encyclopedia or to acknowleding editors for their work on the encyclopedia are OK.

With somewhat less consensus are the following views:

  1. To the extent, if any, that games are here, they should be narrowly limited in scope and confined to a well-defined area.
  2. We don't need to create new policies specifically regarding games as WP:NOT is broad enough. However, it may be worthwhile to include some mention of games in WP:NOT.
  3. Social groups on Wikipedia such as Esperanza may have legitimate purposes here, but their activities should not distract from the purpose of writing an encyclopedia.

Personally, I find using Wikipedia to play games strange given the availability of free gaming sites—but then I've never understood the fascination with using a cell phone for text messages. These are both examples of using a technology for something that the technology is ill-suited for when there are existing and widely available technologies (email and networked game sites) that are highly suited for the purpose. At least with text messaging on a cell phone you can make the case that the proper tool may not be readily available; with playing games on Wikipedia you can't even say that. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 04:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Doug Bell - there's a lot of games that simply need to go. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a games site. Besides, playing games on here is so annoying. It's much more fun at a site which is designed for it anyway. --Cyde Weys 05:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Related - Smilies and emoticons

copying from above, as it's seperate but relevant, and I think an important issue...

Elaragirl wrote further up: "Right things: ... 2) Events and things that promote Wikilove and community are fine. Barnstars, smileys, and the like don't *directly* contribute to the project but boost people's morale and make them feel appreciated. This , in turn, helps the community." [emphasis added]

Do Wikipedia:Emoticons (and all those listed at Template:Smiley) really help anyone, more than they annoy the rest of us? I've been wondering whether these could all be MfD'd and strongly-discouraged. They're spreading from usertalk pages to articletalk pages, and I consider them distracting, unprofessional, and unappealing. Wikipedia is not AOL/Yahoo/MSN - text smilies are perfectly adequate, and non-intrusive visually, and they don't mess up line-height like embedded images do. --Quiddity 20:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I am admittedly biased on this point. I have always hated smileys and don't see their point at all, text or images. They seem to mean, "I know this wasn't funny, but pretend that it was," or "This was funny but you might not be clever enough to notice," or "I am being insulting here, but you can't take offense because this is a smiley." I oppose including them on the talk pages. Obviously. Phiwum 20:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Not to take a side in the issue of the graphics, but as to the point of smileys, there definitely is one. In face-to-face, or even telephone conversations, body language and voice inflection impart a great deal of information in the exchange that provides context to what is being verbalized. In written communication, this is absent. Smileys help clue the reader to the non-verbal clues that are associated with physically connected communication. That doesn't mean they need to be graphic, but they do serve a valuable purpose in informal written communication. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 21:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Right. Because before the internet, people did not use written communication, so it's a whole new set of problems. Sorry, I don't buy it. If folks write with a modicum of care, they should be able to get their meaning across. But I suppose this rant is more than a bit off-topic. Sorry. I'll just wipe the froth from my mouth and carry on. Phiwum 13:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Key word there is informal. Before the internet, in wasn't common practice for people to have a conversation by writing. Even in the early days of email, the communication was more formal. It was with the advent of interactive written conversations that the use of acronym, abbreviations and finally, emoticons become common place. It is different than the prior written communication. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 13:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Right. If it's informal, then there's no reason to take care to express yourself. Draw pictures instead. Also, it's okay to say "I was all like, 'Duh!' and he goes 'Huh?'," as long as the conversation is informal. Lastly, right, before the internet, letters between siblings were all very formal. Otherwise, they'd have smileys in them.
Sorry, I don't buy it. Folks used to know how to write and know they prefer to draw pictures. Why write, "I was surpised!" when you can just put a little bit of punctuation? (Note: I can understand smileys for IRC and other immediate message systems. But not email and not Wikipedia.) Phiwum 14:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I've got some discussion of emoticons, their history, and their pros and cons, in my Mail Format site: [6] *Dan T.* 14:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I oppose using them also and would certainly be in favor of MfD'ing these. They make discussions look messy. — mark ✎ 20:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

i think games should be allowed any where relevent! Nyjen

Porn References

If Wikipedia is supposedly an online encyclopedia and not merely a collected catalog of general information, then WHY are there so many references and pages devoted to Pornographic entertainment, as in specific movies, and to Porn Stars? Why would ANY encyclopedia of repute want to include a listing of "Big Bust" pornstars or porn stars famous for "female ejaculation"? I mean, really, a page devoted to "Peter North"? Is that a joke? Are either Danni Ashe or Jenna Jameson worth mentioning in an online learning resource seeking legitimacy? How would that possibly cement the site or the Wikipedia concept's reputation as a valuable scholarly resource? Porn doesn't belong here except as a general heading. Adult Film stars are not notable people to be included in an encyclopedia except in the imaginations of one-handed keyboard surfers.

And the number of comic book entries, whether Marvel or DC, is worrisome, as well. Comic Books in general as a subject is perfect. It is a recognized artform. It is considered popular fiction, but of an extremely juvenile nature and NOT on the same level as the young adult fiction of, say, J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter... But do we really need a "Venom" article page? Or a complete list of Batman's villains? Or an article dedicated to "Crisis on Infinte Earths"? Where is the scholarly value in this? Why is THIS included as opposed to the works of, say, horror author Tom Piccirilli who is a Bram Stoker Award-nominated author?

I think Wikipedia has a lot of potential and is a fantastic idea, but until there are set, enforcible limits that are applied to ALL entries, across the board, then this subjective "wiggle room" for articles is going to negatively impact the public's acceptance of the concept as a whole.

Respectfully,

Joseph Armstead

  • I have to agree here. I do a lot of new page deleting (note: I am not an admin) and I have found many sexual references. My first thought is always "Eww!" I have a feeling that this is also most everybody's first response. Nobody likes to see who the porn stars were in 1994. Nobody wants to know something like "how to have sex." (at least not in an encyclopedia) In any case, pornographic references and sexual references do shed negative light on Wikipedia, and I think that they should be ruled as not notable. Diez2 00:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
What part of Wikipedia is not censored do you not understand? Why should the rest of us have to let you vette which articles get posted or not? Nobody likes to see who the porn stars were in 1994. Nobody wants to know something like "how to have sex." Obviously, since we have those articles, there are people who disagree with you. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Armstead: While porn may not seem scholarly to you, it's a billion-dollar industry and very much notable. The "levels" in children/teen literature you mention are point of view and Wikipedia strives to pursue the opposite. Please see the policy WP:NPOV for more information on this matter. I might personally agree with you that Harry Potter is of a "higher level" than many comics, but not everyone does. We receive requests similar to yours on a daily basis. You are right in that a large portion of the world's population might see Wikipedia of lesser quality because of certain content it contains, but, as Zoe said above, Wikipedia is not censored. What you might see as appropriate might be seen as inappropriate by someone else in the world of different views. What you might think is of little quality and downright disgusting is how another editor might make his or her living or enjoys, and is something that he or she sees as a high-level art form. As long as it's not illegal in the State of Florida, where the non-profit Wikimedia Organization hosts its servers, Wikipedia will not censor or judge on what is of a "high level" or what will increase the project's "public's acceptance". Wikipedia is not running for office and thus does not have to please anyone! We do have an Articles for Deletion section, where, if articles aren't notable (see WP:Notability), they can be deleted by consensus. Those are often articles that fail basic key points highlighted in What Wikipedia is Not. There is no such thing as "taste" on Wikipedia. It's about documenting what exists, whether it is universally liked and approved of or not. -newkai t-c 04:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I should also address your first question, "WHY are there so many references and pages devoted to Pornographic entertainment?" Something Wikipedia can do nothing about is which articles are edited and to which extent. It's a simple matter of interest. Why is the there over 5000 times as much information on New York City as their is about the town I'm currently living in, Vestal, New York? Because there are over 5000 times as many editors interested in editing articles on New York City! How does this relate to porn? This might be speculation, but devoted Wikipedians spend a lot of time in front of their computers, and many probably view a lot of pornography and then edit articles on it... It's quite simple. Tom Piccirilli's article here on Wikipedia might simply not be as detailed (or in this case non-existant) as a random sex position simply because those interested in Piccirilli spend more time reading his books and less time on Wikipedia. -newkai t-c 04:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I've spent enough time in Vestal to assert (as original research) that there's 5000 times as much interesting stuff going on in NYC than in Vestal. Seriously, though, I agree with your first paragraph, even if I disagree with the speculation in your second 'graph. Barno 15:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Armstead,
Perhaps you are confusing what is with what you think should be. I suspect you think ordinary, respectable people ought not be fascinated by naked people, especially people who are professionally naked. Social animals are always interested in each other's bodies and I imagine that you are one of those people who would like to think that humans are not animals, but angels. I say we are both. And Wikipedia is devoted to what is, not what anybody thinks should be. John Reid ° 06:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I was simply stating that interest plays a big role in what is written about on Wikipedia! -newkai t-c 21:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The existence of any one article doesn't prevent the existence of any other. WP:NOT paper. Someone else can write articles on porn stars or video games or comic books and you can write articles on fine art and ancient history. We don't need to limit ourselves to the most important or cultured things. If you think we need an article on Tom Piccirilli, go ahead and write one or request one. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, how you define an encyclopedia is you own opinion, I am not defending pornography but I am saying that just because you do not want to see it does not mean that others dont. It is an unbiased decision that states how Wikipedia is run. -Charlie34 8:27 09 November 2006

Wikipedia does not limit its content on the basis of "wholesomeness" or "goodness". The only limiting factors are: Is it notable, verifiable, not original research, and appear in reliable sources. Porn can pass all of the above with flying colors. Wikipedia is not in the position of deciding what is good for society. Society as a whole judges Porn to be a worthwhile venture, Wikipedia reflects that position. Is it right that Porn is so important to our society? That is neither here nor there. Lots of things that are detrimental to society, such as drugs, are covered in exhaustive detail at wikipedia. Porn is no different. The existance of porn related articles on Wikipedia also does not really interfere with non-porn related ventures. Remember, Wikipedia is not paper, it has nearly infinite capacity, and so feel free to read and peruse non-porn related articles here content in the knowledge that no matter how much porn content exists on wikipedia, it will not interfere with the non-porn content in any way. --Jayron32 06:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • All knowledge surely includes Carnal Knowledge??? And if key players in an industry worth 57 billion dollars a year are not notable, then we need to delete half of the non-porn entries in Wikipedia. BenBurch 20:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

A delicate question

Regarding the necessity to cite reliable and verifiable sources, I have a potentially controversial question:

  • Is the Bible considered an acceptable source for historical events? Is it appropriate to cite Bible verses within articles in regards to historical events?

--Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 01:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It is often considered a reliable source, but it depends on the quotation. For example, citing Herod the Tetrarch as being regent during Jesus' life would not be controversial, or any of its descriptions of Paul's travels. Some others might be a problem; did you have something specific in mind? -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 02:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I've been working on Christmas which includes a rather large number of Bible verses. Specifically "The Nativity" section contains a jumble of verses describing the birth of Jesus. I had the impression that this was a subject open to debate and/or interpretation, hence my question. This is the specific content I'm wondering about. What policy or guideline would this fall under? Does WP:CITE apply? If so, does the content meet those standards?
Seeing as how the Bible is really the primary source of information about Jesus for everyone who came after, I can't see how it'd be a problem. If you were to try to start sourcing the Genesis in a Biology article, I might have a problem. :) But the only source of Nativity "facts" come from the Bible, so I say go for it. The reader is already conscious that this information comes from that source anyway. --Wolf530 (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that it should be written as "the Bible says that such and such happened" rather than just saying that something happened and then listing the Bible as a reference. Of course, you would not say that for every statement. Perhaps you could say something like, "the following includes descriptions of the nativity from the Bible." You could also mention that the Bible is the only source of information about the nativity (assuming it is, I thought that there are other Gospels that were not included, like the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Mary). I'd suggest the same thing when dealing with other ancient texts, such as the Koran and the writings of the Plinys. When dealing with modern, and especially ancient, texts, I've noticed that sources are often explicitly mentioned (rather than just using footnotes or links) if the facts are not agreed upon, if the person's credibility is questionable or if the person was the only witness. -- Kjkolb 16:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to follow up breifly. There is basically nothing about the Nativity that is independent of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Other early gospels and accounts of Jesus' life include no information on his birth and later ones are dependent on the canonical accounts (and not generally considered reliable by anyone). Eluchil404 08:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


I too like: The Bible states that '..statement..' in John 3:1 [1] as compared to '..statement..'[1], where [1] is a reference to the Bible. Such a presentation surely is as easily understood, but in addition, editors can easily see what the reference is. And referenced statements are much more likely to stand than unreferenced statement. If there is discussion about referenced statements, the reference is more obvious, too. Terryeo 16:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I think in most respects the Bible should not be considered as a reliable source on historical events as there is every reason to believe that it was not written with the objective of being factual. Of course, it's ok to say "the Bible says so and so". But I wouldn't be content with the sentence "Jesus existed, see the Bible for proof." Pascal.Tesson 16:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Referencing the Bible for information on the Biblical account of the nativity doesn't really need qualified aside from mentioning at the beginning that the story of the nativity is from the Bible and the line refs to where we drew that information. --tjstrf talk 21:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the good responses! --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Page protection policy

I don't see any good reason for not protecting pages that are on the main page, especially the featured article. Isn't the whole point of having an article on the main page that the article is already good, and that few edits need to be made? When an article is on the main page, most of the edits made to it are vandalism anyway.

I'd basically like to propose a change to the protection policy. Pages that appear on the main page should be protected, as are images, or at least semi-protected so that vandalism can be reduced on the articles that are seen by the majority of people that visit Wikipedia. JDtalk 18:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Full protection on main page linked articles is a bad idea. Even very-high profile FAs change somewhat whilst they are on the main page, see this diff for Hurricane Katrina; its not just vandalism that occurs. Articles that get linked through a DYK mention will be quite dynamic and likely are still being edited by the primary author(s); full protection would really hurt those articles. It may be reasonable to change things so main page articles can be semi-protected if needed (like any other vandal target).--Nilfanion (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Protection of FAs is against policy, but I haven't seen any policy against Main page protection; the only thing i saw was "main page articles may be protected if vandalized" on the WP:SPP page; this sounds a lot like the policy for all other articles. Please show me somewhere if I'm wrong about this. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 19:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Compact cassette saw some major improvement while on the front page, adding an infobox and fleshing out some additional details. Semiprotection would cut down on vandalism, but full protection would be a terrible idea. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because an FA is on the front page doesn't mean it can't be improved, and having it on the front page often allows people to do exactly that. Semi-protection might be useful if the article is a vandal target, but full protection isn't necessary. ColourBurst 22:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that a featured article be semi-protected for as long as it's on the front page. Once it's no longer on the front page, it reverts back to editable. It's no secret that stuff on the front page tends to get a good share of vandalism by people who think they're being 'cute'. HalfShadow 00:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree-Although leaving the main page article open to edit is good for enticing readers to become a wikipedian, it is also enticing for vandalism. The idea of full protection for any page defeats the open policy of wikipedia, but for the sake of those who worked on an article to get it to a featured status, the main page article should have some form of protection.--Gronkmeister 22:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The point of always allowing editing on main page articles is to advertise the key quality of Wikipedia - that anyone can edit it. Wouldn't it be somewhat hypocritical if we advertise as the encyclopedia anyone can edit, yet the first article most people see is uneditable? --Golbez 09:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought the main page was meant to advertise Wikipedia. Most of the edits made to articles on the main page are vandalism anyway, and semi-protection only prevents some people from editing it. Articles would only be semi-protected for as long as they're a big massive target labelled "vandalise me", and if people were serious about editing such articles, they would either create an account or wait for the article to be unprotected. So much vandalism occurs on articles linked from the main page; is it really worth clogging up the edit histories in hope of a single constructive edit? JDtalk 10:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

J Di has a good point - just use today's featured article as an example. The article has had a tremendous amount of anonymous vandalism, which people and bots can barely keep up with. Articles such as Hurricane Katrina are another example - there were often cases where a bot would revert vandalism and inadvertently re-add previously reverted vandalism. From what I've seen recently, the daily FAs are usually not improved much, if at all. Semi-protecting the articles would both discourage anonymous vandalism (by preventing it) and encourage good faith anonymous editors to register accounts and contribute to the encyclopedia. --Coredesat 20:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

To add to that: San Francisco, California became featured article and was quite literally vandal-bombed. In several cases it was practically being vandalised every few seconds. W. S. Gilbert? As soon as it front-paged, a huge surge of almost nothing but vandalism, then when it got off the front page, nothing. Soccer? If the kids want to shit in the pool, we'll just deny them access. HalfShadow 05:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


Hey all, Just my two cents. I recon it would be good to have a researcher actually GO THROUGH some articles and actually CERTIFY (spelling?) them as good or not. You could have a banner saying it's been researched, then it would give the researcher notification of the edit. That way VANDALS won't be able to get away with it. Their favourite tactic is to mess with it a bit at a time. I.e. Mozarts christened name, (is it realy that long? I don't think so) It was in five parts if I remember correctly. This sort of nonsence can only be corrected if you make it harder to change. This way, you have reliable, hard to change information on some topics. I must say, it's really hard to defend wikipedia's reliability if it can be imperceptibly changed - then accepted!

And this, people, is why I think that a researcher should approve, and make it hard to screw with. btw, I overheard someone bragging about how they screwed up the llama page. I'm no expert, can someone check?

Tyler, (lost my account a while back)

Wikipedia:Verifiability/temp - working draft to merge WP:Reliable sources to WP:V

In the light of discussions on WP:V and WP:RS, I have been bold and started a working draft on Wikipedia:Verifiability/temp with the following aims:

  • To import a definition of "reliable sources" into the WP:V policy (to make it clear what we mean by the term now WP:RS has fallen by the wayside).
  • To stress, in the discussion on sources on the project page, that common sense needs to be applied to the definition.
  • To outline the sort of questions people should ask themselves when considering whether a source is reliable.
  • Where possible, to shorten the text without losing any of the concepts behind the current version of the policy.

Constructive comments are welcome on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/temp, jguk 12:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Jguk did the same thing in January/February, and it was firmly rejected. He arrived today at WP:V and removed several important sections of it without discussion, and was reverted by two editors. He therefore opened up a draft page, and now is posting here about it because he's getting no support on the talk page. This is exactly what happened last time. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary. The current layout of WP:V is the one I proposed. I have also not received any negative comments other than from you about the desirability of merging WP:RS with WP:V. Indeed, most seem supportive of the idea - which is why it makes sense to put forward a proposal for comment. Everyone's welcome to comment on the page - indeed, I'd encourage them too. Are the ideas in my bullet point list good and worth acting on, or are they objectives that we should reject (and if so, for what reason)? jguk 12:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Everything that matters in RS is already in V, so there's no need to merge. Where is the evidence that "most" seem supportive of the idea? SlimVirgin (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to stay WP:COOL:

  • Jguk, please don't play this ad hominem as you did on WT:V;
  • SlimVirgin, please don't play this ad hominem as you did above.

For the record, Jguk's version was (after the talk now still available at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Jguk's version) introduced in the WP:V page on 31 January 2006. The current version of WP:V leans closer to Jguk's version than to the version before that. Note, for instance, that the older version had a nutshell template, while Jguk's version had the "three point" summary up front. The current version kept this three-point summary, and not so long ago the nutshell formula was finally discarded, and the three-point summary was placed up front. Just giving an example, other examples include the current "Burden of evidence" section, the content of which is closer to Jguk's "Citing sources" section than to what was found in the older version. The current third paragraph of this section was added in a later stage, and wasn't contained in Jguk's, nor the older version. In short, SlimVirgin's assertion above ("Jguk did the same thing in January/February, and it was firmly rejected") is (1) ad hominem, and (2) incorrect. --Francis Schonken 13:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Jguk introduced it, but it was rejected. He stopped editing WP because of the rejection, so he would certainly agree with me on that point. The removal of the nutshell was done by me, as I recall, and quite recently. Hang onto your hat, Francis, because RS is one of the pages he wants to get rid of, a page you have fiercely defended, even against copy edits. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
This was Jguk's last attempt to rewrite V: Wikipedia:Verifiability/Jguk's version. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to draw the attention that the "rejection" of Jguk's version was apparently not all that "final" in the long run, so, with retrospect (that is today), the expression "firmly rejected" was maybe adding more fuel to the flames in your discussion with Jguk than was needed. Indeed you removed the nutshell again, several months after it was re-added as part of the early "rejection" process. Maybe there's a lesson there: if you had been less firm in your initial rejection (which in the long run proved unjustified on several points), maybe Jguk hadn't been chased then. Just recommending to consider using "firm rejections" less often. Or do you consider it a success on your behalf that Jguk was chased at the time? Yes, all this reminds me of what happened at WP:RS in several respects. For instance your adamant discussion that [[Epistemology|actual]] (a deceptive link in my view) had to be kept (see Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/archive5#Actual). Until several months later when you removed the entire paragraph containing that link. --Francis Schonken 13:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

But look what happened because of your guardianship of RS. People want to ditch it because you won't allow a rewrite or even a copy edit. That is Jguk's aim, and that part of it, I must say I agree with; just not the way he goes about it. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Jguk always does this. He has started discussions about this in the last few hours on the talk page of V, my talk page, his talk page, talk page of ATT, and here. I think it's meant to wear people down. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • objectUm, the premise seems to be faulty. There does NOT seem to be any consensus to scrap WP:RS. There are very vocal editors who are argueing to scrap the guideline, but the guideline is constantly referenced by countless editors every day. Its ubiquitousness points to consensus regardless of the volume and frequence of a few editors here to change such concensus. I would NOT support such a move. I have seen no where, at any point, that a large majority of experienced editors supports scrapping, moving, or in any other way substancially changing this guideline as described. --Jayron32 05:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it is in English, is Wikipedia supposed to be Euro-centric?

The article History of Typography says in the opening line: "This is the history of Western typography from mid-15th century to late 18th century. For the development in Asia, see History of typography in East Asia.". However, developments in Asia preceded European typography by at least two centuries, possibly six or seven. In an objection to this, I suggested that this article, focusing on Europe, should be called "History of Typography in Europe", and the main history should cover developments across the globe. Currently the articfle has a one line reference to the "parallel developments" in China and Korea.

In response to my objections, user Arbo, who has really done a wonderful job on this article otherwise, writes:

I don't think Wikipedia is supposed to be focused primarily on Europe and not the whole world. But this is the english language Wikipedia, written largely by english-speakers and western Europeans writing in english. I haven't read many of the other language WP versions, but I'll bet the Japanese WP, for example, has a Japan-centric bias.
If the english WP has a Western-centric bias it stems from the language its written in and the english-speaking cultures who write it. Try posting your query at the village pump for a better answer.

In this age where English is largely a global language, I thought I should check up on this.

Mind you, in the context of typography, this is not a simple issue - Typography has a strong European tradition, and a lot of font development took place in Europe. However, there is a very strong tradition of Chinese lettering design especially in the context of blockprints which were surely a forebearer to metal types used in Korea etc.

More generally, I feel any article with a title like "history of X" should not be only "history of X in geog:Y", but cover the global record on X. One may consider this an extension of the NPOV, but perhaps some further clarity is needed on this.

I looked around the pump to see if this topic has come up, hope it's not something that comes up every few weeks. This is my first post here. mukerjee (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you. To have the primary page devoted only to Europe is a case of systemic bias. NPOV suggests that the page should be a general history of typography, with subpages for history in different areas of the world. That would be my opinion, but I know very little about typography itself. Trebor 16:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The main article ("History of typography") should cover typography worldwide, and should obviously start wherever typography was used first, which appears to be in Asia. If necessary, articles such as "History of typography in <area>" can be created for further details. I'd say some renaming and editing is in order, because this is a definite case of systemic bias. (Radiant) 11:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think there should be a section on typography in Asia in the main History of typography, with a link to the Asia article. It makes sense to have them in two separate articles, as the article on Asia is quite long and would make the main article far too lengthy and dense. For a dissimilar but related discussion on systemic bias, see Talk:Year Without a Summer, if you're interested. riana_dzasta 15:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
One expects to see a bias towards Western subject matter, because this is Wikipedia.en, but that doesn't excuse us from trying to correct it. In other words, the proper answer should be, "of course there's a bias towards printing in Europe, since that's what we're all familiar with. Thanks for pointing it out. Now let's try to fix it." In this case, since all the information about Eastern printing has already been written, it should be an easy matter to integrate it into History of Typography. Might I suggest adding much info from the Asian article, and then splitting some out to a European article? -Freekee 06:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks guys. I am glad to see that some others also agree that the article "History of Typography" should reflect the worldwide history, including China, and if it became too long, additional matter re: European developments should go into "History of European T". Incidentally, dzasta, the early history in China / Korea is (as of now) pretty short; but even if it was long, it deserves a place in any article that calls itself "History of Typography". mukerjee (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement here with the above editors: we should strive to be universal in scope, not Eurocentric or Anglocentric or whatever-centric. See WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias for more thoughts on this issue and some efforts to counter the inherent bias. — mark ✎ 20:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Those other than Mukerjee who have been editing the pages involved have not yet joined the discussion, presumably because they did not know of it--Mukerjee informed me, but only today. A good deal of thought from many editors has gone into this group of pages, and I do not pretend to speak for other than myself, though I summarize as i see it.
There are many aspects to the development of typography; there are two distinct traditions, and some parts were clearly not independent, others clearly were, and some critical ones remain uncertain. Paper was undoubtedly a Chinese invention, and there is therefore a single article on it, discussing its well-documented development in China, and its well-documented spread to the West. Whether the earlier woodblock printing in Asia influenced later European printing seems logical, but is not clearly documented, and is discussed in the pair of articles block printing and woodblock printing, now in process of being merged. The technology for movable type in Asia was quite different from that in Europe; the details of the Asian development are discussed in its own article, and the possible influence mentioned in the articles on Gutenberg and elsewhere. The printing press itself seems to be independent--almost all Asian printing was not done on a press. The development of a suitable non-water based ink seems also to have been European. And of course the influence of this technology on society was also very different in the two traditions--it had only a minor role in Chinese civilization, perhaps somewhat more on Korean--but an immense one in Europe.
It seemed to me that the purpose of the East Asia article was to bring together the scattered material, and give it a presentation worthy of its importance and there was no dissent at the time. It does seem that perhaps the title of the main article should have been changed--that two articles were needed can be seen from the discussions on the relevant pages.
According to the policy for the VP, this discussion should not be taking place here in the VP. It should be taking place on the talk pages of the relevant articles--as indeed it has been up to now. I am sure the discussion there will continue and will take note of the good suggestions made above--it would be absurd not to use good ideas wherever they are made. Possibly other editors of these topics may comment here, but possibly those commenting here might have done well to have instead joined the earlier discussion.
I draw an analogy--though some articles on Christianity must refer to Judaism, Judaism will not be relevant to all later developments in what became a separate tradition, and perhaps most Jews would prefer their developments kept distinct, even though chronologically the earlier. DGG 05:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

All well, and I think most of us agree with what you're saying here. However, part of Mukerjee's issue seems to center on the choice of title for the articles on different traditions. An article titled History of typography should cover precisely what it says: a general history of typography. It should not be about Western typography only, for that's what we would have History of typography in Western Europe for, just like we have History of typography in East Asia. That's the gist of Mukerjee's point, and that's where I agree with him. Use general titles for general overviews, and specific titles for specific overviews. Incidentally, you seem to concede as much when you say "It does seem that perhaps the title of the main article should have been changed". If we agree on that, why should't we move that article at once? — mark ✎ 09:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


Done! I have moved History of typography to History of western typography. I had anticipated doing so in advance—the delayed action is due to me supposedly being on wikileave for November :)
Thankyou everyone for your input.
Arbo talk 12:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
James - thanks! But perhaps moving the present article is too drastic. Clearly, most of what is typography today did happen in Europe, esp if we are talking English typography - so just a subsection or two on the antecedents in the main article would be all that is needed. That would be better than having a separate article on Western typography, and leaving some impoverished content for the global one, etc. But we can discuss this on the topic pages.
DGG, immediately after posting this comment here I had posted a note on James' talk page, who was the lead architect of the History of Typography article. Indeed, it is he who told me that such matters could be discussed on the village pump.
Thanks to the pointers to systemic bias. This bias may pervade many articles related to printing, where the Chinese/ Korean discoveries appear to be downplayed. For example, the lead sentence in the article on Johannes Gutenberg says
Johannes Gutenberg... invented the European technology of printing with movable type in 1447.
which gives the impression that the technology of printing with movable type is European, or that it was completely different from any other, earlier, technology. But these things are better handled in the relevant pages. mukerjee (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
As I said on the Gutenberg talk page a few minutes ago, and now copy here, "I think the first sentence is exact: there is a European technology of printing from movable type, it differs from the Asian technogy for doing this, and Gutenberg did invent it. He obviously did not invent all the components, for example paper, or the use of engraving tools. Bias would be if the sentence read, Gutenberg was the inventor of printing from movable type." For further discussion, I refer to my comments there.
And for those who haven't been there to see it, the Gutenberg article has long had--and still does have--a rather longish section on "Was Gutenberg influenced by East Asian printing?" But, as Mukerjee says, we can continue there--perhaps we've done enough over here.
DGG 05:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Editors participating in this discussion please continue it at Talk:History of western typography. Thanks!
Arbo talk 08:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Taipei and Taiwan

Well, many sports use Chinese Taipei instead of Taiwan. However, because the Chinese Taipei article is existing and show the piece of complete information. So, should i add Taiwan behind Chinese Taipei, E.g. "Chinese Taipei (Taiwan)" for clarification, or just write Chinese Taipei? I have big conflict in this with other, i vote for no. However, i need general answer for this. Thank you for all who comment. --Aleenf1 07:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The name was adopted by the International Olympic Committee at China's insistence as a precondition of the latter's return to the Olympics. As there is only one "Chinese Taipei", no disambiguation is needed - so the "(Taiwan)" is unnecessary. On the other hand, I can't see any harm that can be caused by a single parenthetical statement (that Chinese Taipei is Taiwan), but in Olympic sports articles, a Wikilink should be sufficient without it. B.Wind 08:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree a brief (ie one word) explanation of "Chinese Taipei" may be useful. I think a better way of presenting it would be to have a footnote - eg Chinese Taipei1 where it first appears, and then at the bottom - 1Taiwan. Chinese Taipei (Taiwan) is confusing as it suggests they competed under the name "Chinese Taipei (Taiwan)", which would be wrong. jguk 09:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
However, in sports events where results are listed, Chinese Taipei (Taiwan) SHOULD be used so that people know that this is, indeed, Taiwan, and not something else. Ludahai 11:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi folks, I'm a complete outsider on this issue, but talked somewhat with AleenF1 on IRC just a moment ago. If I've understood the problem correctly, most people doesn't know what Chinese Taipei is, and Chinese Taipei (Taiwan) doesn't look too good. For example, Chinese Taipei national basketball team would probably not make sense to many people as I'd assume most westerners a accustomed to using the name Taiwan, and not Chinese Taipei. But how about including a short one-sentence explanation in the relevant articles, that link back to Chinese Taipei? That would make a lot more sense than Chinese Taipei (Taiwan) in an ordinary article, while various tables could include the (Taiwan), and could also link to either Taiwan or Chinese Taipei. Hope this can be of some help... Bjelleklang - talk 00:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
let me quote "...most people doesn't know what Chinese Taipei is..." this is unsubstantiated. it should be backed up by a scientific survey from a known organization, a scholarly work, or from any reputable source. Chinese Taipei has been in use for international sporting events since when, 1984 Olympic Games which is how many,14 years! "more than 2 decades and 2 years ago..." (quoted from an ongoing RfC in 2006 Asian Games talk page). i agree with the points raised for the use of hyperlinks and footnotes.as it provides clarificatory information by directing readers, who need information, to the right article that explains it. it is not the job of a sports article like the 2006 Asian Games to explain. there exists articles that do it e.g. Taiwan, Chinese Taipei and List_of_IOC_country_codes RebSkii 19:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, schools, as well as most media outlets in Western-Europe, and possibly also the US use Taiwan, and not Chinese Taipei when describing Taiwan. Personally, I don't feel strongly on any part of the issue, but was asked to comment on it by another user, but the way I see it, articles should give helpful (but short) explanations for uncommon terms or names, such as Chinese Taipei and others. In a list, using Chinese Taipei (Taiwan) is probably the best thing, not only because it is correct in regards of the IOC. Another reason for this would be the fact that using Chinese Taipei would to a certain extent degrade the article, because a user not familiar with the name would have to look up another page, and also because using Taiwan would be incorrect. As I see it, using the term Chinese Taipei in an article, should be followed by a footnote, such as
Chinese Taipei is the designated name used by the Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as Taiwan, to participate in most international organizations.
or if possible, an inline explanation. A sports article, should not as you mention offer a deep explanation (that should be left up to Chinese Taipei), just a brief explanation so the user can actually see what country is being mentioned, without having to look up another article. Bjelleklang - talk 00:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


There are two circumstances in which use "Chinese Taipei"
1) Whenever it is a proper noun or registered team name (For example, the soccer team, or the Taiwanese Olympic team).
2) When you are playing nice with the Mainland government.
perfectblue 19:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article Chinese Taipei says Chinese Taipei is the designated name used by the Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as Taiwan, to participate in most international organizations. It shouldn't be too hard to figure out where the country is. And considering how many countries there are that the average person isn't familiar with, I don't see why it's such a big deal. If they're interested, they can click the link. -Freekee 20:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The rewrite of Wikipedia:External links has now been moved in as the current guideline. If you were originally familiar with the subject of this page, you may want to re-read it. While most of the changes are simply to make the guideline readable, there are some alterations to the guidelines themselves and how they should be applied. Major changes include -

  1. "External links are to be kept to a minimum" has been restored as the primary principle of the guideline.
  2. Recommendation of using a link to ODP categories instead of listing a large number of links, and a template used to request an ODP category be created.
  3. A clear and strict bar on links that are a conflict of interests, copyvio, or on the blacklist.
  4. It is no longer recommended to use sub-sections within an external links section, as this would imply a long list of links.

--Barberio 16:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, ODP = Open Directory Project, right? –Little Miss Might Be Wrong 23:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding one fansite link to a filmstar article

My apologies to readers if this has been discussed before. I recently added a single (I hope carefully selected) external fansite link to the Kate Beckinsale page. This was rapidly reverted by an administrator, whom I tried to discuss the subject with here. I did point out in that comment that very many other filmstar and popstar pages do seem to allow at least one prominent fansite to be referenced. This also happens to be the case at a casual browse with the following randomly selected star pages - Sean Connery, Kirsten Dunst, Helena Bonham Carter, Scarlett Johansson (Yahoo Movies), Jenna Elfman - I could go on! In each, just one typical example of a good-quality fansite is shown, and that is what I was trying to show on the Kate Beckinsale page. Since the admin in question left no comment or justification, other than a quick standard comment against doing this on my own talk page, I wonder what people think? Is this a good interpretation of the policy, or should all the many "star" pages with a fansite link be exhaustively combed for this and aggressively removed? MarkThomas 16:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if someone should aggressively go out on a search-and-destroy mission to delete them, but as a greneral rule they should be removed when found, and adding them should be strongly discouraged. A number of problems with fansites. There are so damn many of them; who decides what is a prominent fansite, or how you list one, but not another. If you allow one, then fans of others want to put theirs in, too. Another problem is that many are actually commercial, and we really don't want to send people there. Still another issue is that a lot are amateur jobs that end up dying of neglect in a few months, but nobody ever bothers to remove the dead links. Another problem I've seen (not as often but it happens) is the addition of links to totally inappropriate sites. No, we're better off just leaving the fansites out entirely. Fan-1967 16:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

glossaries, lexical lists

what are we going to do with all the stuff in Category:Glossaries? If you ask me, WP is not for lexical lists. We have categories for browsing, and wiktionary for lexical entries. Is there any chance that we can summarily tag these for transwikification? Same goes for Category:Image galleries and commons:. dab (ᛏ) 18:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

For glossaries, Please see full/long/recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Glossaries, and even more recently re-raised at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#What glossaries are (NOT). --Quiddity 21:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Linked images

On the Prussian Blue (duo) article, Szygny has added a link to a photo of the girls' mother, April Gaede. He stated that he did so because it is unflattering and he wants "to show the hideousness of this bigot". Another user (IronDuke) has said that, regardless of the motive, the photo is appropriate because the mother is an important part of the story.

I have no qualms against adding an image of April Gaede to the article, but to link to an external image seems very odd. As well, because of Szygny's stated bias, I feel the addition is inappropriate. I have reverted it twice, but now that IronDuke has spoken on behalf of the addition, I come for advice.

Is it appropriate to link to an external image rather than to include an image? And, in particular, should we do so for family members of the subjects? And does Szygny's motives play a role in our judgments?

Thanks. Phiwum 20:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Under the new WP:EL policy, external links are to be kept to a minimum. (External links are not to be confused with references.) I would take this to mean that files which we can host locally should not be arbitrarily linked to instead.
I think a photograph of the mother would be appropriate for inclusion as a locally uploaded file, and even that particular photograph would have been if it were inserted by a less openly biased editor. Also, if we can find a less ugly image to use then that better image would be preferable. --tjstrf talk 21:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I haven't found any photo that we can include in the article, although I encourage others to look. Could we include an image from a documentary under fair use? If not and if we can't find a photo suitable for inclusion, should the link stay or not? Thanks for the advice. Phiwum 23:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

a content dispute with no content?

I've run into a situation where a user is posting lots and lots of (IMO) off-topic content to a talk page, using it as more or less a message board, along with another user - the two of them exchange personal musings on their own talk pages but also on any article talk page where the first one happens to post a comment. When I say off-topic - there's always some jumping-off point that has to do with the article, but then it goes off into philosophical digressions with no mention of any current or proposed article content, except for general snarky remarks about how other editors have not written enough about a particular subject.

There are no edit wars or other no-nos going on - this user has only talked on talk pages, never edited an article, despite having been here nearly a year. I'm trying to stay cool but I find this really disruptive, and when I've mentioned this (civilly, I think) and pointed the user to the talk page guidelines, the response was basically "you're wrong, it's on topic, mind your own business". What type of dispute resolution, if any, is appropriate when the sole offense is verbose irrelevance? (I don't want to name names until I bring it up through the proper channels, if that turns out to be a reasonable thing to do; this post is just to help me understand the policy. If I should be posting this somewhere else, please let me know.) ←Hob 18:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a blog, social netowrking site, or anything of the sort. First, tag wherever they're talking with {{Off topic warning}}. If they continue to ignore it, open a request for comment. Just removing their whole chat might also work, but it's best to ask others if they're ok with that. Some people just don't understand what talk pages are for. It's best to pound that fact into them now. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Hob, I hope you don't mind but I checked your contributions to find the talk pages where this was occuring and after finding out what exactly was happening I have to agree that this is very inappropriate. Checking the two users history, it appears that they like to cause a lot of problems and make ad hominem attacks on people. Since I'm not personally involved, I don't want to go and act on it but perhaps you should talk with an admin about this, even take it to dispute resolutions. I'd draw attention to the contributions of these users... --The Way 09:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've started an RFC on the first user; the other one is much less aggressive (and really hasn't made any personal attacks - maybe you're thinking of a different editor I've been arguing with lately in an unrelated matter). ←Hob 06:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Fact V fiction

I've got a problem with a user who's twice redirected a page dealing with a topic covering science-fiction, to a page dealing exclusively with biological fact, based only on the entemology of subject's names.

At present, I've attempted to avoid an argument by adding an in fiction section at the bottom of the factual page, but I suspect that the other user will simply delete it.

Any advice? - perfectblue 12:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Note related discussion at Talk:-kinesis. - jc37 13:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Note, discussion hadn't been started when I posted here. A quick note on my talk page would have been helpfull.
perfectblue 17:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Modifications to the notability guideline

Just wanted to let people know that the guideline on notability is currently undergoing major modifications with a partial merge from Uncle G's essay on notability. I think the changes are positive but they are also a major modification and should probably be ok'd by the community. Pascal.Tesson 15:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"WikiAtlas"

A user is about to build Portal:Atlas into a gateway to a large series of image galleries of map images that happen to be on Wikipedia. I find this a useful project perfectly suited for commons:, but not so much for Wikipedia, and I have pointed the user to Wikipedia:Galleries. I have also moved some gallery pages, such as Maps of the World to Gallery of world maps. eBut the user seems to dislike the idea to take his project to commons. Wider input is appreciated. dab (ᛏ) 08:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i agree that the best place for the Atlas portal would be in commons:. However, i think if the portal title and scope were changed to Cartography it would be more convincing to have a place in Wikipedia. It would have a wider scope for such an important subject. It wouldn't be just a collection of maps and pictures as it is now but a coverage of the science of cartography instead. -- Szvest → Wiki Me Up ® 11:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but Maps of the People's Republic of China, Maps of Canada, etc should be moved to Commons, too. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a collection of images with no text to accompany them. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

All big encyclopedias I've ever seen always had an "Atlas" tome. And I've been extremely frustrated at times when I couldn't find any decent map on Wiki because I didn't know where to look. --SidiLemine 16:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
most of the time, there isn't a decent map on WP. If there is one, see "Geography of X". Proper maps of China will be on Geography of China. If there is a gallery on commons, there will be a transwiki link there. Articles on cartography itself (i.e. what maps are there, who is making them, since when, and where to get them) can be separate, e.g. Swiss cartography. None of this justifies collecting all maps we have into image galleries on Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 18:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
This all seems to assume that encyclopedic knowledge can exist only in plain-text form. I agree that Wikipedia is not an image gallery; but maps seem to be a (rare) example of genuinely encyclopedic content that is best presented as self-contained images. I would expect every map to also be used on the relevant country page, and probably also on a 'Geography of' page; but providing a full and accurate atlas of the world also seems to be, in itself, an encyclopedic purpose (in a way that, say, providing a collection of unannotated photos of capital cities isn't). I don't think we need to say that, just because something is not in plain-text form, it is automatically not encyclopedic so must be shipped either to commons or as an illustration to a text article. In most cases, a stand-alone image is not encyclopedic; in the case of a map, I think it can be. We need to apply the same standards as to text articles, though - so the Atlas needs to try to provide a single, consistent, best possible map of the world and each part of it; not an indiscriminate collection of all available maps. TSP 20:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, maps seem to be an example of genuinely encyclopedic content that is best presented as self-contained images. Also nothing stops adding text to these "Maps of ..." pages. feydey 01:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"difference pages"

Most encyclopedias are bound by page restrictions which do not allow them to address anything other than a certain list of topics and a short description of them. I believe that wikipedia could use the flexibility is has from being only online to break the mold of these other information sources. I think one very important way it could do so is by creating pages where two similar concepts, ideas or things are compared and contrasted.

I could think of several pages that could be compared or contrasted, such as Camus/Sartre, IR/Raman, C/C++, glastnost/perestroika. Most of these things are closely related and that would be the impetus for building such a page to illuminate the differences between them. I believe many people look at encyclopedias in the first place for the reason of figuring out how two things are different.

I hope this is helpful.

Well, we actually do have a few pages like that - for example, Comparison of Windows and Linux or Comparison of Java and C++ --`/aksha 04:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
that sounds like a good start, but I think that it is not prevalent enough that a user would find it useful. i think it needs to be a prominent part of wikipedia such that someone who is interested in a difference between two things would know to search for this on wikipedia's site. one would not think of searching an encyclopedia for Comparison of Windows and Linux, and thus people will not use this article to its fullest. if it were part of a section of comparitive articles, then a person may search that comparitive section first and find it quickly. the ways that wikipedia is different than a regular encyclopedia should be known to a user for wikipedia to be most useful and this is a way that wikipedia could be much better than a regular encyclopedia. Vatassery 07:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the concept here, but I think these pages are magnets for POV-pushers, and thus difficult to maintain an encyclopedic tone. I think another problem is that most of the sources for these articles are going to be biased towards one point of view. Anyone want to start Comparison of liberals and conservatives—I bet we could get half a dozen users blocked for 3RR and other infractions in the first day.  :-) —Doug Bell talk•contrib 07:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
That made me laugh...it's like you were suggesting it as a game.  : ) Postdlf 18:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
cross links definitely help wikipedia but it would help much more if the crosslinks to a comparitive article were prevalent enough that a user may expect to find them. as for the POV people, i think that would be content-dependent and those articles would have the same problems that the individual articles they are comparing have. for example, a complex comparitive science article would be difficult to verify if nobody else possesses the knowledge of the subject besides the poster. maybe some articles would be prone to vandalism... i think the bottom line is "is this concept going to be used enough to justify a change in policy, however small a change it may be?" if i didn't think so, then i wouldn't have posted this, but i'm only a casual user of wikipedia. Vatassery 18:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The few comparative articles we do have are constantly prone to POV and OR. Unfortunately, writing a fact-based article about something is much easier than producing a fact-based comparision that doesn't end up being an essay with personal judgements. You could assign ten philosophy students the task of comparing Camus and Sartre (the example given above). All would be different, and all would contain opinions that were not verifiable fact. I don't see this proposal going anywhere. Fan-1967 18:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
the articles that i use from/contribute to wikipedia are generally technical and don't suffer from POV SOBs (surprising huh?), so you might see more "comparison articles" in these areas in the future. anyone who is interested is more than welcome to help me start this. thanks for the ideas and the constructive criticisms, everyone. Vatassery 08:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Even technical can run into POV problems (Mac vs PC, anyone?), but I can see that you can do objective analyses on scientific areas. Fan-1967 08:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Troll, sockpuppet

To follow on from a discussion that took place earlier, I have found (through my work with the AMA), that some users tend to label their opponents indiscriminately as 'trolls' (without bothering to refer to WP:NOFEEDING). Another common tactic is to identify their leading opponent, then brand everyone else on the opposing side of the debate as a sockpuppet of that user - with no evidence. I think that the policies on trolling need to be completely rewritten, if possible with the abolition of the term 'troll' altogether, in favour of something more precise. This would help in dispute resolution; the problem is that 'trolling' is such a vague term. Walton monarchist89 10:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I discourage the use of the term at my disclaimer page. The sort of individual who misuses the t-word is often the same sort who would co-opt any available label in the effort to win some particular microdispute. If we get rid of t it wouldn't be long before groupthink goes too. That political correctness is an endless game and a waste of time for everyone except the ts: better to just ask them to interact with good faith civility and keep the sysop tools handy for the ones who refuse. DurovaCharge! 15:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works)

(reposting because of very little feedback)

I've overhauled Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) based on a 2nd round of feedback. This guideline is intended to bring a minimal consistency to the basic formatting style of bibliographies, filmographies, and discographies.

Possibly it's complete, and ready for {{style-guideline}} status? Feedback (at it's talkpage) or improvements welcome :) --Quiddity 03:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Where to put fancruft

So, you want to write a wikiarticle that consist of summaries of the various interpretations of a specific aspect of Dungeon and Dragon's system for creating roleplaying charcters. Parts would be based on reliable sources, but much would be just condensed summaries of the opinions of large groups of people. It would be verifiable, but it might border on original research. So... where on the web should such stuff go?

You could just make a wikipedia article on it. If "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", then perhaps "Extraordinarily trivial claims require only the barest levels of evidence". I've certainly seen worse Fancruft on Wikipedia, but i've never myself been the responsible party. You could just make a webpage, write your own opinions, and throw the page upon the web. But this would prevent others from collaborating, and would be harder to find. Are there any other options I should consider?

Thoughts? --Alecmconroy 14:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What I'd like is a means to include well known fannon in articles about fictional characters or franchises (so long as it is identified as such, of course) without some purist coming along and reverting it on the grounds that it wasn't explicitly mentioned in continuum.
perfectblue 14:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Realistically, such material doesn't belong here. There's so much of it (and let's face it, a lot of it is really bad) that there would be no objective way to pick and choose what would or wouldn't be appropriate. You could, I suppose, "verify" that somebody posted something somewhere, but how would you determine that what was posted in one forum by one person was worthy of inclusion compared to what someone else posted somewhere else. No, totally unmanageable. Stick to canon material. Fan-1967 14:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
While I agree that the vast bulk of fannon doesn't belong in Wikipedia at all, and that OR needs treading on, I've run into several situations where there have been arguments over details that were extrapolated, which were branded fancruft, but were valid. A recent example was where details on how on calculating the path of a wormhole (in the context of a of a fictional ship navigating, and relevant to the page) were deleted from a page because the writers didn't specifically used wormhole physics but not the word wormhole.

perfectblue 16:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. If you want to do OR, it shouldn't be on here, and creating a synthesis of message board postings and fannon is just that. At least D&D has published magazines (Dungeon and Dragon, or at least they used to before the Reformed Church of Satanic Accountants took over). Any article employing "Extraordinarily trivial claims require only the barest levels of evidence" should be sent to dev/null. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 15:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflinct) But well-- does such really belong in /dev/null? It's an article I would have wanted to read. It seems like the ideal solution would be some sort of "fancrufty" wiki like Memory Alpha-- somewhere where the rule are it little more bendable (and as a result, the content a little less encyclopedic). The only harm I can see to putting such stuff on wikipedia is that it might degrade the wikipedia name as a source for reputable, reliable info, but it seems like there should for such stuff somewhere. --Alecmconroy 15:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Somewhere, yes. Here, no. It's not like there's a shortage of fansites to put such stuff on. But there's no way such material can meet Wikipedia standards. Fan-1967 15:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, for D&D specific stuff, you might also try here --ElaragirlTalk|Count 15:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was looking for, and now that I see it, I should have just done a google search, but it didn't occur to me there would be a whole wiki just for D&D. Thanks you much! :) --Alecmconroy 15:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing about 90% of the fancruft go, keeping only greatly trimmed down articles on the most relevant topics. It would be an interesting statistic to see what percentage of the total content on Wikipedia is fancruft—I suspect that the ratio of fancruft would be disturbingly high. This stuff grows like weeds, and I think the reason is fairly simple. Just about anyone can contribute to fancruft somewhere. People without any other encyclopedic knowledge can add their knowledge of whatever it is that they're interested in. So people do. They want to contribute, and that's all they know about. Actually researching an encyclopedic topic and creating or adding to such a topic is perhaps too much work or simply not interesting enough. So this stuff grows like weeds—we need a Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiGardening project to clean this stuff out, but since so many people have little else to contribute to, we can't because the outcry would be deafening. This is one of those "big" Wiki issues that may be too big to tackle, so it is tolerated. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 18:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I have to confess, I'm a little skeptical myself about how big of a problem it actually is. I'd be content if we could list articles as "bad articles", tag them with some sort of "Non-notable subject matter with few reliable sources" warning and call it good. Delete the controversial ones of course, maybe separate them all from the "Wikipedia" name of course so that the Wikipedia title applies only to the non-bad articles. But if disk space and bandwidth really aren't a problem, then I don't know that having non-controversial fancruft on some giant non-wikipedia wiki would hurt anything. (obviously, that there's a consensus such stuff is bad is plenty good enough for me-- I wont' add it or anything. I'm just saying, a conclusive case hasn't been made to me that the stuff is all that bad). --Alecmconroy 19:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The obvious way to accomplish that is to set up a separate Wiki for it. Wikipedia strives for a reputation for reliable, verifiable material. If you start allowing some exceptions to that, then how much other stuff would be allowed as "bad articles"? Fan-1967 20:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
"Where to put fancruft"?? AfD is surely the obvious answer. Moreschi 19:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The first step is to stop using terms such as "fancruft." Everything here is "cruft," by a strict deifnition. The article on Neptune is planet- or science-cruft. The article on William Henry Harrison is Presidential-cruft. Etc etc etc. The second is to use your head - is the article useful, and is there a place for it here. We have a number of convoluted guidelines to help you decide that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that better terms are needed. For example, I'm including not so much the articles on say Tom Cruise, where there might be many fans, nor on works of fiction like Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, but really all of the extensive derivitive articles on the fictional elements—so perhaps fancruft is not very descriptive. I'm talking about stuff like S.P.E.W.—is this really encyclopedic? Heck, there's even Category:Harry Potter fandom. Doing a quick perusal of Category:Fictional, which seems to be the top category in the hierarchy for this stuff, somewhat arbitrarily I drilled down through the following categories: Fictional → Fictional locations → Fictional universes → Pokémon → Pokémon species → Pokémon species by type to find 17 leaf subcategories. In fact, Category:Pokémon has 93 subcategories under it—I'm not sure I want to find out how many Pokémon articles that translates to. I just think it's too much, and efforts to beat it back don't seem to be very effective because a) it grows like weeds; and b) there are a lot of people here that wouldn't have much else to contribute to if they couldn't contribute to these. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The questions, for me, are these: 1) Does so-called "cruft" hurt the project? I would say no. 93 Pokemon subcategories does not affect our ability to have good articles on science and history. 2) Is "cruft" desirable? As a rule, I'd say "yes." We tend to only use the word "cruft" on things we dislike as a subject, rather than recognizing that having major articles on different parts of the PATRIOT Act are just as "crufty," by the standard definition. We should embrace a wide, comprehensive coverage of a subject, whether it be Picasso or Pikachu. 3) What is a logical limitation of coverage? Truly, there is no answer to this, as we all have different feelings as to what is logically worth keeping around. We've compromised on some fairly horrid "notability" guidelines, which is a good start, but the line ultimately sits where the information ceases being useful to anyone. Poke-"cruft," by that measure, is inherently more useful than many historical figures, but that's why subjectivity is worthless. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
For me, one clear line between "trivial subject" and "cruft" is not so much Notability as much as Reliable Sources. It doesn't matter how trivial something is-- if we have enough reliable sources, then we can do the job. If, however, there aren't any reliable sources, it runs afoul of Verifiability. If there is really only one source (or one like-minded collection of sources), then really the best we can do is quote an summarize that source, which has limited value, as the whole beauty of any encyclopedia is to synthesize and integrate multiple reliable sources. If, however, there are lots of reliable sources, then it may belong, no matter how trivial.
The problem with cruft is, there usually is only one reliable source-- the work or works of fiction themselves. Everything else is, at best, semi-reliable. But such stuff is still interesting to read and useful-- it just sometimes strains the bounds of Reliable Sources and No Original Research. --Alecmconroy 00:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I would question whether "poke-cruft" is more useful than history. Just because we may choose to ignore history and thus not learn from it, doesn't mean that it's inherently non-useful. History is tremendously useful to those with ears to hear and eyes to see. Knowledge of history can prevent wars - can poke-cruft do that? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Jeff, I guess an inclusionist (which your comments label you as) and an exclusionist are inevitably going to have differing view on how to decide what should be here and what shouldn't. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict w/ Jeff) I think that a good idea to promote is that there are lots of Wikis, with different goals, different standards, and different purviews, and that it's perfectly valid to contribute to more than one. This could help combat the idea that all information, no matter how trivial or how poorly documented, has to be in Wikipedia, out of some drive for completeness. We could maintain an awareness of what other wikis are out there, and be ready to send people to other wikis when their content would be more appropriate there. If we think of Wikipedia as one particular member of the community of wikis, namely the one that aims for encyclopedic standards, then I think we could better control the growth of inappropriate material that people want to be able to access, but doesn't happen to fit our inclusion criteria for whatever reason. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It would be a start. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
GTBacchus nailed it. Here, we're trying not merely to be a collection of whatever information people think is useful- we're trying to be an encyclopedia, and there's a difference. This is the distinction that IMO badlydrawnjeff does not make. Video game guides and phone books are useful for plenty of people, but the material in them is not encyclopedia material. Friday (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Amen, GTB. For example, when I was told above of the existence of a D&D wiki, it was the perfect answer to my own query. The bind we get into, I think is, when we have to choose between putting something on Wikipedia or not putting it on a wiki at all. The existence of the Lostpedia and Memory Alpha and other such places instantly solves the problem.
You know, maybe the whole solution is for Wikimedia to start a wiki that's geared toward the documentation of fictional worlds or other such trivia. (An idea, of course, which is more or less suggested by others above, and others before me, I'm sure). Then, AFDs on fancruft would be much easier, as there could be a "move to cruftpedia" option that everyone could accept more easily. The Wikipedia name, meanwhile, would not suffer from the association with articles about such stuff which are a little softer on the reliable sources, and the writers wouldn't have to face the agonizing choice between wanting to write an article and wnating to obey wikipedia rules at the same time. Obviously, this wouldn't preclude the existence of some external of the work-specific wikis (Star Trek, Lost, etc), but it could serve as a catch-all for those works not popular enough to have their own servers.
Does anyone know how hard it would be for the folks upstair to set that up? Obviously, expenses of storage and bandwidth, possibly servers as well. But, look at it this way-- the purpose of cruftpedia wouldn't just be to get cruft ON an encyclopedia-- it would also help to get cruft OFF Wikipedia, which is surely a noble goal.
--Alecmconroy 23:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm in favor of this. It's not like the bandwidth/storage requirements are going to be all that different than they are when the stuff is on Wikipedia. It would certainly make it easier to define what is appropriate and what isn't if we could define a place that is appropriate for this large and growing collection of borderline (and I'm being kind here) content. —Doug Bell talk 23:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
As a frequent editor of fiction-based articles who has seen just how bad they sometimes get, I am adamantly opposed to any such move. Simply put, a Wikifiction project would degrade into fanboy hell. Here, if an article is badly written I run it through AfD, I can slap cite needed tags all over it, I can make other editors not post their personal shipping fantasies, and I can generally require that a professional appearance and writing style be maintained, because this is an encyclopedia not a fansite. There, no such cultural restrictions would apply, the deletionist party would have no influence, and probably the only things that would be deleted would be outright hoaxes. Do we need 400 articles on Pokemon species in Wikipedia? No. But at least on Wikipedia we only have 400 articles on the species, rather than Wikifiction where we would have 400 articles on the species... plus 800 articles on their moves, 300 on their items, 150 on locations, 12000 on every strategy some 12 year old thought up in school one day, 46 on Pokemon meta-philosophy... Well-written fancruft in an encyclopedia of effectively infinite space harms no one and is at least indirectly beneficial to Wikipedia by drawing additional editors and visitors. In my opinion a Wikipedia which allows or at least tolerates fancruft but enforces decent quality controls is far more beneficial than a festering sinkhole of fancruft without any quality controls. --tjstrf talk 00:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
But tjstrf, the whole point of such a proejct would be to become a festering sinkhole of colllaboartively edited fancruft. People obviously are enjoying themselves writing it. And it wouldn't mean that Wikipedia would change its own policies one iota-- well-written articles about fictional things would be just as welcome as they are now. It would just make deletions a much less bitter pill to swallow, and would hopefully discourage people from creating the stuff on Wikipedia in the first place. If we really aren't concerned about bandwidth/storage/servers, I can't see any possible downside here for us. At worse case, no one would use it and we'd just be where we are not. At best case, it could majorly stem the tide of cruft put into wikipedia, maybe the relevant AFDs much much smoother, and be a Memory Alpha for works of fiction that have no Memory Alpha. --Alecmconroy 00:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Festering sinkholes are useless, duplication of effort at multiple locations similarly useless, splitting our base of contributors even more so. If we'd delete something for its low quality here, pawning it off on another wiki isn't helpful to that wiki. If it has good enough quality writing, is verifiable and not filled with original research... then why are we deleting it? --tjstrf talk 00:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It remains that some content just can't be on Wikipedia, because, for example, it can't be properly sourced. It would be good to have a place to point people when they wish to share such content with the world. It doesn't have to be Wikipedia, or another Mediawiki project - we can point people to other wikis that already exist, we just have to know about them. Perhaps we could maintain a list, in the Wikipedia namespace, of good places to send people who wish to contribute WP-inappropriate content. Then it could be easier to maintain the quality control tjstrf is talking about over the material that we keep here, because it will be more manageable in scope. I already do this with non-notable web content; people who want to write about their websites that don't meet WP:WEB are more than welcome at AboutUs.org, a domain directory that aspries to a level of completeness that we don't get close to. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It's true that there is some stuff we just can't source. But some of these articles are incredibly popular - Pokemon is frequently in Wikipedia's top 100 (see October's rankings here). This really ought to encourage us to get a grip on these articles rather than try and fob them off elsewhere. A concerted effort to think about how this can be done in the context of popular culture could both increase Wikipedia's popularity - and improve the world's understanding of popular culture. We're where people come for this stuff. We ought to be trying to handle it well. --Siobhan Hansa 00:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The way I'd imagine it wouldn't be to delete Pokemon from Wikipedia just because it's a work of fiction-- we need to cover notable fictional things in a non-crufty way. We souldn't change our deletion critera or anything. But we could have somewhere else to throw all the cruft that just doesn't belong here. --Alecmconroy 00:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Defining properly sourced in the context of fictional articles makes an interesting digression as well. If you were to write a guideline for the sourcing of fiction based on the spirit of WP:V (to ensure accuracy and npov) you'd end up with a guideline closer to WP:CANON than WP:RS. Take a look at Final Fantasy VII: it's arguably among the most notable games of its decade, insanely popular, a featured article, etc. and yet its sources for internal facts are essentially a game transcript. --tjstrf talk 00:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The biggest reason something is labled "cruft" isn't that it's bad, but that it has a level of detail that is far too extreme for an encyclopedia. The way I see it is wikipedia articles are written for a general audience, while a pokewiki article is written for an audience of hardcore pokefans. One example is TV - fansites have detailed episode synopses, character descriptions, lists of things, etc. Wikipedia generally isn't even supposed to have individual articles on each TV episode, but that guideline is often ignored. I don't think it makes sense to send things elsewhere because they're bad (bad stuff should just be deleted), but content that is accurate and well written, but would be considered minute details to the point of trivia, would probably fit in well on a specific wiki. People want the insane detail (somewhere), but wikipedia can't seem to decide if it wants it or not. And I don't see other wikis as duplicating WP's editors or audience (as long as WP actually follows the guidelines instead of declaring a policy but doing something else). --Milo H Minderbinder 01:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

<dedent> To address some of the comments above:
Simply put, a Wikifiction project would degrade into fanboy hell.

A sister wiki project for fictional works could adopt whatever standards it deemed appropriate. To say that the only place that reasonable standards for this material can be maintained in on Wikipedia seems to be defeatist. —Doug Bell talk 01:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If we'd delete something for its low quality here, pawning it off on another wiki isn't helpful to that wiki. If it has good enough quality writing, is verifiable and not filled with original research... then why are we deleting it?

To say that this stuff all belongs here I think goes against the purpose of an encyclopedia. I'm not saying to get rid of the Pokémon article—that should certainly be kept, maybe a few supporting articles as well. What shouldn't be here is an in-depth desciption of every fictional element of Pokémon, just as in-depth descriptions of every Star Trek character, etc. is overkill. These can be condensed into concise articles (for example, one article with the star trek characters for the original, the next generation, etc.) with links to the whole sheebang on every line the characters ever muttered on some other wiki. —Doug Bell talk 01:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to this entire debate. The whole point of Wikipedia is that there is no limit to the number of topics it can handle. Yes, things need to be notable, but anything to do with any published novel, TV series, film or magazine counts a notable, as far as I'm concerned. I am not an obsessive fan; I contribute to Wikipedia mainly in my specialist fields of history and politics. Yet I've also been working on improving the detailed coverage of Discworld and the Vorkosigan Saga. What's wrong with that? What I love about Wikipedia is that whatever you search for, even if it's an obscure fictional character, you'll find a bio with interesting facts. Let's not lose that. Walton monarchist89 10:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The point of merging is not to limit the number of topics, but to provide essential context to short articles that would otherwise have little. (Radiant) 11:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed this thread : )
See: User talk:Jc37/Proposals/WikiWorks for something similar you might be interested in : ) - jc37 12:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Nofollow tag

As far as I am aware, there has been no discussion on the use of "nofollow" on links from en since the one at Wikipedia:Nofollow and Meta nofollow when the decision to remove nofollow was taken in March 2005. Yet today, nofollow is back on many external links (e.g. all of current events, all of Wikipedia space etc). I don't want to repeat the arguments, but there was a majority in favour of removing nofollow and I cannot find any discussion on putting it back? Can anyone point me to the new debate? Personally I am distressed we now self-label ourselves "cannot be trusted" --BozMo talk 20:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think having nofollow on talk and wikipedia namespaces is good. That allows us to have external links in discussions, like about whether or not said link should be included, without tacitly endorsing that link. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 21:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
There is periodic discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam to find the right way to revive that discussion. Everyone involved in spam fighting believes that this would be a a positive change. The arguments in favor of dropping it are somewhat outdated. If there are a couple of people outside of the project that want to see the nofollow issue then I think some of us will write up a nice little proposal on why we should do this. Pascal.Tesson 21:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Pascal, I believe Bozmo is suggesting removing nofollow from Wikipedia. Unless I'm mistaken, you are suggesting adding it back to all pages (not just those outside article space). In other words, I believe you are opposite ends of the spectrum. Dragons flight 21:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The current compromise was implemented May of this year, see this mailing list thread. Dragons flight 21:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it is right, perhaps not but it should be discussed by the Wikipedia community not the developer or spam community. It isn't a technical decision but a decision about the nature of Wikipedia and Web 2.0 --BozMo talk 22:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
(BozMo, I'm assuming your intended meaning here was not that the tech and anti-spam communities should not be discussing this but rather that any final decision needs to be discussed and made by the broader community. If I'm wrong and you truly don't think these smaller communities should be discussing the topic, please set me straight. --A. B. 05:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC))
Yes, sorry of course I am all for discussion. Especially where wider opinions are solicited. Thank you for assuming good faith :)--BozMo talk 07:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I would just add that last time around Jan 2005 there was a lot of irritation expressed that the tech community added nofollow unilaterally without a wider discussion at WP. Look at the archives and see that this is an issue the wider WP community expressed a desire to discuss. Just deciding "some of these arguments are dated and heck I am sure we know better" isn't really the wiki way, in my personal opinion. --BozMo talk 23:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Is that really how you read my message? First, I think Dragons Flight made it clear that I misinterpreted yours as an invitation to enable nofollow on the mainspace. That being said, I am most certainly not saying that I or any group I'm a part of "know better". But I will say this: many editors who had supported dropping nofollow argued that spam was not such a critical problem and that spamming and vandalism was routinely tackled by editors. On that front at least, people who work on the WikiProject spam can testify that this is not accurate. The discussion in question dates back to February 2005 and Wikipedia is much more recognized now as a golden target for spammers because it has become such a central thing on the web. I believe that this argument is outdated in the sense that it does not take into account the current reality of spamming on Wikipedia. People who have been cleaning up the spam will also happily point out to you cases in which spammers are very much aware of the fact that we have disabled nofollow and candidly admit to using this to their advantage. Of course, this was not the only point made to drop nofollow and the argument that we should reward our quality sources with PageRank is still very relevant today. But my feeling is that the cost for this pursuit is that we allow spammers to steal a significant part of that reward (and they do, no matter how much spamfighting we do) and we lose valuable time spamfighting. The community might not share that opinion and I'd be more than willing to except that but all I'm saying is that people at the WikiProject Spam would like to see whether consensus has changed on that subject. Pascal.Tesson 06:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
How can nofollow be used to their advantage? --Interiot 06:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
He he... The confusion goes on. Spammers are using to their advantage the fact that we disable nofollow. This means that they have incentive to find creative ways to leave their links up as long as possible, so that their PageRank goes up. Wikipedia is recognized as a relatively easy way to boost your PageRank. Pascal.Tesson 07:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I thought you meant that the use of nofollow on talk pages/etc could be used to their advantage. Yeah, we're a spam target, but we're always going to have a little bit of spam no matter what (because we have visitors), and if Google thinks our links are too spammy, then they can decrease the influence we have on other page's pagerank (they may well do this already). I do think we need a concerted effort to remove spam, but shutting all of our links off to Google may be going too far. --Interiot 07:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Somewhere (maybe on the mailing list) there was a statement that Google had privately communicated that they would prefer we use nofollow, which if true, is a real wrinkle on the PageRank issue. I'm unclear whether this was a statement about all pages or just the current set of non-articles. It is interesting to note that every wikipedia except EN uses nofollow on all external links, including in articles. Dragons flight 17:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, is the list of wikis that have nofollow turned on (partially and/or completely) available somewhere? I didn't see it on meta, but that would be really good info to have.
It would be nice if the Google statement were clarified. Since it's not though, I'll speculate a bit... since we're a top-10 website, it's not unreasonable that Google might tweak our specific influence on PageRank (either manually or automatically). If this is the case, then it doesn't matter whether we apply nofollow to all links or not. If nofollow is on for all links, it's not legally binding, so Google could partially ignore it, if they decide we have valuable links. If nofollow isn't used on any of our links, but Google sees our external links are junk, they can decrease our influence on PageRank. So our influence on pagerank should (in a perfect world) be the same either way. The only time nofollow is useful to Google is when we mark a portion of our links as being more likely to be trustworthy (and when our normal links do actually turn out to be on average more valuable than our nofollow links). And that's what we're currently doing. --Interiot 18:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It may be reasonable but I guess we are not an exception. Google seems to have an academic pureism about changing algorithm but not making specific interventions if it can possibly avoid them. Google has said though that it looks at link age so spam doesn't gain much if fixed quickly. "Not much" may be a bowl of rice to a poor man though. Anyway as I have said lots of times there are so many wikipedia mirrors running without nofollow that there will always be value to spammers. --BozMo talk 12:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
My understanding, based on developer comments and checked against a few large wikis, is that nofollow is turned on for all external links on all wikis except en.wikipedia article space. It is also turned on by default in the Mediawiki software. Yes Google could, and probably does, consider Wikipedia as special, though it is largely impossible to know what effects that actually has. Dragons flight 18:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
For what its worth that was discussed early last year too. It was left as a switch default "on" because of a belief that anyone who didn't understand what it was probably needed it. Prior to Jan last year it wasn't on any WP. Other large wikis have gone different routes from Wikimedia. MoinMoin does a centrally updated spam url blacklist and ward's wiki went first to robots.txt then to a password only system. --BozMo talk 12:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, my only point here is that this discussion should move somewhere (not tech mailing lists) and be conducted properly. I am struggling to be disciplined and not explain why the idea is wrong here, just try to establish (again) that a proper discussion should take place before these kinds of changes are made. Incidentally, I watch 125 pages for spam and about 50% of all my main-space edits are removing spam, so lets neither of us take offense;). Quite a few wikipedia mirrors rerun the database without nofollow and there is still jam on the table for spammers and always will be. But nofollow does real damage to wikipedia IMHO --BozMo talk 07:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Need navigation box guidelines

We need some rules and a designated place for discussion of the "navigation boxes" and the templates and whatever used to create them, which are proliferating like crazy on Wikipedia.

Currently, Wikipedia:Navigation takes you to Wikipedia:Contents.

Many of these "navigation boxes" are merely unnecessary, redundant duplications of the categories, inferior to and best served by using the categories themselves. Some of them are useful; many are not. We need some centralized place to collect information about using them--if such a place already exists, please point it out to me and offer any suggestions you may have about making it more findable.

Many of them have hundreds of links, so many as to render them next to useless as a navigation tool.

Many of them take up an inordinate amount of space on the article page.

Many of them will almost never be actually used for navigation.

All those hundreds of links get thrown into the "What links here" of every one of the articles containing the navigation box, rendering the "What links here" totally useless.

See, for example, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 2#Template:Municipalities in Salamanca. Gene Nygaard 04:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a discussion at least peripherally related to this at Template talk:Navigation bar, which is a template addressing the inordinate amount of space issue. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It would certainly be helpful if the MoS mentioned this somewhere. Seems to me the guideline should be more or less as spelled out above: navboxes should be added if and only if they describe a fairly small closed set, and most of their links might plausibly be included in the "See also" section. -- Visviva 07:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
See also WP:ENAV#Navigational templates, an attempt at molding this into a guideline format. --Francis Schonken 10:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Gah! That's another well-written page that has been slapped with an "inactive" tag. In some ways I can understand Radiant slapping inactive tags on these pages, but if it is only to prod people into tidying up guidelines and integrating them into (for example) the MoS, or other places, then this is being disruptive. At the moment, the tag you are using says "This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is kept primarily for historical interest" - this 'kept primarily for historical purposes' bit prejudices the 'if you want to revive discussion' bit later. A better way to put this for some of the pages you have tagged is "This Wikipedia page is currently inactive. It has previously been discussed [[talk page|here]]. If you want to revive discussion etc.". Radiant, can you consider using this wording for pages that have a fair amount of discussion and history?
To be clearer, I can understand a poorly-written page that didn't generate much interest being given a "historical" tag, but there should be another way to tag pages that are well-written, were active, and may have gone inactive because they had reached a mature state but lacked the final push for someone to "officially" codify them. Radiant, as I say above, can you use another tag, or make a list of the pages and put the list at the Village Pump or at cent as part of a wider debate on tidying up such pages, if you want a wider debate like that? Carcharoth 16:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes for considerations about when to use categories vs. lists vs. series/nav boxes. I know that doesn't directly address the concerns Gene raises, but is somewhat related. I wish that there were some way to make the links in templates not show up when you look at Special:Related Changes. For example, List of United States Representatives from Michigan contains many red-links. I use Related Changes to periodically check for new/changed articles, but the pollution from links in the navbox make it much more difficult to sift through the list. older ≠ wiser 17:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree absolutely that bloated navboxes mess up "what links here". I like to use "what links here" to check whether an article is being linked from the right places, and to consider where else it should be linked from. Having all the articles in a large series linked makes it a bit silly. You look at the "what links here" list and think to yourself "why is that link there?" - then you go to the article and find a bloated navbox in Article A, with a link to Article Z in the navbox. Article A and Z may only be tenuously linked, but the navbox has linked them as much as a wikilink in the article would have done, and often with much less justification. Carcharoth 17:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS and creating pages

When you go to create a page, have a go here, click on this red link, there is, just before the edit box, a big note linking to WP:RS, which I thought was a proposed guideline that was very much in dispute. Wouldn't it be better for this to link to WP:V, which is a policy and which is not in dispute? How do you go about getting someone to change this (I think it's in MediaWiki somewhere and only admins can edit it)? jguk 18:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It's at MediaWiki:Newarticletext, and yeah it's admin only to edit I think. The old text of "Copyright infringements, advertising, attack pages and nonsense will be deleted without warning." is gone too, I notice. The problem is people who do this stuff usually don't really care what the text says and will do it anyway. Look at the gigantic image warning screen... people still upload untagged stuff constantly. --W.marsh 18:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
No. Notability is "a proposed guideline that (is) very much in dispute." Reliable Sources is "generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow." Big difference. Fan-1967 21:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:RS is hardly in dispute. A quick check through the Village Pump references to questioning this guideline's validity turns up, um, one editor repeatedly raising objections without giving any concrete reason. One editor, with no cogent arguements to support the opinion, does not a consensus make, no matter how vocal or repetitive such opinions are. --Jayron32 04:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
In addition to not being under any actual dispute, it's been a guideline pretty much since its creation in early 2005. —Centrx→talk • 05:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Use of {{user wikipedia/Administrator}}

I recently came across Storkian's userpage. On it I found {{user wikipedia/Administrator}}, though a quick search turned up no evidence that he actually is an admin. Without a second thought, I removed the template and went on my merry.

So today he hits my talk page, telling me not to vandalize his userpage anymore. Biting my tongue...

Is there an actual policy relevant to this particular situation? I just can't fathom a good reason that anybody should be able to declare themselves an admin; it causes confusion for newbies who may be looking for some assistance, and it could make admins on the whole look bad if a random person says their an admin and starts disrupting the place. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, only admins should be presented as such. Anyone else is posing as an admin, so kind of the Real World™ version of posing as a cop. We as a community decide who we trust to be admins (and it's frequently referenced in ArbComm). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That is a bit self-indulgent. As EVula said above, I'm not sure what is proper policy in handling misuse of the Admin userbox. However, similar to the username policy, I would think someone posing to have a higher rank than the normal Wikipedia user, when not actually possessing said rank, should recieve some kind of warning.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Or we could just remove the userbox from their page, and then correct them if they suggest that such removal is vandalism. The user may not have "broken" a specific "rule" by having the box on his page, but its certainly in line with the project's mission to remove anything so misleading. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove it. If they readd it, warn them. If they readd it again, block them. Impersonating an administrator through userboxes should be just as illegal as impersonating through account name. --tjstrf talk 09:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) is near completion

It would appear we have a consensus that this naming onvention has gained wide acceptance of involved participants and should be promoted to an official guideline. Comments, as always, appreciated. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a very important issue, so I urge everyone interested to share his or her thoughts. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Policy on blocking an editor who makes substantial contributions

An important arbitration is underway under the title RPJ. Over a 12 month period, I made an effort to update the Kennedy Assassination articles using records from PBS and the 1998 work product of the federal Assassination Records Review Board. This effort has landed me in hot water prompted by a group of editors who like the status quo.

Presently, the group, who believes no new information is needed, has asked this editor be banned for "harassing" them with "Flat Earth" information. Now the dispute is in arbitration to permanently block me.

  • For policy purposes, assume the editors are correct, and I have, in fact, incorporated into my discussions on the talk pages are "personal attacks" regarding the editors for repeatedly deleting new and well sourced information I placed in the article.
  • Assume also, that I have a substantial history of valid contributions, both in the articles discussed by the complaining editors, and in other articles not at issue.

Under these assumptions:

  • Is it appropriate, when consensus proves elusive on content, to use blocking against a logged-in user with a substantial history of valid contributions?
  • When do the assumed persistent personal attacks become a pretext for blocking those editors with whom other editors have content disputes over updating 25 years of old information.
  • How does one determine whether a group of editors, who through persistence, numbers, and organization, generate what appears to be consensus support for a version of an article that is actually fundamentally flawed by excluding significant viewpoints.

I am placing this issue here for general discussion to obtain additional viewpoints on this subject because it appears to be an important policy question.

I am weighing how to approach these issues in the arbitration, and any ideas would be welcome. RPJ 19:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If you continue to ignore policy, then it doesn't matter how much you've contributed. They'll still block you for pushing your point of view when you're supposed to be neutral. Consensus seems to be against you in this regard. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 19:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your input. I am confident the evidence will prove I have not ignored any Wikipedia policy, but for the sake of discussion of policy, I assume my discussions are as one administrator put it "civil" but "imply a lack of judgment on the part of other editors" which causes "tension and discord."
  • My question then becomes this: When does including a significant point of view on a subject become "pushing" a point of view? I ask this because often well sourced information is deleted with a simple comment "POV pushing." I have no idea what that means though I have asked about it. The phrase and concept of "pushing" a "point of view is one used in this project and haven't come across it in other areas of research and writing.
  • My second question is then directed to the Wikipedia policy (above) about the occasional improper consensus which is discussed above. How does one correct a "fundamentally flawed" consensus (achieved through "persistence, numbers and organization")?
  • As we know: "The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased." [7]
I have no experience in the edit war. One thing to keep in mind: When potentially controversial material (that which is NOT part of the commonly accepted explanation of events), not only should it be well referenced, it should be put into context. Positions held by a minority viewpoint CAN be relevent, but should never be put into an article so as to represent that they are held by the majority. Even if referenced, such statements as "Some people have raised concerns..." or "Though not widely accepted, it is still held by many that..." Additions to an article where such additions are NOT in conjunction with the majority opinion should clearly indicate that, though referenced in reliable sources, they represent a controversial or minority viewpoint. --Jayron32 21:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
That seems an important consideration. From what I gather from the discussions so far both here and in the group discussions, there are generally four types of viewpoints that could relate to a subject: 1- a unanimous viewpoint; 2- a majority viewpoint; 3- a minority viewpoint; 4- a tiny minority viewpoint similar to a "Flat Earth" on the shape of the earth.
  • There is no trouble with disputes over the first. It is the next three where problems occur and there is sometimes a controversy when the majority viewpoint believes that a minority viewpoint is really a "Flat Earth" view that requires no mention or, at best, a nominal mention. This last fact pattern is what seems to trigger the controversy on such subjects.
  • What is unusual about present dispute is that: The well sourced material that I attempt to place in the article is modern viewpoint, and by far the majority viewpoint, and has been for the last 40 years according to all public opinion polls. The last official inquiry into the matter clearly sides with the vast majority of the public (minimum of 70%). The group that deletes the well sourced material holds the older viewpoint accepted by only 22% of the public ands presently adhered to by only small number of people that write in the field.
  • I think what has happened is that the editors that are interested in the subject on a regular basis have confused the concept of majority and minority viewpoints in the outside world with whether a viewpoint is a majority or minority opinion among the handful of editors that work on the matter in Wikipedia.
  • Since I don’t have an unlimited amount of time to work on the matter, I was hoping that others have grappled with this problem and can describe how to approach this, or whether it is presently not a situation amendable to resolution in the project’s present framework.
  • The formal charges being asserted against adamently allege this is not a “content” dispute. Instead they claim it is about my “personal attacks.” I am very confident in that stage of the proceedings, because all the evidence is on the record so to speak, that merely gathering a number of testimonial opinions from fellow editors and administrators of the group that I am abusive and my arguments pull one into “the gutter” will be simple to deflect. The arbitration process requires evidence, and the words are either there or they are not. So far, the evidence page of complaining editors seems very slim.
  • Oddly enough, there is a edit war charge recently alleged against me. But, since I am outnumbered 5 to 1 how could I possibly win an edit war let alone believe I should be getting into one? RPJ 22:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Fallacy of many questions. If you're going to complain, don't couch it in terms of leading questions, or you just come out sounding like a troll. Deco 22:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment but I don't understand it. The arbitration is formated as: Five editors asking whether I should be permantently banned from Wikipedia. Since the answer is susceptable to a "yes' or "no' answer it is a "leading" question from a advocacy point of view, but I don't understand how that would make one sound "like a troll?"
  • I just looked at the cite made to "fallacy of many questions." This type of question is a leading question, meaning susceptable to a "yes" or "no" answer but also presupposes derogatory information in the question that is necessary to adopt in one's answer. The example given in Deco's citation is the traditional "When did you stop beating your wife?" The question presupposes the person has been beating his wife and has to be adopted whether he answers "yes" or "no."
  • Translating the point to the arbitration, I would say the arbitration issue is not characterized in such an unfair manner. If the arbitration issue instead said: "When did I stop making personal attacks?" your suggestion would be a valid insight. Thanks for your help. 23:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


Deco's hit the nail on the nead. I've read the history of these disputes, and you try these kinds of misleading conversations a fairly consistent basis. I suggest you stop trying to lead people into answering your directed questions. The editors here are generally smart enough to see through your behavior and tell you as much. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, I apparently missed Deco's point. You (and Deco) believe that I am trying to "Lead people into answering [my] directed questions." Yes. You are correct. That is the reason for this post. The 12 months I spent is not enough time to learn the intricacies of Wikipedia polices and procedures. I need information about Wikipedia.
  • The evidence that I'm putting in arbitration will establish that for 12 months I've made very substantial contributions on a wide range of articles. I enjoy the research work and the actual editing. This is a very fine project.
  • More importantly, policy questions are raised here and the policies for handling the unusual and highly controversial subject seem to be evolving and the present case is a good test case for a number of reasons. Since I detect a note of hostility in your post and you've used an old saying I've seen before in discussions with my apparent adversaries ("hit the nail on the head")I suppose your participation here will be limited. If you read the arbitration proceedings you will note that you can place your testimonial opinion in evidence but, remember, the arbitration process does insist on evidence. RPJ 23:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm more than satisfied with the RfA is it currently is. They have provided all the evidence I could ever find, and no discussion here will affect that. Similarly, anything you say here would be better off on your RfA, because you aren't going to circumvent any unfavorable decision through this page. You don't seem to understand that the number of edits you make is not a concern. It is the quality and correctness of those edits that is. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It makes little difference to discuss it here. The arbcom has unanimously accepted the case, and their decisions are final for the most part. All Arbitration Committee decisions involve some sort of cost-benefit analysis [9], and if they find that the benefit of blocking (preventing edits that are harmful) obviously outweighs the benefits (preventing edits that would help the project), then they may well block. But the point of arbcom is to try to find a resolution to issues so we don't have to discuss them endlessly. --Interiot 22:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"Policy on blocking an editor who makes substantial contributions"? Please... You meant to say "Policy on blocking me", don't spread the ArbCom discussion here. I think this whole section should be deleted. Pascal.Tesson 00:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think it should be deleted. It was very useful information to me to see how the project views this type issue in light of the several policies to which I referred. I think it would be useful to other newer editors.
I wasn't really sure why the editors kept emphasizing that I'm a "one issue" editor (which I'm not). I thought it was simply to characterize me as a "true believer" dedicated to one view on one issue no matter what the facts. If true, this can be an effective method of advocacy. But,there is another, more important, reason for trying to establish that point that an editor is a one issue editor, that I don't think the usual editor would recognize. By only editing on a controversial article, the cost of keeping the editor on can more easily outweigh any benefit because all contributions come with a high cost whether the editor is right or wrong. The project, as a whole, comes first. If an editor spreads his editing services around and makes non-controversial contributions there is a better cost-benefit ratio.
This is very important to know that some areas of editing are more important as a whole to have editors servicing than others from the standpoint of cost-benefit. I would like to thank for their comments Jaron32, Interiot, and Someguy (for his first comment). RPJ 01:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Adding comment here for readability rather than higher up... RPJ raises a good point as to his 4 levels of viewpoints, but I would caution against a few assumptions:
    • The 4th level is easily identifiable by lack of coverage in reliable sources. If a viewpoint is frequently reported in reliable sources, it qualifies as a reasonable minority viewpoint and not a flat earth viewpoint.
    • Be careful about statistics and polls. A wise man once said "There are 3 levels of untruths in increasing order: Lies, Damn Lies, And Statistics". The Majority Viewpoint should be the one represented as such in the preponderance of sources in reliable press, not by the results of opinion polls.
    • For example: It is widely held as the Majority Viewpoint, both within and outside of Christianity, that Jesus and Mary Magdalene did not have any carnal or marriage relationship. The idea that they did has been around for a long time, and is verifiable as a real, but distinctly minority viewpoint. Any information about that viewpoint, even if well sourced, should clearly be couched with such statements as "Though never widely accepted by mainstream thought, some people believe that there is evidence..." and then referenced to RELIABLE SOURCES that show such viewpoint. We can take a poll and find that said poll indicates that some majority of those who took the poll hold to that viewpoint; BUT IT STILL DOESN'T MAKE IT THE MAJORITY VIEWPOINT. The scholarly press, especially among those who are respected in the field, does NOT hold to this viewpoint, even if they acknowledge its existence.
    • I am avoiding commenting on the specific article in question on purpose; I am only trying to clarify that one should be careful in presenting a controversial position as majority especially in light of the fact that other experienced editors clearly and with just cause disagree with that characterization.
I hope that clarifies my above comments. --Jayron32 06:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_AL&oldid=1100740664"